300mm f/4L + 1.4X TC or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L?

[fWord]

Hello All!

Ever since a trip to the zoo late last year, I've been longing for a longer lens than the current 70-200mm. I am also keen to try photographing some birds.

Two big contenders were obviously the Bigma 50-500mm and the Canon 100-400mm. Though I liked the range and the price of the Bigma, it was almost a no-go for me, since I prefer to always be on the move, and shoot handheld. This is why even the 400mm f/5.6L was out of the question.

But recently, the 300mm f/4 IS came crashing through. It's also very highly rated (9.8 out of 10 on Fredmiranda...people really love this baby), and cheaper than the 100-400mm lens.

Adding a 1.4X TC to a 300mm prime would give me about the same range (negigibly longer) and yield the same max aperture. Funnily enough, Canon's Lens book MTF graphs even suggest that a 1.4X TC actually improves contrast of the prime while resolution stays the same.

So now I'm stuck. The prime + TC combination is much cheaper, and without the TC, it may be anywhere between 3/4 to a full stop faster than the 100-400mm lens at the same focal length. It is also slightly lighter. The prime has a better magnification than the zoom, and thus making it better for closeup shots (?).

However, the zoom is much more flexible, even if larger and somewhat harder to balance and manage.

What are your opinions on this? Any suggestions? I wish to shop for both second-hand, due to cost constraints. But should I actually save more and sink in more cash for the zoom over the prime?

[chrishunt]

A lot of people recommend the 400 f/5.6 for birds, including myself. It's extremely sharp and focuses great. The only downside is the speed, but f/5.6 works very well in most outdoor conditions. This lens also cost less than any of the other two options you mentioned.

If you really want to avoid the 400, then I'd say get the 300 + TC. In my opinion, when you start getting into the long telephoto range, zooms lose their extra 'advantage' because you always find yourself wanted to go longer anyway.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by burntbizzkit

A lot of people recommend the 400 f/5.6 for birds, including myself. It's extremely sharp and focuses great. The only downside is the speed, but f/5.6 works very well in most outdoor conditions. This lens also cost less than any of the other two options you mentioned.

If you really want to avoid the 400, then I'd say get the 300 + TC. In my opinion, when you start getting into the long telephoto range, zooms lose their extra 'advantage' because you always find yourself wanted to go longer anyway.

Good point...the 400mm prime was on my short list initially, but was rapidly 'outclassed' by the 100-400mm because of the lack of IS. Blurred images are a big issue for me since my muscles suffer severely with heavy equipment. A standard zoom is no issue, but I am hardly steady with any substantial telezoom.

It's interesting that you mentioned about zooms losing their supposed 'advantage' in terms of flexibility. Since I've never been there, I wouldn't know, but I understand the truth in that. Perhaps I'd wind up pushing the 100-400mm lens out to 400mm everytime anyway. But when something comes near, it's still good to be able to pull out and frame another shot without moving.

[lomond]

I use the 300mm + TC quite a bit.
The image quality drop using the TC is not noticable IMO.

I also have the 100-400 and tended to use it at the longer end.
IMO prime +TC is the better quality both in sharpness and contrast.
For that reason the zoom is used less.
If you think you will be at the 300-400 range I would avise the prime + TC.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by lomond

I use the 300mm + TC quite a bit.
The image quality drop using the TC is not noticable IMO.

I also have the 100-400 and tended to use it at the longer end.
IMO prime +TC is the better quality both in sharpness and contrast.
For that reason the zoom is used less.
If you think you will be at the 300-400 range I would avise the prime + TC.

It's highly likely that I'd be pushing the limits, even if I got the zoom, but I still can't say for sure at this time if I'll be needing the 100-399mm range. It'll be peace of mind to have it though. Pity I can't buy both the way you have!

