Canon 300mm f/4 L vs 100-400 L

[RbnDave]

Those of you that follow this forum closely have probably noticed by now that I am in the pre large lens purchase annoying question phase. A few days ago I had myself talked out of making a major lens purchase untill this fall when my career is more stabalized, but now I am faced with possibly having an entire week off in June. I will for sure go to Yellowstone National Park if I get this week off and then of course I will need a good wildlife lens.

Here is my question. Does anyone here use the Canon 300 mm f/4 L? I was really interested in the Canon 100-400 L untill I started seeing photos taken with the 300 mm prime. That lens is gorgeous. And from some of the reviews I have read the 300mm plus 1.4 TC is actually sharper than the 100-400 L and gives you an extra 20mm (1.4 X 300 = 420).

Also does the 300 have newer IS than the the 100-400? I think the 300 has the IS that works on tripods. Am I wrong? Someone posted a chart last week of the L lenses that had the old vs the new IS and I can't find it now.

Thanks for any help

Dave

[SDK^]

Hi Mr. Budding Pilot :)

The 300 mm f/4 L is a superb quality lens but from my own point of view I much prefer having the convenience of zoom control than being stuck at 300mm.
You can also, albeit with reduced Auto focus response, use the 100-400 with a 1.4X extender

....when my career is more stabalized
No pun intended right :wink:

[Jim_T]

The 300 mm f/4 L is a superb quality lens but from my own point of view I much prefer having the convenience of zoom control than being stuck at 300mm.

I'm spoiled with zoom too..

I'd love to add the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6 to my lens collection, but they wouldn't see enough use.. I mostly shoot moving targets... (wildlife and aircraft) For that I find I need zoom most of the time :)

The 100-400L isn't prime quality.. but it's darn close :)

[Doom1701e]

I have also spent many of the last weeks searching and asking questions about the 100-400L, 300 4.0L and the 400 5.6L. After many posts and polls the consencous seemed to be to buy the 100-400L. So I ordered it. Went to work the next day, rushed home at lunch and cancelled my order. I figured I wanted more time to think about it. I then called several store in Seattle (here in San Francisco there really arent any big camera shops) and they all recommended the primes for sharpness but the 100-400 isnt bad either. So I then posted this question:
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32317
When I saw the pics from the 300 4.0L with and without the 1.4x extender I was sold. Next week my 300L will arrive with the extender!!! I am very concerned about sharpness rather than versatility, but if you want the versatility the 100-400L is also a great lens. Good luck in your quest, I know mine was a bit maddning(sp?)

[RbnDave]

Thanks for the input guys. As you can imagine I am wrestling with the zoom's convenience vs the prime's sharpness. Right now I get to 400mm by using a Sigma 70-200 and 2x converter. I find I am using it at 400mm 95% of the time so I am beginning to doubt whether I really need a zoom. The zoom is nice for finding a subject like a flying bird and then zooming in, but then still i am pushing the shutter button at 400 mm and not really using the rest of the range of the lens.

On the other hand, I am a chronic lens changer and I think it is kind of a bother for the people I go hiking with. The 100-400 may eliminate some lens changes. But now when I think about it, how often would I use the 100-400 between 100 and 200 mm? When I put on a long lens, it is for long shots. Also, I have that Sigma 70-200 f2.8 that does a really great job. Part of the 100-400 range will be overlap. Maybe I should just sell everything and get the Canon 28-300 L :wink: . Or, why doesn't Canon build a 300-500 f/4-f/5.6 USM IS L? That would be my ultimate wildlife lens. I guess my big problem with the 100-400 is I won't have a use for a good chunk of its zoom range. Why pay a price in sharpness for zoom range I won't use?

I do have some gripes about the 300mm f/4 also. If I get this lens it will be used with a 1.4 TC almost all the time. It seems like a big compromise to me to buy a $1100 lens and then have to use a TC with it constantly. However, the 300mm and 1.4 TC are supposed to get sharper images than the 100-400 at 400mm.

