Canon 300mm f4 L + 1.4x ii Teleconverter OR Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 for Wildlife/Travel? Please help!

Hello everyone!
I just joined this forum after some much needed advice from anyone who has used either of these lenses, it would be greatly appreciated! Wildlife photography is new to me, so I apologise for any mistakes!

A quick background: I am traveling out to British Columbia in Canada for two years on a working holiday visa (I'm 22). I'm then heading up to the beautiful Yukon! I currently take landscapes with my Canon 17-40mm f/4L but would love to capture the wildlife in Canada whilst I am there. (Bears, eagles, moose). I also have a 24-70mm 2.8 lens which covers a lot of needs for me.
I have read so much about the prime Canon 300mm, newer 70-300mm and also the older 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L- but still cannot make up my mind! My budget is around £1000, I am looking to purchase second hand. Weight and size is a factor, as I am traveling around the country/staying in hostels etc.

I understand that the 70-300mm is incredibly sharp, compact and weather sealed, but I worry that I would feel that 300mm just isn't enough for some of the wildlife I would see in Canada, and no teleconverters can be used on it? I also don't think I would use any other length other than the 300mm on this lens.
I am leaning slightly more towards the 300mm prime, as I have the option of adding the teleconverter and I have read great reviews of this combination. The older 100-400mm model worries me as I have read a few negative reviews regarding the image quality and of course, its age.

Anyway before I drive myself absolutely mad ...some advice on which telephoto to buy would be amazing!!

Heya,

A 2nd hand 100-400 MKI would make the most sense for what you've described, with the 70-300L as a close second if you want a bit less size & weight and flash. F5.6 is on the slow side of things, so you still need good light. F4 will get you more light and allow for a wee bit lower light conditions.

I would not take a 300 F4L prime with 1.4x TC for a generic travel/wildlife setup. You'll most often end up coming up too short or too long. The 300 F4L is a great lens, mind, and has very fast focus and is accurate and will be great for things like birds in flight (assuming they are close to you or very large). But ultimately, the 100-400 MKI is more versatile, has more reach over all, has stabilization for lower light, etc, still very hand-holdable. And it folds down nicely to fit in a bag. And the 70-300L is a wee bit smaller in general, also very flexible and versatile.

If you want the smallest, largest focal range with L quality telephoto zoom, the 70-300L would be it. Great travel lens.

If your focus is more wildlife, go 100-400 MKI. You read a negative review? From where? That's outstanding as you found the most rare review I think.

If your focus is purely birds in flight, consider the 300 F4L or 400 F5.6L primes. I wouldn't use TC's here.

I would stress not to even think of TC's in general no matter what. Just get the physical focal lengths you think you want/need. TC's are ideal on F2.8 lenses. Some on F4's. I wouldn't bother on the 300 F4 when you can just get a 400 F5.6 and forgo the TC all together.

Since you stress wildlife, I would just get a 2nd hand 100-400 MKI. It's overall the most versatile telephoto in your budget range and you will need as much reach as you can get for bears & moose as a tourist.

Your budget will go far if you buy once you're on this continent. 1k pounds becomes a lot of USD and CDN dollars, and you could get a ton of lens for that here, or even two. Might want to consider that once you get an address in Canada/USA. It's not that far from the border so you can easily rent a car, drive over, pick up a lens, go back. Buying in UK (I assume based on your currency) you'll spend more just because of location. So I would just convert that cash when you get here, and have a lot more buying power. You could nearly get a 2nd hand Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, and that would be amazing for what you're trying to do.

Welcome, and we look forward to seeing some photos!

Very best,

In BC, the wildlife come to you . For taking pics of eagles or heron, 300-400mm is enough. Hell, sometimes I even take pics of eagles with my phone. They can be so close to you.

Depending where you live, sometimes the bears, moose, coyotes just walking around in your neighborhood.

Thats why my longest lens is only 400mm, sometimes I need 2x TC if I want to take pics of small birds. But for big animals, either of your choice will be fine.

These pics were taken by Samsung S5

assuming you're on a FF body, i'd want as long as you can get..i don't think the 300mm prime would be a good choice, as i think the flexibility of the zoom would be better...the 100-400mm if you're ok with the size is what i'd go for

The 150-600's from Tamron and the Sigma C are also in the budget

Any reason you aren't considering simply renting a 100-400L ii?

vengence wrote in post #17834119
Any reason you aren't considering simply renting a 100-400L ii?

