Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 14 Apr 2007 (Saturday) 02:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

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

 
JaGWiRE
Goldmember
3,859 posts
Joined Sep 2006
     
Apr 14, 2007 02:19 |  #1

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.


Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 Macro, 135L, 430ex, Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, Manfrotto 3001pro w/486rc2 and 804rc2 head, Manfrotto 681 w/ 3232 head.
http://www.brianstar.s​mugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weka2000
Is that a 300mm in your pocket?
Avatar
21,198 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 449
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Te Awamutu
     
Apr 14, 2007 02:36 |  #2

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3038644 (external link)
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


https://tonysearle.co.​nz (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
condyk
Africa's #1 Tour Guide
Avatar
20,887 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
     
Apr 14, 2007 02:40 |  #3

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 ;-)a 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.


https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1203740

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JaGWiRE
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,859 posts
Joined Sep 2006
     
Apr 14, 2007 02:41 |  #4

weka2000 wrote in post #3038698 (external link)
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?


Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 Macro, 135L, 430ex, Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, Manfrotto 3001pro w/486rc2 and 804rc2 head, Manfrotto 681 w/ 3232 head.
http://www.brianstar.s​mugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Raikyn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,155 posts
Likes: 1123
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Hawkes Bay , NZ
     
Apr 14, 2007 03:24 |  #5

weka2000 wrote in post #3038698 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JaGWiRE
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,859 posts
Joined Sep 2006
     
Apr 14, 2007 03:31 |  #6

condyk wrote in post #3038709 (external link)
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 ;-)a 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.


Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 Macro, 135L, 430ex, Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, Manfrotto 3001pro w/486rc2 and 804rc2 head, Manfrotto 681 w/ 3232 head.
http://www.brianstar.s​mugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
calicokat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,720 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
     
Apr 14, 2007 03:43 |  #7

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


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Website (external link)

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
farrukh
Goldmember
Avatar
1,969 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
     
Apr 14, 2007 04:21 |  #8

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


5D Mark II + 40D | Lenses: Sigma 150-500mm BigmOS / Canon 24-105mm F4L IS / Canon 70-200 F4L IS / Canon 85mm 1.8 / Sigma Macro 70mm f/2.8 EX / Sigma 10-20mm EX / Canon 50mm f/1.8 II / Sigma 1.4x APO TC / Kenko 2x PRO300 DG. Lighting: Canon 580EX II + Metz 58 AF-1 + Sunpak 383...
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Apr 14, 2007 07:26 |  #9

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.


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zacker
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,006 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Oxford, CT.
     
Apr 14, 2007 07:38 |  #10

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


http://www.theanimalha​ven.com (external link)
My Facebook, Friend me If you want!http://www.facebook.co​m/brokenfencephotograp​hy (external link)

http://www.facebook.co​m/theanimalhaven?ref=t​s (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JaGWiRE
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,859 posts
Joined Sep 2006
     
Apr 14, 2007 09:03 |  #11

CountryBoy wrote in post #3039236 (external link)
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.


Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 Macro, 135L, 430ex, Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, Manfrotto 3001pro w/486rc2 and 804rc2 head, Manfrotto 681 w/ 3232 head.
http://www.brianstar.s​mugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
Apr 14, 2007 09:09 |  #12

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


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JaGWiRE
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,859 posts
Joined Sep 2006
     
Apr 14, 2007 11:17 |  #13

morehtml wrote in post #3039519 (external link)
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.


Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 105 Macro, 135L, 430ex, Lowepro Mini Trekker AW, Manfrotto 3001pro w/486rc2 and 804rc2 head, Manfrotto 681 w/ 3232 head.
http://www.brianstar.s​mugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Apr 14, 2007 11:40 |  #14

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


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
Goldmember
Avatar
2,987 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
     
Apr 14, 2007 11:52 |  #15

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3040052 (external link)
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.


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery" (external link)
www.allensvisions.com (external link)

more glass than I need

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

7,853 views & 0 likes for this thread, 16 members have posted to it.
100-300 vs 300 f4 vs 100-400 vs 400 5.6
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Grasz
1063 guests, 159 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.