A Painful Choice: Canon 300mm F4L vs. 100-400 F4.5-5.6L

[raylks]

Hello,

I encounter a painful choice in which I need to pick one.
I intend to take some bird shooting and considering a tele lens for that. I learned from a number of sources that EF300mm F4L is very very sharp even when wide open but I am worrying that the focal length may not be long enough to capture birds.
I am considereing adding a 1.4x converter with it but with the converter, I can get even 560mm on 100-400 F4.5-5.6 which is much longer reach than the 420mm on 300mm plus converter.

What do you think about this hard choice?

I am poor and I cannot go fo 300mm F2.8 so I think I have only these two choices.

Thanks.

[12345Michael54321]

Which camera? Big difference between using a 300mm lens on a DSLR with a crop factor of 1.6x relative to a 35mm SLR, and using it on a "full frame" DSLR.

I'm going to assume you'll be using it on a Digital Rebel/300D, 10D, or 20D. Just because those cameras account for the majority of Canon DSLRs out there. If I'm wrong, well, maybe the discussion will still be of some value to someone. (Next time, mention which camera you'll be using, okay?)

Using a 300mm lens on such a camera is about like using a 500mm lens on a 35mm SLR. (Okay, it's 480mm equivalent. Close enough.)

Now, there is a school of thought that in birding, you can never have too long a lens. But in practice, 480mm focal length equivalent is pretty long. Moreover, using the Canon 1.4x tele-converter on the excellent EF 300mm L f/4 lens yields quite a good 420mm result - which is the equivalent of about a 670mm lens, were you shooting in 35mm format.

While there will undoubtedly be situations where this 670mm equivalent is insufficent, there are going to be situations where 1000mm or 1200mm or 1800mm are also insufficent. But you've got to draw the line somewhere. And 670mm isn't an unreasonable place to draw it.

As for the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom, well, there's no way I'd choose it over the 300mm + 1.4x teleconverter, for bird photography. Some relevant considerations -

The zoom is not significantly longer than the teleconverted 300mm lens. (It is, in fact, slightly shorter.) And one can't reply that it's longer when mated with the 1.4x teleconvert, because you should probably avoid slapping the teleconverter on a lens slower than f/4.

It's a zoom. And even though it's an unusually good zoom, the fact remains that no zoom lens is going to give you the optical performance of the 300mm L prime. I wouldn't be surprised if the 300mm + tele-converter still optically outperformed the zoom, even given the performance degradation inherent in the use of a tele-converter. At the very least, I'd strongly suspect performance to be at least roughly on par with the zoom.

The zoom has IS, I think. That's nice. But realistically, you ought to be using some sort of camera support (preferably a tripod, but at least a monopod) when shooting at such extremely long focal lengths. And with the use of a camera support, the advantages of IS are greatly (if not entirely) diminished. (What, you were thinking of taking handheld shots, at the equivalent of 670mm focal length? Not the smartest move, if you can possibly avoid it. Using a camera support will greatly assist you with composition, and usless you lack a pulse your images will probably be consistently sharper, too.)

So, basically, I don't see that it's such a painful choice. The 300mm + 1.4x tele-converter wins. Wins for several reasons. Wins easily. I mean, if you're hot to own the 100-400mm zoom, fine, buy the zoom. I wouldn't mind owning the zoom, myself. But don't kid yourself that the zoom is the better choice for birding.

[antaine]

I recently bought the 300L f4 (non IS) on ebay along with a Tamron 1.4 converter (only €60 at bhphoto). The days have been dark here, but got out 3 days since November.

I have an example at

http://www.outdooreyes.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18939

I am happy with this lense, although I haven't really had much chance to use it yet. I'll let you know by the end of Summer!

[Red Squirrel]

Nice Robin.. In fact that's got to be the cutest I've seen. The ones in our garden just aren't as fluffy!

This picture of a blue tit was taken with my 1dmk2 and 100-400LIS @ 400mm handheld out of the bedroom window the other day.

http://dave585.fotopic.net/p11070658.html

[karusel]

I'm still thinking of getting rid of 100-400L due to lack of sharpness and also too small maximum aperture but I will painfully miss the zoom range... the other options would be 300 f/4 L IS, 70-200 2.8 L IS and Sigma 120-300 2.8, if you know those lenses you know the dilemma.. the 300 obviously has no zoom, the price would allow me to buy another or a few other lens, the 70-200 has a short range, and the sigma is big, heavy (2.6 kg), has no IS and costs even more than 70-200 IS...

[darkdrakon]

I handeled the problem this way : 200mm 2.8 L+1.4 TC, and the 100-400 L. buy the 200mm used for about 500.00 and a used 100-400 L if you can affored it.