Two years.

Very best,

I went from the 400 5.6 to the 100-400ii. I use it a LOT at mid-length for 'macro' shots. And it replaces my 70-200, too.

For wildlife you generally need around 400mm minimum on a crop or 600mm on FF. Of course you can sometimes get away with less, but if you only have shorter gear, you will miss many opportunities. So I would look into the 100-400mm ver 1, and a crop body to get you pixel density.

Yes, the old 100-400 had issues with sample variability. You need to make sure you get a good one. I have had two and both were excellent.

Gear is cheap now in Canada because of our sinking dollar, as mentioned by Mal.

The only negative with the 100-400 MK I is when using filters, especially "protective" ones. The simple answer to that is DON'T! Used without a filter the lens is great. I would also be recommending looking at the Sigma 150-600C the additional features over the Tamron, at basically the same price are well worth while. The Sigma has a better stabilisation system than the Tamron, and both are about two stops better than the Canon MK I, and it is customizable using the dock. The 16 point AF micro adjustment is also useful if necessary, especially as it works on ALL bodies, not just those with MFA. I also like that the Sigma zoom lock works at any of the marked focal lengths, and except at 150mm can be disengaged by a firm twist of the zoom ring. The Sigma C version is a bit bigger than the 100-400, I just measured my 150-600C and it is 28 cm long with the caps on each end, when at minimum length. I have found on my 50D at least the Sigma optical quality, at the shared focal lengths, is basically the same as the mark one 100-400 L. The Sigma also has the sealing gasket on the mount, the same as the L's and sigma Sport lenses. The first time I used my Sigma was for the "Super Moon" eclipse, and the lens got very wet due to dew formation, I just wiped it off with a microfiber cloth and all was well. The Sigma C seems to be as well sealed as the Canon L, which needs a filter on the front to complete the sealing, and the 100-400 doesn't really like the filter.

As well as the Canon mark one and Sigma C I have also tried the Tamron 150-600 and to be honest I was not that impressed with the Tamron, the Tamron VC unlike the other options doesn't have a panning mode, which can be limiting at times. The Tamron is an OK lens, but the Sigma offers so much more for pretty much the same money. The Canon is the smallest and lightest of the options, but to be honest I haven't really noticed a significant difference in using any of the three of them. I would also check out Canadian prices, as it may well be better to buy once you get to Canada. As well as the possible price differences you won't have to worry about fly out there with the lens. Doing secondhand you might even be able to buy out there and sell it on again just before you come home for not much overall cost at all.

Alan

Hello everyone!!
Wow - I can't thank you enough for all of your replies. They have been beyond useful. Its all very well reading questions posted by others, but having answers that are personal to you is so much better!

Thats a great idea about buying the gear in Canada - I never thought of that.
100-400 ii would be my ultimate choice if money was no object, but I would rather save a little more money for travel costs and get a slightly less expensive lens. Thank you also, BigAl007 - I did look at the Tamron 150-600mm and it looks amazing but I think a little too large for the sort of places I will be staying. I thought long and hard about which lens to buy over the past few days and decided that I didn't need the versatility of the zoom. In the end I went for the Canon 300mm F4 lens after seeing examples of its amazing clarity and sharpness. I understand that it is also a lot lighter and easier to handle than the 100-400. If I find that the 300mm range is too restricting, I might get the 1.4 ii extender (I know you advised against it MalVeaux) to just add a bit of extra length.

Thank you so much again everyone for you input, I really look forward to becoming a more active member of the forum!

I just looked at this. Really, while the 300mm is a great sharp lens, there is no substitute in certain situations for a good zoom. No one mentioned it but I think a 50-500mm Sigma with OS makes a great do-everything lens. You do have to protect it from bumps.
The idea that the animals will come to you in Alaska is cool except for the big bears--you might want some distance. Those shots above show the shortcomings of cell-phone images.
Look, this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. A little extra weight and length for a powerful zoom is well worthwhile if you come out with stunning images. Both of these with the 50-500mm.

Photo from advaitin's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (710566)