Canon 300F4IS +TC or Canon 100-400 L ver 1 ?

I want to upgrade my long lens ??i will use on a Canon 70D and SL1,for birding and wildlife,?
I have a nice Tamron 70-300 VC..
I don't want a super monster,,one of the 150-600 lens,,i been pondering this for some time??have read reviews..and asked ??s and have it down to this,,300 F4 IS with a 1.4TC or a 100-400 IS ver 1??
I will buy used and they seem to be about the same price ?/with the 300+TC being a tad more??
I think the 300 +TC would be more usefull ??
At 74 I am not as steady as i might be,,so i want IS,,and then i could choose IS on or off.??
Any suggestions on which to choose ?? Spring is comin and i want to be ready !
Thanks Ron

I've owned both and would choose the zoom every time. IQ @ 400m is better with zoom, you have more versatility of range and you don't have to futz with a TC.

Hey Ron,
Having gone through this decision myself between a 300mm, the 150-600 and the 100-400 I sure am glad I went with the 100-400 zoom. Mine is the 100-400 L II. I commonly use my Kenko 1.4X multiplier with it as the Kenko allows autofocus on my 6D and 60D with center point.

Reason the zoom comes in so handy is for smaller birds. I find it extremely difficult to find small fast moving birds in the viewfinder when fully zoomed. I am constantly having to go wider to help locate the bird and then zoom to enlarge. I would be extremely frustrated with a fixed focal length lens.

Fairly often I wish for even more focal length. A bird like the Cedar Waxwings visiting right now at 30 feet distance could easily use the 150-600 range but like you I doubt I could hand hold that beast steady or for long.

I recently got the Wimberly Sidekick and it really helps with the weight for $250. If you have a good tripod and strong ball head this works really well for birding. Just need a very smooth operating panning function. Amazing how much easier it is to use a heavy lens with this. Of course you can't always carry a tripod around but if your style of shooting allows it I highly recommend looking into a gimbal type mount and for the money the Sidekick is great.
Pete

Thanks for your imput,,my budget is limited so the 100-400 L II is too costly,,
any more ?? Ron

I am sure I would have been very happy with the version 1 of the 100-400 as I am just a hobby shooter. Not trying to sway you to the V II. Just trying to emphasize the benefits of the zoom over a fixed length lens for me.

Yes Pete i under stand,,,And we are just Hobby shooters also and like photography,,,so guess i will watch for a deal on a like new Canon 100-400L ver ! ?
any one else want to add something ??
And Thanks Ron

I owned the original 100-400L for several years before upgrading to the version 2. The original is still a very good lens, especially at its current street price. The image stabilization system on the original is quite old, so it will not gain you much extra hand holdability (probably 1-2 stops), but I believe that is the case with the 300 f/4 IS prime as well.

I am not a big proponent of buying a lens that's too short to meet your needs and then keeping a TC attached at all times to make up for that focal length deficiency. Better to buy the length you need, as long as you can find something to fit your budget. Teleconverters compromise both image quality and auto focus performance, so I prefer to use them as an occasional supplement instead of a permanent fixture on a lens. BTW, I never was able to obtain acceptable results using a TC on the original 100-400L -- I got better results cropping the image in post processing. The new version 2 lens, though works much better with a 1.4x TC for those occasional times where I need a little more reach.

Going a bit against the grain here - sorry!
I used to have an excellent copy of the Canon 100-400 Mk1 - it was a great lens until I tried a Canon 300 F4 L IS. The only point where the 300 was lacking was it didn't zoom - but as rarely shot the 100-400 at less than 400 that wasn't really an issue. Anyway after playing with the 300 F4 my 100-400 was promptly up for sale! The 300 was significantly sharper, so much so that I could crop much more heavily and still retain a good image - in other words I had better IQ and more "Reach" from a shorter lens! Also the 300 will focus closer making it an excellent lens for larger insects and small reptiles etc.
My suggestion, from your options, is the Canon 300 F4 L IS. Don't worry about extenders as mine out reached my 100-400 - though a Canon 1.4 extender can be handy. The IS system is an early version and not that great (this applies to the 100-400 as well) so turn it off and save it for those times when you just can't get the shutter speed that you want.
Just my thoughts.

