How good is the 300mm L F4 IS ?

[quickben]

I'm considering selling my 100-400L IS in favour of the above plus a 1.4 TC.

Any thoughts ?

I almost never use anything but 400mm so I won't miss the 100 to 399mm.
How fast is the AF on the 300 ?

[DCB]

Check out this thread (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54098) where I've got some sample images from the 300/f4, along with comparison images with the 1.4 II. Hope that helps. :)

[alan sh]

How much do you want for your 100-400 ?

[bigadg]

i ask the same how much for your lens

[pcasciola]

Why not just get the 400 f/5.6 then? It's slighty cheaper than the 300mm f/4, and will probably be sharper than the 300+TC. You could also add the TC later and have a 560mm f/8.

[minatophase3]

I am in the process of figuring out what "zoo" lens to get and this weekend I rented the 300 f4 IS and 1.4tc. Let me state that I have never used the 100-400 so I cannot make a comparison, plus this is the first lens I have used with IS.

I was very surprised at how good the lens was! It focused quickly most of the time, when it didn't I blamed it on my D60 which isn't the best in low light. The outside lighting was not very good for the pictures I took, so I was using a pretty low shutter speed and still the pictures came out very clear.

The male lion picture was taken with the 1.4 tc on. It was hand held at 1/50th @ 420mm! It is slightly soft but given that shutter speed I was truly impressed. The rest of the shots ranged from 1/60th to 1/120th and were hand held, sometimes resting my elbows on a railing.

Overall, I was very impressed and thought the lack of zoom would be a big negative as I am not used to primes, but for the most part it wasn't an issue.

My finalists for my next lens are: 300mm f4 IS, 100-400 IS and Sigma 120-300 2.8. Of course I would need to use a monopod or tripod with the Sigma.

Here are a couple of examples:

Hand held - ISO 400 - 1/100 - f4 - 300mm
http://www.nationphotography.com/images/clients/zoo/images/CRW_8990.jpg

Hand held - ISO 200 - 1/50 - f5.6 - 420mm (300 + 1.4tc)
http://www.nationphotography.com/images/clients/zoo/images/CRW_8784.jpg

Hand held - ISO 400 - 1/80 - f4 - 300 mm
http://www.nationphotography.com/images/clients/zoo/images/CRW_8944.jpg

I would highly recommend this lens.

Tim

[quickben]

It was that thread, DCB, that led me to consider the change in the first place. What I want to know is how it compares with the 100-400L. As to the 400 5.6, I would really miss the IS.

Gary.

[Tom W]

I have tested both together on a tripod with remote release and mirror lockup. The 300 f/4 is the only one of the two that will shoot at f/4. And it shoots quite well at that aperture. At f/5.6, the 100-400L is very good, but a tiny bit soft. The 300 f/4 is very crisp at f/5.6. By f/8, the differences are pretty-much gone.

The 300 has an advantage of being able to focus very closely. With a teleconverter, it approaches the real macro range.

I think I have a couple of images up somewhere - I'll look for them.

[quickben]

Would the 300 f4 IS + 1.4 TC be any better for wildlife or motorsport ? That will be it's only real pourpose.

Cheers

Gary.

[Tom W]

Would the 300 f4 IS + 1.4 TC be any better for wildlife or motorsport ? That will be it's only real pourpose.

Cheers

Gary.

That's a tougher question. I didn't really get to compare the lenses in the field with moving objects. I know that it focused fast without a converter, but I don't know how it would work with one. Hopefully, one of the folks that does more of that type of shooting can chime in here with their experiences.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have to say I just don't follow the logic,...
I almost never use anything but 400mm so I won't miss the 100 to 399mm.

So you want to sell a real 400mm lens and replace it with a 300mm lens,. because you only shoot at 400mm?

Sometimes the obvious choice seems to be the most difficult one to come to... but it seems to me like a 400mm lens is the order of the day?

FYI the 400mm f/5.6L focuses MUCH faster than both the 100-400mm and the 300mm f/4IS.

[quickben]

My original question was how the 300 f4 IS + 1.4 TC compares to the 100-400. Several other people have suggested the 400 5.6, but like I said, I would really miss the IS.

What I'm really asking is: Would a L series prime (300 f4 IS) PLUS a 1.4 TC yield better quality results than a L series tele-zoom (100-400) ?

If so, I'd consider the swap.

Cheers.

Gary.