If Canon put IS on their 400mm f5.6 L I would just buy that lens. I'm finding that most my long lens shots are handheld because there is no time to setup a tripod. Whatever I get has to have IS.

Thanks for putting up with another "which lens thread".

Dave

Doom-

I couldn't figure out if the photos in the link you posted were all taken with the 300mm f/4. The info for some of the pics said 400mm f5.6. I wasn't sure which lens those came from.

[Doom1701e]

Doom-

I couldn't figure out if the photos in the link you posted were all taken with the 300mm f/4. The info for some of the pics said 400mm f5.6. I wasn't sure which lens those came from.

Some of the shots on that page are with the 400 5.6L and some are with the 300 4.0L. It should say above the pictures but if not, look at the post from KirkM, those pics of the flower and the Seagul are the ones that fianlly pushed me to the 300L. Good luck.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Zooms are conveinient.. there are times I love them.


BUT... when you are in the LONG tele neighborhood.. like 300mm and up... I find that ANY zoom is allways racked out all the way... or at least 98% of the time it is..

So if you use your zoom as a 400mm anyway?

[BigRed450]

I guess it really depends on your needs and what you are use to. I chose to go with the 28-135 IS for my basic lens and the 100-400L for the rest. Since buying the 100-400L I find that 90% of the time it is on my 10D. I have used it for sports, with which the zoom is manditory, Portraits (I love the compressed DOF of this lens), and wildlife. You will find that is quite a nice all round lens once you get use to handling it.. For Moto X and the other sports that I shoot I find the primes way too limiting if you only have one camera body...

Good luck with your decision only you know want you need....

[pcho]

Hi Dave,

I was in a similar situation some 12 months ago. I had to make a decision as to which of the 3 lenses I should purchase, 300 F4 IS, 400mm F5.6 and the 100-400 f4.5/5.6 zoom.

I ended purchasing both the 300 F4 IS and 400mm F5.6.

My reasons are as follows:

I went against the 100-400mm zoom because there were complains about this lens not being sharp on the long end wide open and some copies of this lens were sharp and some not so sharp. That worried me a bit. I know there are flexibilities with zooms but I felt that I would be unhappy if the picture quality is not pin sharp but rather just usable. I also find that to get pin sharp pictures a tripod is a must and hand holding even with IS would not give you pin sharp pictures, it will give you usable pics but certainly not pin sharp.

I seldom use my 300 F4 IS because it is not long enough if I am shooting birds. Also I seldom use it handheld and for that matter on a monopod as it does not give me pin sharp pics. I was initially very disappointed with this lens until I started using a tripod. The whole world changed for me, I was geeting really sharp pictures (with IS turned off when using with tripod). One little problem with this lens, it is slower to focus than the 400mm F5.6 and it tends to hunt at times.

Sample picture taken with 300mm F4 IS with tripod

http://pcho.pdsdesigns.net/crw_8596%20b_std.jpg

Now as to my 400 F5.6, this is without doubt my favourite lens. I use it 99% of the time to shoot birds. Very fast to focus as compared to the 300mm F4 IS. Never have hunting problems with this lens. It takes nice sharp pictures. It is also very good for taking birds in flight pictures even though it doesn't have IS. It is also lighter than the 300mm F4 IS. I absolutely love this lens. Many times I would say to myself before I go out to a shooting excursion is that I will take my 300mm F4 IS lens with me and guess what, I always end up taking the 400mm F5.6 and thats because I need as much length as I can get, basically all the time. Most bird shooters will tend to use the long end and thats why many will eventually end up purchasing a 500mm or 600mm lens if they afford it.

One thing to remember, even though zooms are nice and you can fill a subject to the frame by moving the zoom, it can also be said as with primes 3/4 or 1/2 bodied subjects (due to lack of ability to zoom and sometimes in tight situations) has its own beauty too and sometimes even better. You will learn to accomodate the limitations of primes, if you consider that a limitation.

Whatever you decide on, I am sure you will enjoy it.

