Canon 100-400L or 300 F4 ?

rusty

rusty

Messages
1,005
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
Just moved to Canon and bought a 40D body and done some research on the 100-400L which seems to be held in high regard ( thanks to those members who PM"d me with their views ).
Read a few views that some felt it was soft at the long end and some put up the prime 300 F4 as an alternative coupling it with the 1.4 TC for sharpness and retaining AF.
I realise the zoom offer"s more flexibility but dont want to make the wrong choice.
For wildlife/birds mainly , poss some sport.

Thanks
 
Thanks for the quick reply , very impressive shots there , do you know how it will function with a 1.4 on ?
 
you'll get 2 opinions on this question, and rightly so, the 300 F/4 is an excellent lens because it's a prime, and primes are always sharper than zooms, it should still offer good sharpness with the 1.4tc on but you lose a stop of light too taking it to F/5.6, which is the same as the 100-400 at the long end. I believe the 300 is also lighter than the 100-400 too.

Then there's the versatility of the 100-400, it's effectively a 4x telephoto lens, it also has IS which is the equivelent of 2 stops and allows greater hand held use. It has a nice weight to it and also a push / pull zoom (which can be a love - hate thing)

I have the 100-400 but hardly use it due to the nature of my photography (landscapes) and have considered selling mine.
 
I believe the OP was thinking about the 300 f/4L IS :)

The reason I bought mine over a zoom was because I realised that whenever I had my 100-300 on it was generally in a situation where I wanted to get as close as possible. So I compromised of flexibility and went with image quality.

On a xxD or xD body you'll have no problem focusing with a 1.4TC
 
I guess the question you need to ask is would you just end up using it at 400mm? If it's reach you're after then also consider the 400mm f/5.6 prime which would better then either the 100-400mm or the 300mm+1.4 for IQ and is also the cheapest option. If you think you'll need the IS and the reach then the 100-400 is a bit sharper at 400mm than the 300+1.4.
 
I've owned both the 100-400 and the 300F4 IS.
The 300f4 IS with a Canon 1.4 TC (420mm @f5.6) was noticeably sharper than the zoom at 400mm.
If it's mainly for wildlife, reach is everything and you will always be at the long end of the zoom.
The 300 also has an integral hood which I found very useful.

IMO you should be considering the flexibility of the 300 + a 1.4 TC over the 400f5.6.
By flexibility here, I mean 300 @f4, 420@f5.6 and IS.

BTW I sold the 300 for something a bit longer but kept the zoom for it's flexibility.
 
Thanks for all your views/advice , spending money is easy , spending wisely is a bit more difficult .
Going to pop in to Jessop"s tomorrow and handle them and see if I can make up my mind .
 
I had to make a similar decision earlier in the year, and went for the 300 prime.

I found that, for what I'd use it for, I would very rarely need less than 200mm, and 400 would probably be too much though I would have been tempted to always choose you use it (I think I would have just whack the zoom to the top of its range rather than finding the 300 mark).

The IQ of the 300 is great, and the IS useful though on a bright motorsport circuit I could probably get away without it. I haven't got a TC for it yet, but planned to for those odd occasions where a little more reach would be useful (Silverstone for example).

Personally I think I work much better off a prime and very glad I bought it :)
 
rusty said:
Going to pop in to Jessop"s tomorrow and handle them and see if I can make up my mind .
Click to expand...
If you'd like to do more than just handle them before making up your mind, I have an idea.... ;)

[/spam]
 
I like the 300mm f/4L IS prime for many reasons,including its great IQ and fast focus (not to say that the 100-400mm is a slouch in this regard). I absolutely love the integrated collapsing lenshood and wish that all Canon telephoto zooms were so equipped.

Since I have a 70-200mm f/4L IS (which is part of my 2-lens and two body outfit along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens), I didn't need the shorter focal range of the 100-400mm lens. I always carry and shoot with at least two camera bodies. Additionally, I like the f/4 aperture at 300mm which is a stop faster than the 100-400mm L lens at 300mm.

There was one time, however, that I wished I had a 100-400mm L lens. I did a combination fishing and photography trip to Alaska's Kenai Peninsula in July of this year. I was pretty loaded down with my fishing and photography equipment and wished that I could have just carried a 100-400mm L lens rather than the combination of 70-200mm and 300mm L lenses. However, I did just fine with those two lenses and I am still in love with the 300mm f/4L IS prime which I bought from a friend who needed the f/2.8 version for a night time sports photography contract. In fact, I purchased both the 300mm f/4L IS and the 400mm f/5.6L lenses from him for just about the price of a new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens.

However, if I did not own the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens; I would definitely opt for the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens for the versatility of the zoom.
 
It's worth trying a Sigma 100-300 F4. You keep the flexibility of a zoom, but get a constant F4 against the F4.5-5.6 of the 100-400. Plus it doesn't extend when you zoom.

All the action shots here and here taken with it plus many many more.

Also also, if you've got a bit more cash the Sigma 120-300 2.8 gives you superb speed and loads of flexibility along with excellent IQ.
 
I've got the 100-400 and love it, never found it soft, even at 400mm wide open. In fact, if it came to a choice between the 100-400 and the 70-200 F2.8IS I'd have the 100-400 anytime.

Tobers makes a couple of good suggestions though :)
 
Looking at the MTF charts for the 100-400 and the 300/4 shows the following;

At 300mm, the 300/4 is the better option.
At 400mm versus 420 (300/4 + 1.4xT/C) then the 100-400 is sharper.

Whether either result would be visible in a real life image is debatable.

Bob
 
Thanks for all the advice , the need to pay the car insurance yesterday made the decision a bit easier , went for the Sigma 100-300 F4 at £570 , let you know how I go on when received and up and running.
 
Rusty - I'll be interested to see how you get on - as I'm looking at exactly this set-up and pondering things.

Matt
 
Sadlybrokeboy said:
Rusty - I'll be interested to see how you get on - as I'm looking at exactly this set-up and pondering things.

Matt
Click to expand...

Hoping to get it mid week , will post some feedback for you after getting to grips with it.

Julian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top