300F/4 IS prime and 1.4 converter

[wiselion]

Will the 300 F/4 IS prime L lense autofocus with the canon 1.4x MKII teleconverter on my 20D? I think this would give me something like 670mm total focal length.

[rent]

yes, auto focus works. IS also works. and yes, 670 sweet mm with the x-factor. :p

-alex

Will the 300 F/4 IS prime L lense autofocus with the canon 1.4x MKII teleconverter on my 20D? I think this would give me something like 670mm total focal length.

[tommykjensen]

Yep, I got that combination and AF works.

[wiselion]

Thanks Guys. I'm stuck between this combo and the 100-400. I have the 200 2.8 prime, and I just want to make the right decision between the 300 f/4 or the 100-400. I think the 300 f/4 is sharper at 300 than the 100-400 (or so I hear).

I would buy tonight if I could friggin make my mind up. Most of my shooting is wildlife, and not really birds. Mostly Deer and other larger mammals. I just want the
sharper over the two. Also, the 400 5.6 is out of the question if anyone was planning to bring that up. I know the 100-400 is versitile, but I no way want to sacrifice sharpness from 300-400mm. All responses will be helpful. Damn this is a hard decision for me. I have read so many reviews on both that my eyes are popping out.


So guys the question for you is: The 300f/4 IS or 100-400 and why.

Thanks

Mike

[robertwgross]

Mike, if you are stealthy enough, you can sneak up closer to the deer and get your shot with 200mm or 300mm. However, if you have 400mm or 500mm, you can sit back somewhere in the next county and get the shot.

Most of the time, when I try to sneak up really close to wildlife, I will spook it and then I get no shot at all. By sitting back with 400 or 500, I can get the shot and put no stress on the animal at all.

Some animals are skittish, and some are not.

---Bob Gross---

[Medic1]

I too am looking at getting the 300mm f4L for use with the 1.4TC, and yes AF will work with the TC. Anything** with a max. aperture of f4 or greater will work, and f2.8 or better with the 2X

** EDIT: any of the compatible lenses that is....

[tommykjensen]

Also, the 400 5.6 is out of the question if anyone was planning to bring that up. I know the 100-400 is versitile, but I no way want to sacrifice sharpness from 300-400mm. All responses will be helpful. Damn this is a hard decision for me. I have read so many reviews on both that my eyes are popping out.


Before I bought my 300 f/4 IS I also considered the 400 5.6. I never really had the 100-400 into consideration because I don't like the push/pull zoom.

The 300 won beacuse:

- its f/4
- it has IS
- with the 1,4x extender it is a 420 f/5.6


But I might buy the 400 5.6 one day (and thats IanD's fault :lol: because of all his owl photos).

[wiselion]

Before I bought my 300 f/4 IS I also considered the 400 5.6. I never really had the 100-400 into consideration because I don't like the push/pull zoom.

The 300 won beacuse:

- its f/4
- it has IS
- with the 1,4x extender it is a 420 f/5.6


But I might buy the 400 5.6 one day (and thats IanD's fault :lol: because of all his owl photos).

With my 20D and the 1.4x it would be 670mm at 5.6. Do you think the pics will still be sharp?

[tommykjensen]

With my 20D and the 1.4x it would be 670mm at 5.6. Do you think the pics will still be sharp?

Yep. Here is a sample of mine

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=zoo050306penguin1.jpg

[wiselion]

Yep. Here is a sample of mine

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=zoo050306penguin1.jpg

I just PM'd Scottes for input between the 100-400 and the 300f/4 IS. He said to look up your long post on this. I'm going to try and find it. Maybe you can post the link for me incase I don't find it.

Thanks,
Mike

[tommykjensen]

I just PM'd Scottes for input between the 100-400 and the 300f/4 IS. He said to look up your long post on this. I'm going to try and find it. Maybe you can post the link for me incase I don't find it.

Thanks,
Mike

Here is the link

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

[wiselion]

Here is the link

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

I found it Tommy. Thanks. I am really leaning towards the 300 f/4 IS almost 100%.
I just want to make the right decision over the 100-400. If I knew the 100-400 was as sharp at it's long end as it's short end it would be a no brainer. But I know that is not the case, and I know the 300 IS is a smoking sharp lense. I have the 20D, 200 MK1 prime, 100 2.8 macro and the 18-55 kit lense. I figure the 300 will give me 480 with the crop factor, and 672 with the 1.4x. A question for you. After using your 300 IS would you give it up for a 100-400?

