100-300 vs 300 f4 vs 100-400 vs 400 5.6

How's the af speed on all of these lenses compare? (the Sigma 100-300 and 300 f4L IS with 1.4x tele)
Can you bird with them (100-300, 300 f4L, with teleconverters (1.4x)) or are the native 400mm lenses better?
I think (correct me if I'm wrong), IQ is decent enough on all of them, with or without TC.

I'll be doing some birding probably, mostly other stuff though I think. I ask, because the Sigma is priced best for me, and I like that it's black / has internal focusing (unlike 100-400.) 300 f4L IS is nice, but IQ is comparable to Sigma 100-300, with a 1.4x it apparently still is not up to par with 400 5.6 in terms of af speed and IQ. The 100-400L is nice, but the push pull system might not be for my (tiny hands, short arms, etc), and it is also big and white.
I don't know how much I'll be using the telephoto, but it should be a decent amount of time. The 100-300 does fit the budget best at the moment though.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3038644
How's the af speed on all of these lenses compare? (the Sigma 100-300 and 300 f4L IS with 1.4x tele)
Can you bird with them (100-300, 300 f4L, with teleconverters (1.4x)) or are the native 400mm lenses better?
I think (correct me if I'm wrong), IQ is decent enough on all of them, with or without TC.

I'll be doing some birding probably, mostly other stuff though I think. I ask, because the Sigma is priced best for me, and I like that it's black / has internal focusing (unlike 100-400.) 300 f4L IS is nice, but IQ is comparable to Sigma 100-300, with a 1.4x it apparently still is not up to par with 400 5.6 in terms of af speed and IQ. The 100-400L is nice, but the push pull system might not be for my (tiny hands, short arms, etc), and it is also big and white.
I don't know how much I'll be using the telephoto, but it should be a decent amount of time. The 100-300 does fit the budget best at the moment though.

All of them will require good light. If money is the object and there are "other" intrests then the Sigma 100-300 will be a good start. It will take a 1.4TC and retain autofocus. There is also the Sigma 50-500 as another option.

This was my learning lens. It taught me heaps about telephoto

I've had all these lenses with and without TCons. I like them all IQ wise and really it is more about handling for me and exact utility, ie is prime OK or is a zoom going to be more useful? They all produce great shots and I wouldn't nit-pick personally. I'm sure one or other might be better on this or that or the other but, really, let's get a life The thing with the 100-300mm is it must have good support or it can be just so-so due to shake. BUT it is f4.0 and works very well there and also works well at 5.6 with a TCon, not losing AF speed or too much IQ in my experience. The 400mm is lovely and fast AF but restrictive for general use and no IS so for consistent shots you may need a tripod ... easier than the SIgma tho'. The 300mm has IS and f4.0 but AF seemed to slow on mine with a TCon and I noted IQ reduced. Very nice to use tho'. I hate to say it but the 100-400mm IS L is probably the best all round compromise lens as allows for consistent results with walkaround and tripod shooting. IQ up there but not IMO as good as the 100-300mm ... nothing in it tho' really. IF you feel you'll always be at 400mm then the 400mm is great, but for flexibility the 100-400mm is better and shooting from a hide, with f4.0, good AF and performance with a TCon, then the 100-300mm. I dunno ... none is better. Depends what you want. I just got my second 100-400mm IS L even tho' I don't like push-pull - it's all about compromises in context of specific needs. The Bigma is another great option. Had that too and rate it.

weka2000 wrote in post #3038698
All of them will require good light. If money is the object and there are "other" intrests then the Sigma 100-300 will be a good start. It will take a 1.4TC and retain autofocus. There is also the Sigma 50-500 as another option.

This was my learning lens. It taught me heaps about telephoto

The 50-500 focus I think may be a tad slow.
Ultimately the 400 5.6 is probably out of the question because it lacks IS. The 100-300 is still in there because of it's price, however, the 300 F4L IS is quite afforderabel these days as well.
Decisions decisions. I guess it's all a compromise and that there isn't much anyone can tell me.
In good daylight though, will the 300 f4L with a 1.4x focus as smoothly as the 100-400?

weka2000 wrote in post #3038698
All of them will require good light. If money is the object and there are "other" intrests then the Sigma 100-300 will be a good start. It will take a 1.4TC and retain autofocus. There is also the Sigma 50-500 as another option.