[scottbergerphoto]

If you know the kind of lighting you'll be using it in most of the time then it becomes a simple choice. The 100-400 works well in bright light only as to AF. If you need quick AF in low contrast or dim light forget about it. I love my 100-400, but I curse it on cloudy days.
Scott

[cc10d]

I shoot quite a bit of wildllife pictures and find the 100-400L IS to be invaluable. I believe that this optic is a bit aharper than the 300 f4 L /1.4X. I also have the 300f2.8L and 1.4x. or 2x. (I believe the 300f2.8L is one of the best lenses around) If you like to walk around with a tripod it is a usable setup. The 100-400 is what I use most though. It is handhholdable with IS, and does produce sharp images. Being able to hike, walk around and be generally mobile instead of having to set up tripod, carry it also (takes a GOOD tripod) frees me up to take a lot more usable shots, This without the burden of the tripod setup. The zoom is also a lot handier when you cannot predict how close you will be to the subject when it appears. I have many shots that are partial critters due to being too close when using a fixed lens. That said, I do have several prime lenses and use them, however if only carrying one lens, for me the zoom of comparable or possibly better image quality will win my choice. Which ever you choose will be a great addition to your enjoyment of photography. Happy shooting!

[mdr]

Aren't there rumours going round that Canon will release the long awaited replacement of the 100-400mm L IS next month?

[OviV]

I have both and love them both. If you can do without the zoom range, then go for the 300 F4. Here is a shot taken with it and the Sigma 1.4x TC for a total of 420MM :.

http://www.shareapicture.com/vsalbum/getpic.aspx?fld=/OviV/Photography/Nature/Zoo/2005-01-17%20Miami%20Metro%20Zoo&pic=OV__MG_1187.jpg&OV=0

[Medic1]

What do you guys think we're looking at for a price jump to the second generation IS 100-400.

Right now, where I live (Canada) I am looking at $2000 CDN for the 100-400 (New)

[raylks]

Thanks for all your help. You all are very kind.
It seems that there are two equally strong preferences towards both lense. And I believe most people consider buying a tele lense may encounter the same problem with me.
I am still struggling...
It seems that a zoom is convenient for me to frame the subject "efficiently" but I need to sacrifice some sharpness compared to the 300mm prime.
Also I am concerned about the push-pull zooming device on 100-400mm L. Anybody to share about it?

Thanks.

[boomer1959]

Also I am concerned about the push-pull zooming device on 100-400mm L. Anybody to share about it?

Thanks.


I love my 100-400mmL and find it very easy to push/pull.
Took this shot on a cloudy day, in a wooded area.
http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=ysk3y5&outx=800&oq=0

[CyberDyneSystems]

I hated the idea of push pull zoom,.

...within a week of using the 100-400mm I decided it was much better and faster than a rotating zoom! It is really easy to use and an advantage.

[lomond]

I have the 100-400L and I like it alot.
However if you think you will be using it at the longer end then I would say go for the 300 and the 1.4 TC.
A prime should blow the zoom away and even with the TC it might well be better. (the 100-400 is considered soft at 400)
I borrowed a 1.4 TC to try with my 100-400 and I didn't think it worth the cost since the lens is soft at 400 and why would you put a TC on it at anything other than 400.
I wish I could justify both but I can't and I like the vesatility of the 100-400L.

[pcasciola]

What do you guys think we're looking at for a price jump to the second generation IS 100-400.

There's a new 100-400 coming out?

Anyway, I had to make the same choice and went with the 300mm f/4L, but only because I was shooting sports and wanted the extra stop, and couldn't afford the 300mm f/2.8 at the time. I don't think the 100-400 is as sharp at the longer zoom ranges, and too slow for what I use it for (sports). I'd still like to add the 100-400 someday for other uses. Also, the extenders work better on primes.

[Scottes]

I have the 100-400 and it's my favorite lens. But I've been seeing pics from the 300 f/4 and they do have a bit more punch and 3D-look to them. The 1.4 on the 300 should be very comparable to the 100-400 - quite possibly a little bit better. But for birding I wonder how often you'll use the lens without the 1.4.... There's been precious few times when I've zoomed out when using the 100-400. (Of course a lot depends on where you'll be shooting and the size and type of the birds.)

[WestFalcon]

Check out the sigma 100-300 F4...it gets very high ratings and you could use a 1.4 converter on it too.

[pcasciola]

If you don't mind heavy glass there's also the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. You could put a 2x extender on that and still have 240-600mm at f/5.6. I think if I knew about that lens before I had my 300mm f/4L that would have been a tough choice for me, because I really wanted 300m @f/2.8.

[Medic1]

There's a new 100-400 coming out?


Rumor I have heard is that there is possibly a better IS version of the 100-400 coming soon.........although this is great, I wonder how much more Canon will charge for this version.....of course that also means that the older version will become cheaper..as long as its still in stock.

[adamsti]

Rumor I have heard is that there is possibly a better IS version of the 100-400 coming soon.........although this is great, I wonder how much more Canon will charge for this version.....of course that also means that the older version will become cheaper..as long as its still in stock.

