EF300 f/4 - longer reach lens

[SteveMace]

Ever had that feeling that reading review after review that you feel like you end up back where you started??? It has been about a month now of reading and re-reading reviews.

The EF 70-200/2.8 L IS is in the bag along with a 1.4x TC.

I mainly do landscape photography with a little bit of motorsport/cars mixed in (probably three or four times a year get the opportunity to do this). I am looking for a lens with a bit more reach to add to the bag.

Option 1: EF 300/4 L IS along with possibly using it with the 1.4x TC. The question lies over whether the use of the TC slows down the focus ability of the lens to the point where for motorsport there are issues with tracking fast moving objects? The 300 would also be used without the TC where overcast conditions will prevail.


Option 2: EF 400/5.6 L. The tests seem to say that this is a lens of similar quality to the above. The one stop difference seems to be the deciding factor. Is the speed of the focus ability significantly different (better?) to the 300/4 with 1.4x TC. Is there anyone who has any hands on advice?


Option 3: EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS. Flexible lens due to being a zoom. Maybe not a sharp as a fixed length? There seem to be a significant number of people who use them so they must be good.


Sorry to pose another "what would you buy?" question. None of these lenses are in the State in which I live, to be able to touch/test etc. If you have any comments in relation to the above options (or an alternative that you think that I should seriously investigate) then any comments would be appreciated.

The current aim is to increase the lens stocks before making the decision to upgrade from to 10D to something like the 1D Mk2 (or depending what is in the marketplace at that time).

Thanks.

[swatcop169]

I just bought the 300 f/4 IS and from teh review's I've read, pickup a Kenko Pro 1.4tc, unlike sigma and canon it doesn't tell the lens it needs to go up a f/stop so you get 672mm at f/4.

Check out this thread,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13859754

[lomond]

I'll give it a stab.

1: The 300 with a 1.4 TC works well, I find.
I have no ploblem tracking largish objects.
The following link shows a Sand Martin tracked with this combo and the weather was dull.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77080

2: This is a very sharp lens and AF is also fast.
Not speaking from experience.

3: A very useful and flexible zoom. Sharp but not as sharp as the primes even with the TC on the 300mm.
I wouldn't be without this lens.

If you do a search you will find many threads on the 300 v 400 v 100-400.

Regards,

[BlueTit]

Hi Steve

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and bought the 300 f4 and at the time wondered was I mad as the reach was not that much more, but I love the 300 f/4 it is really sharp and a bit lighter than the 70-200, I also love the build in lens hood - great idea. I have theCanon 1.4 & 2.0 TC both MkII. I have used the 1.4TC alot and find it equally good with either lens, the difference to the picture quality is hardly noticeable, but the increase to f5.6 on the 300 is, it is no longer fast, though, if you went with the 400 f5.6 that would be no faster - I will come back to the 400 f5.6 in a minute. The Canon 2.0 is a different story, it makes a noticeable differance in quality, I don't use it much at all. I have never used any other extenders so I have no idea how they compare, but you read a lot of good stuff about the Kenko ones. I don't know if using the kenko 1.4 on the 300 f4 does not increase it to f5.6, I can't see how it wouldn't but I don't know.

I had the use of a 400 f4.0 DO for 4 days and was very dissapointed with it. In fairness it was a hire model and had being out three times when I got it. I was unhappy the IS worked correctly and that turned out to be correct when I returned it the shop confirmed there was a problem, however I took several shots on a tripod with MLU and remote release with IS turned off and the shots were not nearly as sharp as the 300 f4.

Never used the 100-400 so I can't help you there but there have been some great shots on here that were taken with it.

Good luck with your choice.

[CoolToolGuy]

I would recommend the 400 f5.6L. You have the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 1.4x TC. I have the 1.4x, and I have seen no image degradation on any lens I have used it on. So that gives you 280mm at f4 with IS. I would say that is close enough to a 300 f4L IS for me.

If you are outside the fences at most motorsport events, 300mm will not be enough. the 400 f5.6L gives you that reach. The max aperture of 5.6 will not be a problem except at dawn and dusk or in rain. And you can add the TC (although with manual focus) if you want more length.

I have rented the 100-400 L and found it wanting. Perhaps I rented a bad copy, but that experience led me to the 400 f5.6L. It is lighter, and since I use a monopod or tripod, the IS is not much of a bonus.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[SteveMace]

Thanks for the responses.

