Waste of money?

[creamcorn]

I have the 100-400mm "L"....Is a 300mm f/4 IS a waste of money? I can't imagine getting better pics then I already do, but those who have both....Is it better? Are the optics any better? How about the 2x with it? I have a 1DmkIIn so AF is no problem. Any takers?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

It'll be sharper and quicker to focus. The 2X won't be too good on it, although it takes a 1.4x fairly well. I'd rather the prime than the zoom. Better IQ, smaller, lighter, and faster.

[4x4rock]

The 300/f4 on the 1dMK2 will rock. I shot an hour with this combo at a football game and now I want the 1DMK2. The combo is so fast and sharp.

[cjm]

It'll be sharper and quicker to focus. The 2X won't be too good on it, although it takes a 1.4x fairly well. I'd rather the prime than the zoom. Better IQ, smaller, lighter, and faster.Exactly what Ron said.

[jr_senator]

I have never cared for a 'push-pull' zoom.

[Billginthekeys]

ditto on rons advice.

[LightRules]

The 1-4IS cavalry should be riding in anytime soon...and it's normally a strong contingent! Don't rile 'em up! ;)

FWIW, I've shot with both (the 2 copies I had of the 300f4IS were brand new) and they're two gems with somewhat different uses. The prime is a lovely lens and I would say I'm a "fan" of it, but the 1-4IS won out as the 300+1.4 never was able to keep up with the zoom at 400mm f5.6. Plus I like the versatility of the zoom.

[Billginthekeys]

The 1-4IS cavalry should be riding in anytime soon...and it's normally a strong contingent! ;)
haha thats about right. but in this case i think he is speaking of buying Both, so i guess they cant complain. :eek:

but actually in this case i think the OP needs to save up for a REAL super tele like the 300 2.8 :D;)

[LightRules]

haha thats about right. but in this case i think he is speaking of buying Both, so i guess they cant complain. :eek:

Ahh, fine catch there, meeeeeeeeeeeee bad. Well then, get 'em both! [Or yes, save up for the 300f2.8]

[Woolburr]

The 300 f/4 will work fine with a 2x converter on a 1 series body....you just need to understand that it is a total light hog and of course, there is some loss of IQ....you can still get quality images...so don't be afraid to try it. I've gotten lots of great moon images with the 300 f/4 and stacked 1.4 and 2x TC's...you can also throw a set of extension tubes on it and turn it into an impressive macro lens. The 100-400 is no slouch either....and when I want to travel light....that is usually the lens I take along. I guess the bottom line is...I have both and I suspect that even if I get a 300 f/2.8 I will still keep the f/4 version for the macro and also for lighter weight during daylight shoots.

[mxwphoto]

It's always nice to have primes as they're sharper. But I would recommend saving up for a 300 f/2.8 instead. In terms of usage and portability, subjectively speaking, the 300 and the 100-400 are both pretty similiar and thus I don't believe the marginal increase in sharpness is worth an extra $1000. But a 300 f/2.8 is a different beast all together. :D

[liza]

I prefer shooting with primes for the same reasons stated above. But I, too, would save up for the 300mm f/2.8 lens for field sports. It's much better in low light.

[creamcorn]

So it would seem a waste(sorta)....I just need to save for a 500 f/4!

[Billginthekeys]

now you have the right attitude :)