I've yet to try the 100-400, so I can only give my opinion of the 300mm f/4L.

I got an amazingly good deal on the 300mm, so I grabbed it and a Canon 1.4X mark I for several hundreds less than the Zoom.
I occasionally miss the ability to zoom, but really enjoy the IQ of this lens...even with the 1.4x converter.
I've even managed to get usable shots with the Canon 1.4X and Tamron 1.4X stacked and connected to the 300 L , though AF is slow with this combo.

I did a lot of bird photography when I had my 60D and into my 6D days. I had, over the course of 2010-2015:

The 100-400 "dust pump"
The 70-300/4-5.6L
The 300mm f/4L IS USM + 1.4x II

For me, the 100-400 was easily my least favorite. I had no real issue with the pump action, it just didn't get me sharp enough, contrasty enough shots at the 400mm end. This prompted me to upgrade to the 70-300L, which was a big improvement, near prime level of sharpness at 300mm, amazingly good IS. When I got my 6D, I also bought the 300mm f/4 L IS and 1.4x mk II, the idea being that I would have similar reach on the FF body. The 300mm prime was not a bad lens, but after using the 70-300L it was a bit of a disappointment. I was expectingly it to out resolve the zoom simply from being a prime. It did not. It performs about the same, at least in the center where I cared about it for birds and small animals. But.. the 70-300L autofocuses faster, its IS is worlds better, and it's easier to carry around. And of course it is a lot more flexible for having the 70-300 range.

I would not care to use the 100-400L mk I ever again, and I wouldn't really get excited about the 300mm f/4L IS either, though it was OK. The 70-300L was the only one of the 3 that I wouldn't mind having back.

Would I be in the minority here if I said, in regards to the sharpness of a Canon lens; You have to get a sharp one?

I had the Canon 100-400 L ver 1 and was never happy with it - it just seemed rather soft all around. I do not know
if I got "a bad one" or if a 400 mm zoom is pushing any kind of limit.

I agree - the zoom is a nice feature and I do miss the flexibility.

On the other hand, I did pick up the 300 mm f/4 with IS and a 1.4X extender - and I love it! Love, love, love! And
I don't say "Love" and "Canon" often in the same sentence. I put the 1.4X on the lens and never take it off. It's
small, relatively light, is relatively fast (f/4 throughout), has a sun shade that slides back and forth vs being removable
and... and... it takes phenomenally sharp pics:

Here's a shot from the parking garage at Elizabeth, NJ featuring an Acela Express about 4 miles away - 'course, the
conditions were nearly perfect with the Sun lining up with the ROW and low in the sky.

f/ 6.3 1/1600th at ISO 800 (cropped some, as well)

http://www.railpicture​s.net/viewphoto.php?id​=569846

/Mitch

Please refer to my post above - you are not alone!

Another option, if you are planning on leaving the TC permanently mounted on the 300 f/4 IS, is the EF 400mm f/5.6 prime. Both lenses are effectively f/5.6 if you are using a TC on the 300mm, you will probably get better AF performance on the 400mm prime without a TC, and the image quality of that prime is stellar, too. You lose IS, but the IS of the 300mm is an older type (similar to the 100-400L v1). The 400mm prime can be found used for attractive prices since the 100-400L v2 has hit the market.

Heya,

It's all about compromise.

There's a lot to consider, and it really needs to tailor to your needs and your situation of actual shooting. Ie, what size birds and distance, and in what light, perched or in flight. Ie, what size animals and distance, and in what light. I think it may be safe to say that stressing in flight and chasing things around is not the goal, but that's for you to decide. This is why it's important to consider what you are actually doing for your shots, and not just what we all think.