[condyk]

I've had both and used both with TCons. The 300mm IS L is a lovely piece of design but the 100-400 IS L is a more flexible lens and loses little on IQ. I don't feel there is anything in it if you add a TCon to the 300mm. If you don't mind the push-pull zoom style and need IS then it's the best. If you can do without IS then I'd choose the longer 50-500 for birding.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by condyk

I've had both and used both with TCons. The 300mm IS L is a lovely piece of design but the 100-400 IS L is a more flexible lens and loses little on IQ. I don't feel there is anything in it if you add a TCon to the 300mm. If you don't mind the push-pull zoom style and need IS then it's the best. If you can do without IS then I'd choose the longer 50-500 for birding.

A 1.4X TC on the 100-400mm would give stunning reach, though I worry about the loss of AF since I'm using an entry-level camera. The 300mm prime promises a lot and I've been getting the impression that its IQ is quite a fair bit better than the zoom.

But if the difference is small, as you've said, then I probably wouldn't notice. It'll boil down to price and speed then. According to a review I read, the max aperture of the 100-400mm lens is already f/5.6 at 250mm focal length. That's one stop slower than the prime at the equivalent focal length. The Sigma would've been my choice, if only I wasn't so adamant on going handheld all the time.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I agree with the above. You will find yourself usuing the longer end. Isnt that why you bought a super tele? Be it zoom or prime?
Also, dont rule out the 50-500. Very nice lens.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by SoToMoSo

I agree with the above. You will find yourself usuing the longer end. Isnt that why you bought a super tele? Be it zoom or prime?
Also, dont rule out the 50-500. Very nice lens.

Hmm...good thought, especially that now both you and another member have already mentioned this. It's going down a slippery slope though. With a lot of green, it'd be the 600mm prime eventually!

The 50-500 isn't ruled out completely, though it looks less attractive to me at this time. If I were to buy a solid tripod in the future and get super-serious with telephoto stuff, it'd definitely be the perfect lens.

Actually, one thing I was interested to know: is 400mm on a 1.6X crop camera (ie. 640mm effective) REALLY enough for bird shooting? If it isn't, then I'd need to rethink this whole thing...maybe even forget about it and tackle super-wides first. Currently, the only other lens besides my telezoom is the 350D kit lens.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Originally Posted by fWord

The 50-500 isn't ruled out completely, though it looks less attractive to me at this time. If I were to buy a solid tripod in the future and get super-serious with telephoto stuff, it'd definitely be the perfect lens.

Actually, one thing I was interested to know: is 400mm on a 1.6X crop camera (ie. 640mm effective) REALLY enough for bird shooting? If it isn't, then I'd need to rethink this whole thing...maybe even forget about it and tackle super-wides first. Currently, the only other lens besides my telezoom is the 350D kit lens.

For me super serious means more money needed to be spent. The bigma (50-500) is cheaper than all three lenses you mentioned. I.e: the 300 L or 400 L or 100-400 L. Quality is damn good, no questions asked.

Also, its not really effectively 640mm. You are not zoomed in to 640mm. You are still only viewing it at 500mm zoom. The effective 640mm means thats the field of view. Not how close you are. So if there were a 640mm (lets assume one exists) lens on a ff and you had your bigma set at 500mm on your 20D. The girl with the 640mm on FF can see closer or gets closer, or longer reach than you. The only thing you two share is the field of view.

Personally I say go with the 300 L + 1.4 TC because its versatile and will retain AF. Believe me the 50-500 is magical. I really really miss this lens.
its amazing that you can start at 50mm and end at 500mm.
Man your makin me miss it too much. I refuse to buy it lol!
I just bought a 10-20 today. But the bigma would come in handy for my Seychelles trip next week.
nice nick too.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by SoToMoSo

For me super serious means more money needed to be spent. The bigma (50-500) is cheaper than all three lenses you mentioned. I.e: the 300 L or 400 L or 100-400 L. Quality is damn good, no questions asked.

Also, its not really effectively 640mm. You are not zoomed in to 640mm. You are still only viewing it at 500mm zoom. The effective 640mm means thats the field of view. Not how close you are. So if there were a 640mm (lets assume one exists) lens on a ff and you had your bigma set at 500mm on your 20D. The girl with the 640mm on FF can see closer or gets closer, or longer reach than you. The only thing you two share is the field of view.

