Canon 300mm F4 IS

SDK^

SDK^

Messages
872
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I currently have a Canon 100-400 L IS and am considering selling it to buy a 300mm F4 L IS.
The reason for the swap is that I rarely use the 100-400 below 300-400mm so it seems pointless carrying a zoom around when I'm not using it fully.

I plan to buy a 1.4x convertor to effectively give me a 420mm F5.6 but I've read a few review sites that say with this setup the 100-400 is actually sharper.

What do you think?
Does anyone have links or comparisons of these lenses both at 400mm ?

Thanks :)
 
Adding a converter will degrade the image to some extent. So I can understand that the comments that the 100-400 is sharper than the 300mm

I've just had a look at the MTF figures for the 100-400 at full zoom compared to the 300 with the 1.4 converter. It looks to me that overall there isn't much in it comparing the two. However these are Lab derived figures so there may be some differences in the real world.

However without the converter the 300 mm prime does look sharper than the 100-400. The only problem is that the figures relate to 400mm on full zoom , which does go a bit soft, at that length.

Also is it not going to cost you more to go down this route than the original cost of the 100-400 ?

You might find this interesting

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/MTF_Files/WR_Zoom_400mm/index.htm

Plus check out

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml
 
I may be able to tell you shortly.

I've got the 100-400 L IS and whilst I like it the f/5.6 is a problem for me. I've been eyeing up a 300 L IS f/4 as an addition for the extra stop.

I've got a price for Kerso and I'm giving it some very serious thought this weekend.
 
SDK^ said:
Hi,

I currently have a Canon 100-400 L IS and am considering selling it to buy a 300mm F4 L IS.
The reason for the swap is that I rarely use the 100-400 below 300-400mm so it seems pointless carrying a zoom around when I'm not using it fully.

I plan to buy a 1.4x convertor to effectively give me a 420mm F5.6 but I've read a few review sites that say with this setup the 100-400 is actually sharper.

What do you think?
Does anyone have links or comparisons of these lenses both at 400mm ?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...
I sold my first 100-400 after geting a 300 f2.8 and never looked back.
 
Also, the extenders were originally developed for the 300 so as I am lead to believe, should be sharper on that lens - urban myth I cannot prove it!

I've got the f2.8 version (as Malla) and it's really good.

Pity you're not closer otherwise you could of done a comparison using my 300 lens!

Carl.
 
I can't comment on the 100-400 but I regulary use a 1.4 converter with my 300mm f/4 IS and have not been let down by the results at f/5.6
 
Guys - there's not much point comparing the 300mm f/2.8 with the 100-400!!

However, comparing the 100-400 to the 300mm f/4 (as per SDK's request) is easier to do. Both are similar in terms of portability and resolution (300mm at native mm is sharper). However, the 100-400 is a far more versatile piece of kit imho. I would have bought this over the 300mm f/4 if i'd had a good hard play with Grendels before jumping in the deep end. The only negative i can think of is the push / pull zoom, but thats a personal thing for me.

With the 300mm f/4 you have a fairly good prime at a fairly good max ap. Not masses to write home about :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top