This was my learning lens. It taught me heaps about telephoto

I was thinking myself of using the 50-500 to begin with(is that yours on trademe?) but think I might go with the Canon 400L 5.6.

condyk wrote in post #3038709
I've had all these lenses with and without TCons. I like them all IQ wise and really it is more about handling for me and exact utility, ie is prime OK or is a zoom going to be more useful? They all produce great shots and I wouldn't nit-pick personally. I'm sure one or other might be better on this or that or the other but, really, let's get a life The thing with the 100-300mm is it must have good support or it can be just so-so due to shake. BUT it is f4.0 and works very well there and also works well at 5.6 with a TCon, not losing AF speed or too much IQ in my experience. The 400mm is lovely and fast AF but restrictive for general use and no IS so for consistent shots you may need a tripod ... easier than the SIgma tho'. The 300mm has IS and f4.0 but AF seemed to slow on mine with a TCon and I noted IQ reduced. Very nice to use tho'. I hate to say it but the 100-400mm IS L is probably the best all round compromise lens as allows for consistent results with walkaround and tripod shooting. IQ up there but not IMO as good as the 100-300mm ... nothing in it tho' really. IF you feel you'll always be at 400mm then the 400mm is great, but for flexibility the 100-400mm is better and shooting from a hide, with f4.0, good AF and performance with a TCon, then the 100-300mm. I dunno ... none is better. Depends what you want. I just got my second 100-400mm IS L even tho' I don't like push-pull - it's all about compromises in context of specific needs. The Bigma is another great option. Had that too and rate it.

Is the AF speed a big difference with the TC on the 300mm lens?
The one I think is the best compromise for handholding is the 300 F4 because it's small, and has IS / I think will be easier to hold solid because it's a lot shorter then the 100-400.

The 400 F/5.6L is going to have the fastest AF speed, its one of the fastest there is

Ah man you've spent a lot of energy/time on this, stop thinking now and pull the trigger on Sigma 100-300 F4.

Unless your buying used, the 300mm F4L IS, 400mm f5.6 and the 100-300 are priced very close to each other at B&H.

I usually handhold the Sigma without the tcon. But I've started using the monopod when using the tcon. I've also started using the remote with the tcon. One hand under the lens, the other on the pod with the remote. Results have been very good.

Since you have the 70-200 f/4 , I might be tempted to get the 400 5.6. Would you really need the 70-200 and the 100-300mm ?

I think i am going to get the 400mm 5.6 latter this year. Then start looking for a used EX 500 4.5 next spring.

siggie 80-400 OS is also something to look at!

CountryBoy wrote in post #3039236
Unless your buying used, the 300mm F4L IS, 400mm f5.6 and the 100-300 are priced very close to each other at B&H.

I usually handhold the Sigma without the tcon. But I've started using the monopod when using the tcon. I've also started using the remote with the tcon. One hand under the lens, the other on the pod with the remote. Results have been very good.

Since you have the 70-200 f/4 , I might be tempted to get the 400 5.6. Would you really need the 70-200 and the 100-300mm ?

I think i am going to get the 400mm 5.6 latter this year. Then start looking for a used EX 500 4.5 next spring.

400 5.6 is going, the 135L has replaced it.
To substitute for lack of lost FL, I guess the 100-300, 300F4L and 1-4 would do the best job.
Zacker, af waaaay too slow.

The 400 prime is the best birding lens with the 100-400 L coming in second.

morehtml wrote in post #3039519
The 400 prime is the best birding lens with the 100-400 L coming in second.

Birding will be a small portion of what I shoot though.

I had a 100-300/4 for a while, and it is an excellent lens. With a 1.4TC it does pretty well, and is a nice compromise to the more expensive 400mm solutions. But, I found that at 420 it wasn't quite long enough for birding. I am in the process of replacing it with a 400/5.6 which I plan to extend with a 1.4TC

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3040052
Birding will be a small portion of what I shoot though.

The 100-400 would seem to be the best option but looks like you want the 100-300 for price reasons and don't like the push/pull and white lens. A 100-300 or 300 f/4 will be really tough for small birds but might work for larger heron style birds or tamer feeder birds.