Moving from 100-400L ?

I use Canon 100-400L IS USM with 7D mostly for shooting birds. It's a nice lens, although I have often wished for sharper results.
Wandering into my local camera shop (can be a dangerous thing to do) they have a used Canon 300 L IS USM f4 which they said would give sharper results and which would also work well with a Canon 1.4 converter (which I already have).
They would do a deal accepting the 100-400 as trade in, if I decided to change.
Reading the on-line reviews the 300, which was introduced in 1997, gets a lot of accolades from satisfied users for overall IQ and particularly for its sharpness,
I am wondering if anyone has compared or used both lenses with the 7D, and if the change would be worthwhile.
Any comments/suggestions welcome.

I owned the 300 f/4L IS for about two years and used it with a 1.4X TC about 40% of the time. I sold it in favor of the 100-400L about a year ago.

For me the zoom is better because I shoot a lot of field sports and the ability to zoom makes the lens a lot more functional.

I don't see much difference in the IQ. I think the 300/4 was just a little sharper than the zoom at 300mm, but the difference is only observable in 1:1 views on the monitor. In most prints, really there is no difference. And once I add the TC, then the lenses are about the same even at 1:1 views.

If your 100-400L really is a bit soft relative to the prime, then perhaps it needs service.

300 f/4 IS is a very versatile prime, giving f/4 @ 300mm and IS. I loved it when I owned one (for 4 years). My only complaints about the lens was its PF at wide open in high contrast situations and that it wasn't 400mm. I own the 400 f/5.6 now which doesn't suffer from PF the way the 300 did, though it doesn't have IS and it has a poor MFD.

Having said all of that, I'm not sure you're going to get (much) sharper results with a prime, especially at 420mm f/5.6. Maybe you could post some shots (with exif) that you feel are lacking?

I have both and use them on 1.6 crops--just not the 7D

I'm very satisfied with the results of the little 300, so much so that I kept it after the upgrade to the big brother. The 100-400 works pretty well when you can't foot zoom but I've never been entirely happy with the end result IQ wise.

A TC slows the AF down--and the 300 with first generation IS is noisy if you need to get close to a wary subject.

You can MA a fixed focal length, but adjusting for a zoom is a compromise.

I have a 100-400 and certainly wouldn't want to give up on it's flexability for a prime anything. I would like to get the 300 f4 or 2.8 as an add to but not as an in place of. My 100-400 is sharp as a tack anywhere up to 350 and good enough for me at its top end.

Not a good choice. when you shoot birds, you are usually on the 400 end. aht 100-400 at 400 5.6 will be at least as sharp if not sharper, and faster focusing than the 300 f4 plus tc, although you get slightly more reach with the latter. you also loose ability to zoom. If you are not happy, shooting bif, and are willing to go with a prime, get the 400 5.6. It will be slightly sharper, faster focusing, lighter that 100-400, with better contrast.

Hi,
I had the 100-400 and was listening to the constant harping on about how good the 300 f4 and the 400 f5.6 were.
I took my zoom to my camera shop and did a comparison. I couldn't see any difference between my zoom and the 300 f4 both bare, and with my 1.4x TC. My 100-400 has been callibrated and is a sharp version. I think your money would be better spent having yours checked. I eventually got a Sigma 300 f2.8 which I use with a 1.4x TC. Wide open I'm getting good results, and, it was cheap enough for me to keep as well as the 100-400 with its zoom versitility.

I have gone this route several times and I am still with the 100-400.

Thanks to all who responded with comments.
I will bring 7D to store and link up the 300mm, take a few sample shots with both lenses, and go from there....(presuming they haven't sold the 300!)

300mm f/4L IS vs. 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

Here's what I like about the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens;

It has zoom versatility...

Here's what I like about the 300mm f/4L IS lens:

1. It is faster at 300mm than the 100-400L at 300mm

2. It has a closer MFD. In fact it is a pretty nice long focal length close focus lens and is even nicer with the 1.4x TC which increases focal length but doesn't change the MFD.