Mike

[tommykjensen]

After using your 300 IS would you give it up for a 100-400?


Nope, at least not in the current design. I don't like the push/pull. I know many find that an advantage with for instance sports shooting. Please note though that when I considered the 100-400 I did not compare image quality from that lens because of the push/pull zoom. I think Scottes at some point did a comparison of different ways of achieving 400 mm, You should try to find that thread ( I will do a quick search to see if I can find it for You).

If a twist zoom version of the 100-400 was released I might consider adding that to my collection but I would not give up my 300 IS. Only thing that would make me give up my 300 f/4 IS would be the 300 f/2.8 IS :lol:

[BlueTit]

I got the 300 F4 last week, have not had much chance to try it as the weather is awful, but I was in the same position trying to decide between the 300 and 100-400. I came down to the 300 F4 for several reasons:

1. I reckoned 300 F4 would be as sharp as 100-400 at 400.
2. 300 is a prime.
3. I am not keen on push pull zoom
4. 300 is a little cheaper (here anyway)

Good luck with your decision making and ultimate purchase, reading the reviews and deciding is half the fun.

[tommykjensen]

:oops:

It was belmondo that did a comparison called "4 ways to shoot 400 mm"

Here they are

Four Ways to Shoot 400mm -- A Comparison (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24069)

Four Ways to Shoot 400mm --- AGAIN! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24218)


And here is one from Scottes
Scottes
Canon 400mm f/5.6 L versus Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436)

[wiselion]

Nope, at least not in the current design. I don't like the push/pull. I know many find that an advantage with for instance sports shooting. Please note though that when I considered the 100-400 I did not compare image quality from that lens because of the push/pull zoom. I think Scottes at some point did a comparison of different ways of achieving 400 mm, You should try to find that thread ( I will do a quick search to see if I can find it for You).

If a twist zoom version of the 100-400 was released I might consider adding that to my collection but I would not give up my 300 IS. Only thing that would make me give up my 300 f/4 IS would be the 300 f/2.8 IS :lol:

The f/4 I heard is almost as good as the 2.8. Another question. Because of the crop factor of my 20D, will my closest focusing distance (which is supposed to be about 5ft on the 300 IS) change to a longer distance or stay at the same 5ft? Also, will the 1.4x teleconverter change that distance as well?

Thanks, Mike

By the way your pictures are awesome.......

[Medic1]

Always interested to keep hearing info on this topic.....I have decided on the 300 f4L, and alot of it had to do with the fact I was not keen on the push/pull zoom of the 100-400, combined with the fact I figured I would be at 400 most of the time anyway, so I would go with a prime for image quality.

I just like hearing posts like this to reaffirm my decision just prior to purchase.....thanks!!

[wiselion]

Thanks guys for all the input. Talk to you soon.


Mike

[rent]

the minimum focusing distance is not affected by either the 1.6x crop factor or the 1.4x TC.

-alex

The f/4 I heard is almost as good as the 2.8. Another question. Because of the crop factor of my 20D, will my closest focusing distance (which is supposed to be about 5ft on the 300 IS) change to a longer distance or stay at the same 5ft? Also, will the 1.4x teleconverter change that distance as well?

Thanks, Mike

By the way your pictures are awesome.......

[Tom W]

the minimum focusing distance is not affected by either the 1.6x crop factor or the 1.4x TC.

-alex

That is correct.
and what's cool is that with the 1.4X teleconverter, you have about a 1:3 macro (0.33X magnification) at close-focus distance (not accounting for the smaller sensor which can be seen as an added advantage). Its kind of nice to sit at a fair distance and have a bee filling a good portion of your frame as it trolls for pollen.

BTW, with the 2X TC, you've got a 0.47X magnification factor, meaning that you've got a 1/2 size macro lens. Or "almost macro" anyway.