I think I have made my mind up. The 300 f4 probably give me the flexability that I am after. Ability to use it as a 300 f4 or 420 f5.6 with the use of the 1.4x TC.

Thanks again.

[Andy_T]

I just bought the 300 f/4 IS and from teh review's I've read, pickup a Kenko Pro 1.4tc, unlike sigma and canon it doesn't tell the lens it needs to go up a f/stop so you get 672mm at f/4.


Swatcop,

I think you have a slight misunderstanding here.
You will NOT get 420 mm @ f/4.0.

This is because the aperture is the result of dividing the focal length by the diameter of the exit pupil of the lens. If you add a 1.4 TC, the exit pupil still has the same size, but the focal length has been increased ... you lose a stop (optically).

What is different for the Kenko vs. the Canon/Sigma converter, is that the Kenko does not TELL the camera that you lost a stop. Result - the camera will still offer autofocus (it is programmed to inhibit autofocus if you add a lens that is slower than f/5.6) This will be important if you plan to use a lens that is slower than f/5.6 (with the teleconverter) like the 100-300/5.6 L or 100-400 IS L. It will not be a problem on the 300/4, because 4*1.4=5.6, and this is still acceptable.

Best regards,
Andy

[lomond]

Also Canon didn't pick f5.6 on the 10 series and f8 on the 1 series as the limit for AF for no reason.
If the camera tries to AF above these apertures there is a tendancy for the lens to hunt with the possibility of the USM motor burning out.
By all means try the kenko or even the tape trick but be aware of the above.

[shiato storm]

100-400 simply because it give you the range to work in. yeah you can do all these anal tests to see how pin sharp you can make an image but lets be brutal here, the L series are good which ever you get. and are you going to be blowing images up to life size? if so then you're going to get a little fuzz what ever you use but I'd guess you'll be keeping them max at A3 sie, in which case its more than fine.
I take it you will have some sort of support for your lens, mono/tripod, and panning too (motorsports) so the shutter speeds will be around 1/250+, the 100-400 I've used at various events, more recently at rowing regattas - Handheld! - and they've all come out spectacularly so there's nothing to worry about on that side of things. its reliable.

don't worry about all teh technical rubbish review sites throw out at you, just read what people suggest, maybe even try the options out yourself - there must be a way of hiring/testing equipment out before you buy near you. I would recommend this more over since what ever you do its going to cost a fair bit and you want to get it right don't you!

[CyberDyneSystems]

If focus speed is the primary concern.. the 400mm f/5.6 allready focuses significantly faster than the 300mm f/4.... with ot without a TC on the 300mm

Add the TC to the 300mm and things will slow down more.

SwatCops has some good points about the Kenko T-Con .. if the T-con does not report it's effect on f/stop to the camera.. it won't allways slow AF. But as Andy points out,. you DO still get a reduction in aperture down to f/5.6 whether the camera reads it or not.. and that reduction in light could very well slow AF in certain lighting conditions... ie: if the 300mm is slower than the 400mm in AF with no TCs @ f/4.. may be even slower with the 1,4 t-con at f/5.6

re: the 100-400mm IS... it is my favorite zoom lens... but it's AF is the slowest of three lenses mentioned.. very noticeable (in comparison to the others) on the 10D

[raylks]

The Kenko teleconverter will slow down the lens. It makes the 300mm f/4 becomes a 420mm f5.6 lens.
Since the light ray travels a longer distance through the lens so some light is lost. The f-number is actually the focal length divided by a number. So by extending the focal length with the same maximum diameter of the lens opening, the lens must be stopped down by a factor of 1.4 if the teleconverter extends the focal length by a factor of 1.4.
Say, a 300mm lens with f4, means that the maximum diameter of opening is 75mm. Imagine what f number it would be if the focal length is now 1.4 times of 300mm: 420mm with the same 75mm diameter. It becomes a f5.6 lens.

[Medic1]

I debated the same thing for a long time....I ended up with the 100-400 for the flexibility it provided. I have not been dissapointed yet. Just ask yourself......are you going to want to change focal lengths often and do you have the time to do it (change lenses) inbetween shots (i.e when shooting motorsports etc.) or would you benefit from being able to change your focal length without changing the lenses? The debate was a little tougher for me because I have two camera bodies (maybe you as well...I don't know) so I was thinking prime on one, wider angle zoom on the other. In the end I decided to go with the zoom instead of having to change cameras constantly.

Thats how I came to my conclusion on the issue.