Which Prime?

[Medic1]

...or do I stick with my original thought of the 100-400?

I was looking through reviews of the 300 f4 and the 400 f5.6 today and am wondering if maybe a prime is a better choice? I am going to be using it for mainly aviation photography and wildlife........with the 300 I would eventually also get a 1.4X teleconverter...maybe even with the 400 as well, who knows? I currently have no lenses with IS and have never used a lens with IS so I really don't know how much of a benefit it could potentially be to me.

I was originally planning on getting the 100-400 in about 2 months. So I have a few questions....especially of those of you who own the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6

1) The 300 has IS......is it really that much more of a benefit even if you are shooting fast shutter in bright daylight?

2) The 400 seems like a tripod/monopod lens....is it very difficult to handhold?

3) Bang for the buck.....is the 100-400 IS a better decision? I already have the 70-200 f4L.



Any other lens suggestions and/or comments would be great. Anyone who has examples of pics (especially aviation) with any of these lenses feel free to post....

Thanks in advance

[Jackal]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is2.html Coincidentally I stumbled on this just now.

But he was using 1/80 so I don't know how useful IS would be in bright sunlight with high shutter speed.

[Citizensmith]

1) Yes the IS is absolutely worth it and makes a considerable difference. It's also the most advance IS Canon has.
2) Any big, heavy, long lens is better on a monopod and better still on a tripod. At 300 the 100-400 would be harder to hold than the smaller, lighter 300.
3) I'd say the 300 is a better choice. The 70-200 already covers half the range of the 100-400 and while lacking in IS is optically better, faster, and lighter. The 300 is optically about as good as it gets, will definitely beat the 100-400 and again is faster and lighter. Stick a 1.4 on it and you've still got AF and a longer range than the 100-400. I think the 300 is definitely the way to go.

[HJMinard]

With regard to number two ... the 400/5.6 is actually quite handholdable. It's lighter than the 100-400 and (I believe) shorter than the extended zoom. Granted you need good lighting ... but good results are possible. I took this shot (http://www.pbase.com/hjminard/image/38270283) handheld.

[pcasciola]

It's so hard to chose between these lenses, but here are my reasons why I chose the 300/4L. I decided against the 100-400L because I really wanted the extra stop as well as the slight improvement in sharpness that the prime offers at wider apertures, and because the primes are better suited for use with Canon's TCs. I went with the 300/4L over the 400/5.6L mainly because I wanted IS, and I thought 400 would be a little long for football on a 20D. With a 1.4x TC, the 300/4L becomes a 420/5.6L with IS, and on a 20D that will feel even longer with the crop.

While I really love the IS feature, to answer your question on if it helps in bright sunlight with fast shutter speeds, in mode 1 it definitely does not (still subjects). Even in mode 2 (panning mode) I don't think it does at the shutter speeds you are talking about.

But, the #1 reason I went with the 300/4L is because I couldn't afford the 300/2.8L IS.

[nosquare2003]

It depends. For aviation, do you shoot one small air craft or several of them like those on the air shows? When you say wildlife, I suppose all kinds of animals with different sizes.

As such, I think that a 100-400 zoom will provide you more flexibility for your subjects. It will be different if you have a second body.

Personally, I find that 300/4L, 400/5.6L and the 100-400/4.5-5.6L are not difficult to handhold.

[tommykjensen]

This thread helped me decide to get the 300 f/4 IS

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56149

[Medic1]

It depends. For aviation, do you shoot one small air craft or several of them like those on the air shows? When you say wildlife, I suppose all kinds of animals with different sizes.

As such, I think that a 100-400 zoom will provide you more flexibility for your subjects. It will be different if you have a second body.

Personally, I find that 300/4L, 400/5.6L and the 100-400/4.5-5.6L are not difficult to handhold.

For aviation, for most of the year, I shoot airliners etc. at the local airport. Once or twice a year I get to an airshow. As for the second body....I am also buying a 20D soon, so I may keep the 300D and have it with my 70-200 and my 20D with the prime (if I go that route) and that way I will be covered for the shots closer in without having to change lenses.

Wildlife, anything goes.......from small to large, whatever I come across...

[Medic1]

This thread helped me decide to get the 300 f/4 IS

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56149

lol.....guess I should have done a more thorough search....its pretty much the same question.

Sorry about the repeat all.......I will keep an eye on both threads for new messages.

[tommykjensen]

lol.....guess I should have done a more thorough search....its pretty much the same question.

Sorry about the repeat all.......I will keep an eye on both threads for new messages.

Hehe except I didn't have the 100-400 into consideration.

I know the lens is highly recommended by many members here but I don't really like the push-pull zoom.

[Medic1]

I am not sure how I feel about the push pull zoom....I have not really had an oppourtunity to test it at length...

Keep the opinions coming, the more the merrier