Samples taken with 400mm F5.6 with tripod

http://pcho.pdsdesigns.net/crw_0347%20dvslc_std.jpg

http://pcho.pdsdesigns.net/crw_1804%20dvslc%20landscape_std.jpg

http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com:81/perrychogallery/400mm%5Fbirdsinflight/new%20_holland_honeyeater_3487_std.jpg

http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com:81/perrychogallery/400mm%5Fbirdsinflight/white_naped%20_honeyeater_3195_std.jpg

Birds in Flight - Hand Held 400mm F5.6
http://pcho.pdsdesigns.net/crw_6524%20dvslc%20orig_std.jpg

Enjoy. Happy decision!!
Perry

[CyberDyneSystems]

I guess it really depends on your needs and what you are use to. I chose to go with the 28-135 IS for my basic lens and the 100-400L for the rest. Since buying the 100-400L I find that 90% of the time it is on my 10D. I have used it for sports, with which the zoom is manditory, Portraits (I love the compressed DOF of this lens), and wildlife. You will find that is quite a nice all round lens once you get use to handling it.. For Moto X and the other sports that I shoot I find the primes way too limiting if you only have one camera body...

Good luck with your decision only you know want you need....

I agree completely with the intended use.. certainly there are applications where the zoom is practically manditory...

But the trouble with the 90% on the 10D thing is... that may not be the case if you had a relly nice long prime as an alternative... ?

[RbnDave]

Thanks for the great responses everyone. I've been away for a few days or else I would have said thanks earlier.

Pcho,

Very nice sample photos! You have really complicated my decision. The 400mm f/5.6 was my first choice when I started looking into long telephotos a few months back, but I changed my mind because I figured I really wanted IS. I do a lot of tripod shots, but I also shoot a bunch of things hand held. I think I want IS. Just last month, I was on vacation and couldn't fit my tripod in my luggage. I really wanted an IS lens. Why don't they make a 400mm prime with IS for $1400? I would order it tomorrow.

Maybe I will get a bad schedule next month and I won't be able to take my Yellowstone trip. That will give me another month to make up my mind.

Dave

[pcho]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for compliment. Sorry to complicate your decision. I was in exactly the same delima. I guess the 300, 400 and 100-400 are all great lens. To me it comes down to how particular you are with your pictures. As I said, IS will definitely give you reasonably good usable pictures (I guess it also depends on photograher too and how steady your hands are) but in general they won't give you pin sharp pictures ( maybe thats just me ).

I like pin sharp pictures and thats why I chose both the 300 and 400 instead of the 100-400. I know I do looose the flexibilty and I must admit I sometimes do regret not having one. I personally think that having IS and zoom can make you lazy in the sense that you don't take pictures by moving back and forth to adjust frame size plus you tend not to use a tripod, assuming IS will compensate for picture quality.

All I can say is, I am happier having 10 pin sharp picutres than 50 good usable pictures. Thats my opinion and basically it really comes down to each to their own. You have to weigh up all those options and best of luck.

Perry

[RbnDave]

Could someone please give me a link where I can find more 300mm f/4 L and 1.4 teleconverter sample photos. I read all sorts of great things about this lens teleconverter combo but I can't find very many example photos.

Thanks

Dave

[Doom1701e]

My 300 4L and 1.4 extender just arrived today!!! I'll send you some pics just as soon as I get some tonight.

[robertwgross]

RbnDave, there's wildlife, and then there's wildlife.

Around Yellowstone, there are many experienced wildlife photographers. They probably know that if they park along the highway at X spot at around 4 p.m. on a June afternoon, then the bison will be lined up at 70 yards away. They know that the ZZZmm zoom lens is exactly right for shooting those animals then. They have the lens already on the camera and they are waiting for the animals to show up. They even have the intended composition thought out in advance, and the animal "models" simply have to pose.

