Need advice on my lens choice

[loebas]

I'm very interested in wildlife photography. I have a 70-200 f4 but it is too short for birds and deer.
I encouter a lot of wildlife in our area but right now my range is too short.
When I'm out I walk or cycle by mountainbike through the wood/moor etc.
Most of the time I'm out early morning or at dawn
I'm not waiting on a fixed spot for wildlife to appear.

I have been reading reviews about the below lenses, but I really don't know which lens will suit my needs best.

300 f4 is (should afford a 1,4 converter)
100-400 is
400 f5,6 (tripod needed)

Would you be so kind to give me an advice ?

[weemannie]

The 100-400IS is a really good lens and the zoom would give you some flexibility with framing. The others are great, but I think the 100-400IS is better and the top end than those 2 with an extender.

[Lenny_D]

I would definitely go for an option with IS. This makes handheld shooting possible.
The 300mm f/4 with extenders would be my choice... but I think both the 100-400 and 300 are good options.

[Jon]

The members here overwhelmingly like the 100-400 zoom (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59931) for wildlife. There's much more spread on what prime is best (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59929). Go with the 100-400.

[khiromu]

For handheld shooting at this range, IS helps you a lot. You can also look at Sigma OS zoom, which seems to be as good as Canon (without USM).

[lomond]

Hi loebas.
I haven't forgotten the promise I made on this thread ;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=65290.

Sadly the weather was awful during my week in the lakes so didn't get much of a chance to test the 300f4.
I'll try some comparison shots with the 300+ TC and the 100-400 and send you a PM later, if thats OK with you.

[loebas]

Hi loebas.
I haven't forgotten the promise I made on this thread ;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=65290.

Sadly the weather was awful during my week in the lakes so didn't get much of a chance to test the 300f4.
I'll try some comparison shots with the 300+ TC and the 100-400 and send you a PM later, if thats OK with you.

Looking forward to your reply.

[loebas]

I would definitely go for an option with IS. This makes handheld shooting possible.
The 300mm f/4 with extenders would be my choice... but I think both the 100-400 and 300 are good options.

Thanks for reply, but why do you prefer the 300 f4 IS ?

[Philip]

The 300 F4 L with a1.4 teleconverter is sharper than the long end of a 100 x 400 zoom. Although with the tele you need to use a quality tripod.

[loebas]

[QUOTE=Philip]The 300 F4 L with a1.4 teleconverter is sharper than the long end of a 100 x 400 zoom. Although with the tele you need to use a quality tripod.[/QUOTE

As both lenses have IS i wonder why you should need a tripod?
How much sharper is the 300 with 1.4 ?

[lomond]

The 300 F4 L with a1.4 teleconverter is sharper than the long end of a 100 x 400 zoom. Although with the tele you need to use a quality tripod

I would tend to agree with the first part, although this is only a feeling at the moment since I haven't done any real head to head tests yet.

I would disagree with the second part. It is the IS version loebas is looking at and I think it is very hand holdable with the 1.4 TC.
Here's an example.

1/90s ...f/8 ... ISO 400
I don't know about this jpg compressed version here but in my original you can see me taking the picture in the pupil of the owls eye.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/Eagle-Owl-3.jpg

[lomond]

Loebas, as promised some comparison shots using the 300 f4 IS L + 1.4 TC and the 100-400L @ 400.

The set up; Tripod mounted, mirror lock up, IS off, cable release.
UV filters removed for the purists. :)
As for the subject I used the first thing that came to hand. ( I don't work for Schwartz ) :)
I took a lot of shots for comparison and in general this is what I found.
Wide open the 100-400 seems to win. :?
As the lenses a stopped down the 300 prime and 1.4TC seems to be sharper.

Hand held, the same applied.

My conclusion :
I would say if I had to choose only one of the two lenses it would be the 100-400L for the flexibility of the zoom.
There's no question the prime @ 300 is much sharper than the zoom @300 but @ 400/420 wide open it's not ( which I was surprised at). It does improve stopped down to f8 or f11.
Something puzzles me with my version of the 100-400L, it seems sharper ( more in focus ) at f8 than f11. This was the case in many shots.

Anyway the folowing are 100% crop comparisons of the above set up.
They were shot in RAW and are not processed in any way, apart from cropping.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/f8.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/11.jpg

[raylks]

I have 300mm f4L and it is a great prime. But I am surprised of the screenshot. 100-400mm is sharper than 300mm f4L with extender when wide open!

[lomond]

I have 300mm f4L and it is a great prime. But I am surprised of the screenshot. 100-400mm is sharper than 300mm f4L with extender when wide open!

This is the 300 f4 IS with a 1.4 TC attached, and yes I am surprised too.
Might be my copy of the lens. :?

[RichardtheSane]

From my experience I would probably recommend the 300 F4 IS + Tele. The sharpness difference is very slight, nothing light USM wouldn't clear.

However as the light drops down you can pull the 1.4x off the 300F4 and gain an extra stop. Now that can sometimes be handy.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 100-400L, but if I only shot wildlife I would have the 300 F4 IS.

[raylks]

I supply a shot with my EF300mm F4L. I like my 300mm f4.

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/unassorted/MG_9969.jpg

[loebas]

Loebas, as promised some comparison shots using the 300 f4 IS L + 1.4 TC and the 100-400L @ 400.

The set up; Tripod mounted, mirror lock up, IS off, cable release.
UV filters removed for the purists. :)
As for the subject I used the first thing that came to hand. ( I don't work for Schwartz ) :)
I took a lot of shots for comparison and in general this is what I found.
Wide open the 100-400 seems to win. :?
As the lenses a stopped down the 300 prime and 1.4TC seems to be sharper.

Hand held, the same applied.

My conclusion :
I would say if I had to choose only one of the two lenses it would be the 100-400L for the flexibility of the zoom.
There's no question the prime @ 300 is much sharper than the zoom @300 but @ 400/420 wide open it's not ( which I was surprised at). It does improve stopped down to f8 or f11.
Something puzzles me with my version of the 100-400L, it seems sharper ( more in focus ) at f8 than f11. This was the case in many shots.

Anyway the folowing are 100% crop comparisons of the above set up.
They were shot in RAW and are not processed in any way, apart from cropping.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/f8.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/11.jpg

Thank you for the comparison test, all the effort, you are too kind.
What wonders me is the fact, except from the first comparison, that the 300 shows the hood of the bottle much lighter.

As I'm walking or cycling when out for wildlife I think I should go for the 100-400.
It offers more flexibility, don't need extender, but what bothers me is the push and pull zoom.
You hear a lot of people complaining about the fact that the 100-400 gathers dust.
As I live in an area with a lot of sand and dust I'm a bit confused about what to do.
Can you make clear to me if this dust "story" is true or just a story.

[Jon]

You hear a lot of people claiming that push-pull zooms collect a lot of dust. I haven't seen anyone who's demonstrated that they're any worse than any other lens. Any time the interior volume of a lens changes, air will be forced in, or out. And that happens on a two-touch zoom, or a long prime, as the lens groups move around too.

[lomond]

I wouldn't worry about sand or dust unless it's obviously flying about, in which case I wouldn't use the camera at all, with any lens.
I've used the zoom on sandy beaches many times and have had no problems.

Regarding the tops of the jars, it may be that the light conditions changed during the shooting. It was outdoors. However I do believe the prime to be a little more contrasty.

Like I said, I like both lenses but if I had to choose one it would be the zoom.
Whichever you choose you won't be dissapointed.