[Scottes]

Mike, it sounds like that 300mm is the lens for you. It *is* a tough decision, and you can't really go wrong with either. I think the 300mm will beat the 100-400 @ 400 for sharpness, but not by much at all. It would be a very close call comparing both at 300mm. I'd easily bet that the 100-400 @ 400 will be sharper than the prime with a 1.4TC. So this means that you'll have to get very good at sneaking up on animals. :-)

The 100-400 L's autofocus is not very good in low-light or bushes & brambles. Not at all. If you're a deer-shooter this poor performance should make you run from the 100-400. (OK, it's not that bad, but the 100-400's weakest points are birds in flight and focusing through obstructions like branches.) The prime should not have this issue - at least nowhere to this extent.

The 300's f/4 is sweet, and the images that I have seen give an edge to the prime for the "pop" of the subject. I'm impressed every time I see a good shot from the 300s. The extra stop will also help you with low-light animals like deer.

I love my 100-400, but it seems like the 300mm is the lens for you, and it seems like it's the one you really want.

[Medic1]

Mike, it sounds like that 300mm is the lens for you. It *is* a tough decision, and you can't really go wrong with either. I think the 300mm will beat the 100-400 @ 400 for sharpness, but not by much at all. It would be a very close call comparing both at 300mm. I'd easily bet that the 100-400 @ 400 will be sharper than the prime with a 1.4TC. So this means that you'll have to get very good at sneaking up on animals. :-)



By how much do you think the 300 will be less sharp? I have been under the impression that the 300 f4L was a super sharp lens (sharper than the 100-400), and the 1.4 TC didn't degrade quality by all that much. I guess I kind of always assumed that since it began sharper, the 1.4 TC didn't put the quality below that of the zoom.

[Scottes]

In all cases of comparing these two lenses I think the difference would be very slight. That is, indiscernible except to a pixel-peeper comparing two "identical" shots looking for the differences.

[raylks]

I encountered the same difficulty when I purchased my 300mm f4. My siutation is more or less same as you, having a 70-200mm f4L already and considered buying a lens for longer reach.
I finally went for 300mm because it gives an flexibility of reach with 1.4x teleconverter given its sharp image. I believe it is sharper than the long end of 100-400mm. Given that you have the 200mm lens already, I think you have the reason to prefer 300mm to 100-400mm.

[cc10d]

The sharpness of the 100-400L IS, is not that bad! I believe it to be better than the 300f4L/ 1.4x. My Opinion. For sure at least as good.

The kicker for me through is that wildlife just doesn't pose at the correct distance for the prime lenses. Occasionally it works, but as they are on the move and while I am hiking or driving, when I find em I want to take the picture before they dissapear. The zoom allows for the correct framing !! I have prime lenses and use them, but in most "found" pictures, the zoom gets me shots that I would miss with the prime. PS: I also have the 300 2.8L, it is a great lens, also both Canon 1.4x and 2.0x, but the above appies. Want more pictures on a hike or drive, use the zoom.

[lomond]

I have the 300 f4 IS with the 1.4TC and the 100-400L.
Since buying the 300 I can tell you I find the results sharper than the zoom at the long end.
I wouldn't hesitate recommending this lens with the 1.4 TC as opposed to the 100-400L if you shoot at the long end.
I've hardly used my 100-400 since buying this lens but I wouldn't be without it.

[Jon]

I wonder how many of the people who've steered clear of the 100-400 because of its push-pull zoom action have used push-pull zoom much at all, and how many are scared off because it's "different"? Considering the number of people who are ready to recommend lenses that zoom and focus backwards from the way Canon lenses do, "different" shouldn't really bother anyone. You just get used to whatever you're using, but I'd be more concerned about having to zoom out by twisting clockwise on one lens and counter-clockwise on another.

What you haven't told us is what else you've got covering the 100-400 range. You've got a 200, with the 1.4x TC, which will also give you 280. But do you have anything between 70 and 200? If not, that's an argument in favour of the 100-400. How are you at lens changing? With the 200, 300, and 1.4xTC you have 200, add TC for 280, change 200 for 300 (leaving TC mounted) for 420. That's a very jerky and ponderous "zoom", or are you shooting subjects that won't be moving around? There's a reason the 100-400 is the only lens to sweep its class in the "Top 10 Recommendations", and that's versatility.

[tommykjensen]

I wonder how many of the people who've steered clear of the 100-400 because of its push-pull zoom action have used push-pull zoom much at all, and how many are scared off because it's "different"?

Obviously I can only speak for myself but I have borrowed the 100-400 with push/pull and tried it so my disliking it is based on actual use of it :D not because of fear for something different.