Personally I say go with the 300 L + 1.4 TC because its versatile and will retain AF. Believe me the 50-500 is magical. I really really miss this lens.
its amazing that you can start at 50mm and end at 500mm.
Man your makin me miss it too much. I refuse to buy it lol!
I just bought a 10-20 today. But the bigma would come in handy for my Seychelles trip next week.
nice nick too.

The Bigma is definitely nice, especially so for the price. Even seen it on sale second-hand for slightly over a grand (Singapore $). And the build looks great from the pictures I've seen. But again, unless I start monopod and tripod shooting sometime down the track, it's unlikely that I'll be able to get keepers from handholding a long lens like this. Some people can, but a smallish person like me probably won't fare well.

The part about the FOV confuses me a little. From my understanding, on a 1.6X crop camera, a 50mm lens becomes an 80mm effective. By that, I see that the view/ framing I get with a 50mm on a 1.6X crop camera is the same as the framing that I'd get if I used the 80mm on a film/ full-frame camera. Where they differ however, is with the degree of perspective compression and bokeh.

So given that, I assume that a 400mm prime will give me 640mm effective, which is a tighter crop than even a 600mm prime on a full-frame camera. But the bokeh and perspective compression will differ. The 600mm prime will give even more perspective compression and more radical bokeh than the 400mm prime. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Heheh...maybe you should buy the Bigma again! Speaking of the 10-20 lens, wide-angle is another thing I'd try if I decide that it's pointless to go super tele.

[tommykjensen]

I have the 300 f/4L IS and 1,4x TC.

My next long lens will be the 400 f/5.6L.

I am avoiding the 100-400 for several reasons.

My main reason is that I don't like the push/pull zoom type (I have tried the lens). Nothing wrong with quality so thats not why I would not choose it. Second is that I would use the long end most, say between 300 and 400 so I might as well just go for the prime at 400.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by tommykjensen

I have the 300 f/4L IS and 1,4x TC.

My next long lens will be the 400 f/5.6L.

I am avoiding the 100-400 for several reasons.

My main reason is that I don't like the push/pull zoom type (I have tried the lens). Nothing wrong with quality so thats not why I would not choose it. Second is that I would use the long end most, say between 300 and 400 so I might as well just go for the prime at 400.

Just out of interest, if that were the case, are you still planning to use the 1.4X TC on the 400mm prime? Will AF still be available on your camera?

The zoom mechanism on the 100-400mm was an issue that some others have had, though I tell myself that I'd need to get used to it, and will do so, since there's hardly any other lens that will match my criteria (IS, long reach e.t.c). There's also been talk about the lens being a dust sucker, and I don't know if its a myth or a fact. It was interesting to read the 100-400mm vs 50-500mm threads on this forum...taught me something.

[tommykjensen]

Originally Posted by fWord

Just out of interest, if that were the case, are you still planning to use the 1.4X TC on the 400mm prime? Will AF still be available on your camera?

I have a 20D and the autofocus will not work if I use the TC on the 400 prime. I will definately try it but expect most of the time I will use the 400 without the TC.

Someday I hope to get a 1D MK II(N) which will autofocus with the 400 prime and the TC.

The zoom mechanism on the 100-400mm was an issue that some others have had

I am definately in the minority with my dislike of the push/pull zoom on the 100-400.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by tommykjensen

I have a 20D and the autofocus will not work if I use the TC on the 400 prime. I will definately try it but expect most of the time I will use the 400 without the TC.

Someday I hope to get a 1D MK II(N) which will autofocus with the 400 prime and the TC.




I am definately in the minority with my dislike of the push/pull zoom on the 100-400.

It's a good thought...almost like preparing for the future. I can't do nuts with manual focus even if my life depended on it though. It's the lack of experience.

For now though, the 300mm + 1.4X TC will actually provide a slightly better range than even the 400mm f/5.6...if you want to squeeze out an extra 32mm.

There's quite a few out there who dislike the push/ pull. At least that's what I gleaned from reviews at Fredmiranda. I might be able to live with it. But if there is a dust issue, then that's a different story altogether.