Unfortunately, for the rest of us who claim to be wildlife photographers, it isn't that simple. I virtually never know where or when I am going to see wildlife, and I can almost never predict what zoom lens will be needed to capture the moment. As a result, I nearly always have to use a wide-range zoom lens and have it on and ready to go.

Once in a great while, a slow-moving animal will sit there while I change lenses. But it isn't likely at all.

---Bob Gross---

[RbnDave]

Doom,

I can't wait to see the results.

Bob,

Thanks for the advice. I am not one of those guys that knows where to find the Bison at 4:30pm June 12th, but I aspire to be that guy one day. For now, I just do a lot of travelling and I need a lens that reaches at least 400mm.

Last March, I was in Hawaii and I found a group of wild goats. Two days in a row I found them in the same spot and I chased them all over the lava trying to get a decent photo. I was using my Sigma 70-200 with 2x teleconverter hand held. Every photo I took was at 400mm and I wanted more reach and IS. http://www.pbase.com/image/27661006 http://www.pbase.com/image/27783930

A week later, I was in the bay area of CA. We were out at Point Reyes and there were a bunch of ravens soaring along the top of the bluff we were hiking. Once again, I used the Sigma 2x TC combo hand held, and once again I found myself wishing I had a straight 400mm lens with IS. http://www.pbase.com/image/27846216

The next day, we went to Fisherman's Warf. And, again, I was shooting at 400mm trying to get a decent photo of some sea lions. It was cloudy and I missed a bunch of shots cuz I didn't have IS. My dad was standing next to me using his brand new Nikon 80-400 VR. We were both without a tripod and he kept saying, "This is so cool, you push the shutter button halfway down and everything kind of locks into place."

Here are my 400mm options and why I don't want to buy any of them:

Canon 100-400 L -- I don't think I will have a use for any of its zoom range except for 400mm. It doesn't work so great with a TC. And, I think I will just end up replacing it with a prime a few years from now when I will demand more sharpness.

Canon 400mm f/5.6 L -- No IS! That's it. I'd buy it if it had IS. I forsee myself out in a rowboat under the eagles nest at my family's cabin cursing myself for buying a lens without IS.

Canon 300mm f/4 L -- It's too short. It will have a 1.4 TC glued to it constantly. That's no way to live.

Someone rescue me from my descent into madness. I know I must realize that everything is a compromise. But when I am paying $1300 I don't want to compromise.

Thanks

Dave

[mjordan]

Dave, have you considered changing what you are trying to photograph? :lol:

Sometimes it is the equipment that makes the photographer and sometimes it's the photographer that makes the image. I learned a long time ago that the weak link in my photography was me... but I also feel that if I could get the 1D MK II that it would be able to over come my weaknesses as a photographer. :lol:

Mike

[defordphoto]

Canon 100-400 L -- I don't think I will have a use for any of its zoom range except for 400mm. It doesn't work so great with a TC. And, I think I will just end up replacing it with a prime a few years from now when I will demand more sharpness.

You'd be surprised. While I so shoot this lens mainly at 400, it gets a lot of use below 400 too. It works great with the TC, just not with a 10D or drebel. This is one of Canon's most underrated lenses. The sharpness rivals the big guns. An excellent buy.

Canon 400mm f/5.6 L -- No IS! That's it. I'd buy it if it had IS. I forsee myself out in a rowboat under the eagles nest at my family's cabin cursing myself for buying a lens without IS.

That's why God makes tripods and monopods. And a mono would work even in a rowboat! ;) This is a sweet lens and also produces some cut-yourself-sharp photos. IS is okay, but it does not make the photographer. I have three lenses with IS and the IS stays off most of the time, but yes, it is nice to have it when it's needed.

Canon 300mm f/4 L -- It's too short. It will have a 1.4 TC glued to it constantly. That's no way to live.

I agree. If this is your only long lens, you'll grow to want more. 300 is just too short.

Good luck with your decision. I always like posting this photo in the 100-400 threads....

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4263_std.jpg

And this is one of my most recent:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2004/CCWS/img_8008_std.jpg[/quote]