[Jon]

Without meaning to sound critical, but I think it's like C. Fn. 4-01. You can't rely on first impressions; you need to use it fairly extensively.

[tommykjensen]

Without meaning to sound critical, but I think it's like C. Fn. 4-01. You can't rely on first impressions; you need to use it fairly extensively.

That might be true but I am not going to spend close to $2000 (in Denmark) on a lens I might not like. Thats why I borrowed it 2 times and maybe thats not enough time to get used to it but its better than nothing.

[Jon]

That might be true but I am not going to spend close to $2000 (in Denmark) on a lens I might not like.

That's why we're all here. So we can rely on those who've been there to help us separate the wheat from the chaff. And judging from the overwhelming approval the 100-400 met with in the Top 10 Wildlife Zooms, push-pull's not a big deal. I have it, and I like it. But then, I started photography back when push-pull zooms with manual focus were the norm (actually back when zooms were the rarity, but . . . ), and my favourite lens was the 100-300 FD one-touch (push-pull) zoom. It's no biggy.

[tommykjensen]

That's why we're all here. So we can rely on those who've been there to help us separate the wheat from the chaff. And judging from the overwhelming approval the 100-400 met with in the Top 10 Wildlife Zooms, push-pull's not a big deal. I have it, and I like it. But then, I started photography back when push-pull zooms with manual focus were the norm (actually back when zooms were the rarity, but . . . ), and my favourite lens was the 100-300 FD one-touch (push-pull) zoom. It's no biggy.

Just so we are clear:
I have never questioned the quality of the lens!

I only said that I (me personally) do not like the lens because of the push/pull zoom. For a $2K lens it simply is not enough that everybody else like it, I have to like it as well. OK.. Enough said.

[Jon]

Just so we are clear:
I have never questioned the quality of the lens!

I only said that I (me personally) do not like the lens because of the push/pull zoom. For a $2K lens it simply is not enough that everybody else like it, I have to like it as well. OK.. Enough said.

Never said you did; I'm only suggesting that we're all here to ask for, and offer experiences based on long-term use. I wasn't singling you out either, a common theme on this thread and elsewhere has been "oh the 100-400 has push-pull, so I'm not getting it". And quite obviously the people who've got the 100-400 have liked it well enough that push-pull wasn't an issue.

[rent]

this is slightly off the topic.

i've never used a push/pull zoom (maybe i have wayyyy back, but didn't know that's what it's called). how does it work? instead of twisting the zoom ring you move part of the lens along its optical axis?

and what is this one-touch push/pull?

thanks for the info.

-alex

[Jon]

Yes, in a push-pull (in the 100-400 specifically), you push the front of the lens out to zoom longer, and pull it back in to go wide. In the old days of manual-focus cameras, designers would often combine the zoom and focus rings in one, where you'd twist for focus and push/pull for zoom. This relieved you of the need to switch grips when you wanted to focus, reframe, then refocus (or some other combination of the two). Since the 100-400 has full-time manual focus override and a fairly significant zoom range, Canon elected to use this same design on it. Since you only "touch" or hold the one ring for both focus and zoom, it was also called "one touch" zoom.

[rent]

thanks jon! very much appreciate the clarification. :D

Yes, in a push-pull (in the 100-400 specifically), you push the front of the lens out to zoom longer, and pull it back in to go wide. In the old days of manual-focus cameras, designers would often combine the zoom and focus rings in one, where you'd twist for focus and push/pull for zoom. This relieved you of the need to switch grips when you wanted to focus, reframe, then refocus (or some other combination of the two). Since the 100-400 has full-time manual focus override and a fairly significant zoom range, Canon elected to use this same design on it. Since you only "touch" or hold the one ring for both focus and zoom, it was also called "one touch" zoom.

[Medic1]

Never said you did; I'm only suggesting that we're all here to ask for, and offer experiences based on long-term use. I wasn't singling you out either, a common theme on this thread and elsewhere has been "oh the 100-400 has push-pull, so I'm not getting it". And quite obviously the people who've got the 100-400 have liked it well enough that push-pull wasn't an issue.

I personally steered clear of it for the push/pull and because I will have two camera bodies (a 300D and a 20D) by the time I get the prime. I don't do alot of hiking with my equipment, mainly aviation where I can keep the bag at my feet and switch camera bodies after I get takeoff/aerial/landing shots in plenty of time before the aircraft starts taxiing in. I have seen the 100-400 and used it, and I personally just didn't like the push/pull design. I don't think there is anything wrong with it...I just find that I like the ring zoom better.

