300 f4 vs 100-400 II

Hey all,

I've come across a used Canon 300 f4L at a good price. I think I want to buy it, mainly for motorsport (karting) use on a 7D.

Focal length and IS aside, I'd like to know how it compares in image quality and focus speed compared to the new 100-400 II. I have used the 100-400 lens and thought it was great, but am tempted by the less than a third of the price prime.

Adam

Heya,

Depends on your needs. 300mm on APS-C will actually be a lot of reach for karts. However, you will not have the ability to reduce the angle of view as they get close to you. A zoom would be ideal to be able to quickly respond to things close and far at the same time. Regardless of IQ, IS, etc, the AF speed is a wash, they both will AF blazing fast. The biggest difference is limiting yourself to a single focal length vs having a variable focal length. You have to weigh the compromise. In this case, the 100-400 II has no compromise other than aperture & price. That's it. Everything else it's really great at. The 300 F4L has two things in its favor, (1) aperture and (2) cost. You can get a used 300 F4L non-IS for like $450 these days. It's fast to AF, sharp wide open, and F4 is really nice for a telehpoto, and again, on APS-C, it's quite a bit of reach actually. The 100-400 II is probably a hair sharper, same fast AF, has IS (modern IS), variable focal lengths, etc, but it will cost you aperture (F5.6) and it will cost you price ($2,000). So that's a hard thing to compare. Most folk who shoot something know if they can live with a prime or a zoom. So that's on you to figure out.

Overall I think a zoom would be ideal for you. And really, I would think a 70-200 would be more ideal for this. But, a 100-400 (mKI) is even a good idea for the cost. I would only look at the 300 F4 if you know you want the longest budget telephoto with the widest aperture for lower light shooting with that 7D.

Very best,

I have both. As far as IQ goes both are excellent so that is a tie for me. The 100-400 AF is faster than the 300 and I have to mention the IS is much better. If I had to use my 300 only I would not hesitate for a moment. It is a very good lens. 9 years of bliss. I'll post images later.

Mal,

Firstly, you're posts are always very insightful, detailed and a pleasure to read, so thank you for that.

I did forget to mention that it was the IS version of the 300 I was looking at.

When I used the 100-400, I felt that I was always either at 100 or 400 and hardly ever in between. I haven't used a prime for this purpose before but I don't feel like I'd be too limited. Maybe I'm just being naive though.

I must say though that when I used the 100-400, a 70-200 and even the ef-s 55-250, I often felt like I had situations where I wanted a wider lens, for action that happened right in front of me, or for walking around the grid and pits etc. So for this reason I will almost always have a second camera on hand, probably fitted with a 24-105 on either another crop or a FF as my back up.

This would be the same with either of the two lenses I'm deciding on, so I don't think that the 100-400 holds and advantage in that area for me.

It's nice to hear that the 300 is a solid performer wide open and has excellent AF. The 2/3-1 stop improvement in light would also be welcomed on the 7D.

Thanks again for your reply.

Heya,

Park a lens at 300mm and shoot it a while, see how you feel about it.

As you said, you wanted wider angle sometimes, and this will necessitate a 2nd camera (if not using a zoom with wider angle) and wider lens, which you already have. Maybe look at a used 24-105 or even a Tamron 28-75 F2.8, they will work fine on your T3i for close up stuff, or just use your 24 STM a while and see if that works for you too, without buying anything more.

So it comes down to budget and how you want to shoot.

Very best,

I have a 24-105 on the way which I bought for a bargain price, so that will work well as my wider lens. I'll probably upgrade the T3i to something a bit tougher with more continuity in terms of ergonomics and memory storage. A second 7D or a 5DII fits the profile and budget there.

Some 300L F4 IS shots

A few more

I had both and they are both excellent. In my opinion, IS and focus speed are better on the 100-400 vII. I swapped the 300f4 for a 100-400 because I was shooting high school football and I found the zoom lens to be much more versatile. Now that being said, when I shoot football at night or birds in the rainforest, I would give anything to have f4 or even better f2.8. The AF would be faster and the iso lower.

Well Digital Paradise your images are stunning.

Based on everyone's thoughts here I have no need to further question the lens' focusing ability and image quality. I have agreed to buy the used 300 f4L IS. I look forward to getting my hands on it

Excellent shots Digital Paradise.

Thanks everyone. I just can't sell that lens even though it sits on the shelf most of the time. My wife said to keep it because as I get older (thanks a lot) it will be harder to hold the gear. Currently I'm using the 100-400 II but if Canon came out with a 400 5.6 V2 with IS that was just as affordable as the current one I'd take a serious look at it and maybe sell my 100-400 II which I find I shoot at 400mm 90% of the time.

Given the choice of using either the ef 300 f4 or the ef 100-400mm II, I would go for my 300mm every time.
I use mine on my 1D Mk IV. It is a great very versatile lens. It also handles my 1.4x II which gives it even more reach if needed. (1.4 x 300mm = 420mm at f5.6)