I look at it like this though, for a casual shooter that will just shoot what they happen upon at any given time, with no preparation, a zoom is simply going to be the handier tool. It let's you quickly react and potentially capture something at various ranges based on where you physically are in relation to the subject. So when you're just walking around, this will be a good tool. The 100-400 is really good for just being capable, reasonably fast in good light, ok IS which every bit helps, and it has great optics.

If you're going to approach it like a bow hunter, then consider the advantages of the prime. I do not at all discount the difference between F4 and F5.6. To me, when doing wildlife, that is big. When birding, that is big. Especially when dealing with light that is not ideal, and dealing with backdrops that are not ideal. If you're going to be patient, study, stalk, prepare and be in a location for your subject, this is a great tool as an alternative to do a different kind of shot. I would use the 300 F4 naked, for it's aperture & speed. Adding a 1.4x TC is great when you really need the extra pixels on target and can be ok with aperture loss. I would not get it with the intent of always using a TC. I would simply include a 1.4x TC as an option for when things are just very distant and a few more pixels make the difference for you. Otherwise, I would consider the 300 F4 as naked lens and use it that way to keep it's advantages. IS is very handy, but you can get the non-IS for considerably less and it's worth considering for a budget approach to really good telephoto birding on APS-C.

You also need to consider size, weight and overall ergonomics. You'e had a long lens in the past and didn't bother with it (500mm). Ask yourself why? Will you do the same thing with a 400mm? Will a 300mm prime be small and light enough that you are more likely to actually use it? Lots to consider here, because all the great properties in a lens in the world is moot, if you won't actually pick it up and take it out and enjoy it from a physical aspect.

In the same sense, a 150-600 flavor may also be worth considering. It's bigger, heavier, and longer. But, it's an end-game long lens to relax and shoot with from a seat if you want, or a blind, best used on a tripod and just take your time with things. You can get one for $700 these days, here in the POTN forum, about the same cost as a 100-400. And for small birds, deer, etc, I would get one, with better stabilization, more reach, etc. Worth considering. But again, you had 500mm before, and you got rid of it, so there's something to think about in big lenses. Maybe you would be happier with a shorter, smaller lens.

One thing to remember, is what will you gain over a 70-300 VC. You can gain AF speed, aperture, overall sharpness. But at what cost is it going to be worth it to you?

Very best,

I used 400 f5.6 L for many years and had the EF300 f4 L IS for most of that time and still do.
I have replaced the 400 L with the 100-400 II. I have never used the 100-400 V1.
Recently I have used the 300 f4 with 1.4 Teleconverter. I borrowed a Tamron 150-600 for a week, own the Sigma 150-600 S but have not used the Sigma 150-600 C.

The 400 L prime is a fantastic lens but I missed many shots over the years which I would not have with the fantastic IS that the 100-400 II has. While the IS on the 300 f4 is an early generation it does still provide a couple of stops of stabilization.

For your use I would reconsider a "supermonster", specifically the Sigma 150-600 C. A bit heavier than 100-400 V1 or 300 f4. IS probably better than both of those. Obvious advantage of the 150-600 range in one lens. Disadvantage in max magnification, 300 f4 particularly has small Minimum Focus Distance and 100-400 V1 is pretty good too. A small loss of aperture with the Sigma, f5 from 150-179mm and f5.6 from 180-387mm so a full stop advantage at 300mm with the 300 f4.

I rate the AF of the 400 prime superior to the bare 300 f4 and much better than 300 f4 with 1.4 TC. 300 f4 with 1.4 TC is still a pretty good combo and even better for small subjects such as small flowers, dragonflies, butterflies as MFD does not change with addition of 1.4TC.

If you mostly use tripod or are super steady the 400 prime will shine and it was the king of BIF for years.

Sigma is around 500 grams or 1.1 pound heavier than 300f4 and 1.4TC or 100-400 V1 options and a bit more again compared to 400 prime so if you can manage that weight it would be my pick unless you want to target specific use, such as BIF.