markesc wrote in post #17915840
This is what I'm wondering as I have the 100-400 II.... is the 300mm + 1.4xiii worth the additional cost?
Not to derail the thread, but would appreciate opinions from others!
100-400 @ F5.6 + 70d = 640mm @ 5.6 (I have)
300 mm F2.8 + 1.4x III + 70d = 672mm @ F4 (should I get?)
I have a 75-300L (that nobody wants to buy it seems....) so I could keep when wider angles are needed.
I have both, and IMO both lenses serve different purposes. I use 100-400 II as my walk around/general purpose wildlife/birding lens. On the other hand, I use 300mm mostly either as a bare lens at F2.8 or attached with 2X TC III, it's a specific lens for me. I very rarely attached the 300mm with 1.4, because the 100-400mm II is already enough for me. The 100-400mm II is a super sharp lens with very fast AF at any range and apertures.
IMHO, when you buy 300mm 2.8, that's because you need 300mm and 2.8. If you shoot almost always at 400mm, then buying 300mm 2.8 + 1.4 TC is not worth it. Or, like me, you buy it as an cheaper alternative of 600mm with 2X TC III.
If budget is not a problem and you have to choose between the 2, then I would recommend 300mm 2.8 plus 2X TC III instead of 1.4 TC.
Or, with the new release of 80D, you can just buy the camera and keep the 100-400 II and buy 1.4 TC III. With 80D, you will be able to AF up to 27 points at F8, that's really cool! Actually I might buy the 80D when it shows up in Canon refurb.