We don't need an improved 100-400. Canon needs to come out with a 200-400 f/4L IS. They have absolutely nothing that can touch the Nikon VR version of this lense. A 200-400 f/4L IS would be just a killer lense, and for those of us who can't afford a 1 series body we would still have AF with the 1.4x on.

Please, please, Canon forget the 100-400, and give us the 200-400 f/4L IS!!!!

If ever do make this lense, my 100-400 is going up for sale the day they release it to dealers.

[lomond]

Please, please, Canon forget the 100-400, and give us the 200-400 f/4L IS!!!!

200-400 f/4. :?
I think that would be a bit on the heavy side compared to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
For me the 100-400 is just manageable as a walk around lens.

[Mills]

[QUOTE=pcasciola]There's a new 100-400 coming out?

Guess I need to do some research...

[paulo35]

have both of these , 300 f4 ahead on sharpness whereas 100-400 more versatile no doubt.I reckon sharpness is all if you are printing above 10x8

[adamsti]

200-400 f/4. :?
I think that would be a bit on the heavy side compared to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
For me the 100-400 is just manageable as a walk around lens.

The weight would be worth it, believe me.
Nikon's version weighs 7.2lbs, and from what I have heard it is just an unbelievable lense.

[lomond]

The N***n 200-400 f/4 weighs in at 7.2 lbs
and the Canon 100-400 weighs in at 3 lbs.

You a big guy Adaqmsti. :?

Still if it's good enough for N***n it's good enough for us.:lol:

[adamsti]

400mm at f/5.6 and 400mm at f/4 is a huge difference. Especially when you consider that fact that you would retain AF with the 1.4x, on the 200-400. As it is now the 100-400 can't AF with the 1.4x, (unless you have a 1 series body). Also the 100-400 with the 1.4x attached is just too slow unless your in bright sunlight.
I'd deal with the weight to be able to have that kind of reach.

[lomond]

I can see what you're saying and it would sound good to some, but for me I see too many negatives.

1. I do a lot of hill walking and I like to take my 17-40 and 100-400. Now to cut back on weight (for a hill walk) I bought a velbon Ultra luxi tripod, since my manfrotto is too heavy.
So to add another 4lbs would defeat the purpose.

2. I'm by no means a rich man and a 400 zoom or prime at f/4 is going to be out of my league.

However I'm happy with my 100-400 and I hope you get your wish. :)

[Huckaback Photo]

I think the 100 to 400 L is to be just right for so many uses, Ok if canon would like to give it a face lift say constant f4.5 right through the range at similar money, i would consider a swop.
having said that i dont have a prob with f5.6. I will often change from using 1D mk2 to the D60 if i want a bit more length, tend to use 1.4 extender with the 1D set up. also i just got the 12mm extension tube last week and behind the 100 to 400 its amazing the close distance range is just wonderfull, oh did i forget to mention this lens has also been used with a canon 2 times macro converter intended for use with 50mm macro lens only.
iv'e had good results with speeds as low as 1/30th hand held with IS on of course.
Appart from the obvious pulling power at the 400mm end,this lens has a hidden pulling power that i have not seen mentioned on any forum previously.
It pulls a crowd, bit like a ferrari i guess people always approach ask questions, comments etc like "can i have a look through your lens" is quite norn, (i usually weigh up if i can run faster than them at this point) and never let go of camera. ladies offten remark "thats a big one you got there" my auto reply being you should see it extended. Dont worry i know its the lens they refer to. on at least 10 separate occasions carrying large billingham bag white lens attached has enabled me to get into various restricted areas for photography without prior booking, if you approach in a proffesional manner with proffesional looking gear it certainly helps. these venues include concerts, rehersals, race meetings, main ring enclosures at shows etc.

Now Adamsti mentions above that canon needs a 200-400 f4 IS. if we went that root to equal our 70ish / 100 to 400 range I would also need to carry say 70-200 thats a bit much i think. and could certainly give weight problems with inflight hand luggage.
A 200 to 400 f4 IS may well be a killer lens but could be me it does in.
Martin (huckaback Photo)

[Huckaback Photo]

I mention above using a 2 x canon macro converter designed for 50mm macro lens .
just taken 2 pics using 100 -400 lens set at 150mm with 1D mk2 & 580ex flash bounced off wall,
realised iso was set at 1250 square image is crop from same file. oldest camera i own.
Martin (huckaback photo)

[raylks]

Thanks for all your advice. I have made my choice. It seems that a 300mm prime suited my need. And I wonder whether or not the IS will still function when 1.4x teleconverter is applied.

[adamsti]

IS functions all the time if it is on. It does not matter which converter is attached to the lense. You just lose AF with a 2x on the f/4 version, unless of course you are using a 1 series body.