I can definetly see the argument of needing the zoom if you have to switch focal lengths quickly. Unless your a world class sprinter and you can run the 100 in 10s flat to get to a distance acceptable for the focal length, then the prime is useless in this situation. I think it all depends on what your going to be doing with the lens.

To each their own! Good luck with your decision

[Jon]

Funny. I like the push-pull for aviation shots because it makes it so much easier to stay on the plane during approach . . . There's a park right off the end of Runway 35 at Washington National Airport - the planes come right over you.

[Scottes]

It took me a while to get used to the push-pull, but the times that I need it I'd rather have the push-pull 100-400 rather than my twist-zoom 70-200. (Of course, the extra 200mm helps.)

But the idea of going prime just because one doesn't like push-pull zoom is simply, absolutely, unbelievably ludicrous. If you want a prime, set the 100-400 at your desired focal length and then just don't push or pull the thing. Gawd. Simply ludicrous.


Tommy, though it may seem it in this thread, I am NOT pointing you out and slamming you. I am fully aware of the decisions you made AND why, and I know that it wasn't just the push-pull. I was involved long and hard on your decision, and I trust your judgement on why you wished to go with the 300mm prime. And you have proved your decision to be correct many times over.

I just want to make sure that anyone who comes across this thread doesn't drop the 100-400 because of the push-pull. If you don't push or pull then you [almost kinda sorta] have a prime with the versatility to zoom when you need it.

I use this lens at 400mm at least 80% of the time. Most of the time I use the zoom is when I'm shooting butterflies or dragonflies and want to get the framing right. I rarely use the push-pull "on the fly" but it certainly does come in handy during heavy action.

[Medic1]

But the idea of going prime just because one doesn't like push-pull zoom is simply, absolutely, unbelievably ludicrous. If you want a prime, set the 100-400 at your desired focal length and then just don't push or pull the thing. Gawd. Simply ludicrous.


Thats alot of money to spend on the premise that you may grow to like the push/pull (or get used to it). Some people simply don't like it.....why spend that kind of money on a lens if your not going to enjoy using it? Saying that its ludicrous that someone would make a choice based on 1 thing they don't like about a lens is not right. I bet just as equally there are many on this forum that would say it is ludicrous to buy a lens if you don't think your going to like something about it.......not everyone can afford to make a $2000 (CDN) purchase they may regret

Just my humble opinion

[tommykjensen]

It took me a while to get used to the push-pull, but the times that I need it I'd rather have the push-pull 100-400 rather than my twist-zoom 70-200. (Of course, the extra 200mm helps.)

A thing that has to be factored in here is that I live in a country with redicilous high prices on cameras and lenses. This lens cost around $2300 here compared to $1300 in US and with that price I can't afford to buy it on an assumption that I will get used to it. Maybe I would and maybe I should ask my boss to borrow his lens again.


Tommy, though it may seem it in this thread, I am NOT pointing you out and slamming you. I am fully aware of the decisions you made AND why, and I know that it wasn't just the push-pull. I was involved long and hard on your decision, and I trust your judgement on why you wished to go with the 300mm prime. And you have proved your decision to be correct many times over.


Thank You for pinting that out.


I just want to make sure that anyone who comes across this thread doesn't drop the 100-400 because of the push-pull. If you don't push or pull then you [almost kinda sorta] have a prime with the versatility to zoom when you need it.


That is also my aim. If anybody dismiss this lens just because a few of us don't like the push/pull that would be a terrible mistake.

I have probably not been clear enough about all the reasons for my choice. The push/pull was just one of the reasons. [Continued below]


I use this lens at 400mm at least 80% of the time. Most of the time I use the zoom is when I'm shooting butterflies or dragonflies and want to get the framing right. I rarely use the push-pull "on the fly" but it certainly does come in handy during heavy action.

And this is another reason. A copule of years ago before I bought my first L lens I had a tokina 100-300 and a cosina 100-400 lens and with those I found that most of the time I was shooting either at the short end or long end, I did not shoot a lot in the middle range. So it made sense to choose the prime.

Someday I probably will also buy the 400 5.6.