3. This is not often mentioned but, the sliding lens hoods of the 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L are a pleasure with which to shoot. The sliding hood facilitates rotation of a CPL filter and I can collapse the hood for carrying but, get the camera in use with hood extended far quicker than attaching the separate hood of the 100-400L. It is also quicker and easier to attach and detach lens caps with the hood that slides back. I wish the 70-200mm (series) lenses had sliding hoods...

Here's what I don't like about the 300mm f/4L IS lens:

It doesn't zoom...

However, it works quite well with the 1.4x TC which gives me a 420mm f/5.6 lens.

I usually shoot with at least two cameras and will often either use the 300mm f/4L IS and the 400mm f/5.6L or combine the 300L with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which gives me a great focal length versatility.

As far as the quality of the 300L (with or without the TC) vs. the 100-400L, I cannot make a comment since I have had very limited experience with the 100-400L and have never used the two lenses side by side to compare them...

I think the TC is misrepresented a bit here.

To me it does little to sharpness (aka not that I notice without pixel peeping), but contrast suffers a bit. I think it's very good picture quality but I imagine that you will take a hit on colorful birds.

I didn't notice a AF slowdown with my 200 f/2.8 II prime or the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. But then I didn't stopwatch around.

Personally I'd go with the 400 L prime.

My advice, for what it is worth, is to hang tightly onto your 100-400L.

I say this having been in a simular situation to you. Having had the 100-400L for some time I craved for extra reach and started lusting about the 500L so I set about saving...

I did question whether I should sell on my 100-400L to pull some more funds into my savings for the 500L but I just couldn't part with it. Now, having owned my dream 500L for some time I am so very glad I hung onto the 100-400L because, in a way, the 500L, whilst all its cracked up to be, has reemphasised just how versatile the 100-400L actually is.

For its reach, it's still what I would consider to be an easy to pack lens, it's also not a nightmare to carry around and it's scope both in this respect and it's focal range is something I would be lost without.

I appreciate it may sound daft to say that owning the 500L has further confirmed what a great lens the 100-400L is (and this is not at all a slur on the 500 as that's a magical lens also) but if I had have sold the 100-400L I would already have now re-purchased one.

Versatile, easy to pack, easy to lug around, great image quality, the 100-400L is right up there as one of my most hallowed lenses. I would never part with it (indeed, even when out with the 500L I invariably have the 100-400L hooked up to a secondary body).

Anyway, just my two cents....

Andrew

I debated a lot too between 300f/4 IS + 1.4TC / 400 f/5.6 / 100-400. As much ever as I would have liked to buy the 100-400 for its versatility and IS, I finally went with 400 only due to my budget. If I were you, I would have never sold off the 100-400 for the prime unless the prime is a f/2.8 or something that most mortals / hobbyists like me cannot afford / justify spending money on.

Andrew Tingle wrote in post #13330218
My advice, for what it is worth, is to hang tightly onto your 100-400L.

I say this having been in a simular situation to you. Having had the 100-400L for some time I craved for extra reach and started lusting about the 500L so I set about saving...

I did question whether I should sell on my 100-400L to pull some more funds into my savings for the 500L but I just couldn't part with it. Now, having owned my dream 500L for some time I am so very glad I hung onto the 100-400L because, in a way, the 500L, whilst all its cracked up to be, has reemphasised just how versatile the 100-400L actually is.

For its reach, it's still what I would consider to be an easy to pack lens, it's also not a nightmare to carry around and it's scope both in this respect and it's focal range is something I would be lost without.

I appreciate it may sound daft to say that owning the 500L has further confirmed what a great lens the 100-400L is (and this is not at all a slur on the 500 as that's a magical lens also) but if I had have sold the 100-400L I would already have now re-purchased one.

Versatile, easy to pack, easy to lug around, great image quality, the 100-400L is right up there as one of my most hallowed lenses. I would never part with it (indeed, even when out with the 500L I invariably have the 100-400L hooked up to a secondary body).

Anyway, just my two cents....

Andrew

I just sold my 500 f4L. Although I loved the lens I hardly used it because of the burden of taking it along. I love the 100-400. I was testing it out with the
1.4x in my backyard today and prefer its versatility.

560mm, f8, 1/320, ISO 2000, handheld & heavily cropped