Yes, another "can't decide" which lens 300 2.8 IS I, 100-400 II or maybe even 400 2.8 IS I

Been looking for a 300 2.8 IS for a while and may have found a nice one locally at a good price. That said, the 100-400 II is very intriguing as it seems to be very versatile for outdoor use - especially the closer focusing ability. There are also a few 100-400 II for sale for about $800US less than the 300 2.8.

I (used to) shoot mainly indoor volleyball (when the kids were allowed to play) and beach volleyball, sports, dogs, portraits, birds, airshows, etc. For birding, it's usually at a bird sanctuary so the 300 tends to be more than enough. I do have a 1.4x II as well.

I'm not overly concerned about weight (I say that NOW while I'm kinda young).

While my 70-200 is great for vball - there are a few times I wish I had more reach and with new social distancing rules where we are - I may be further than the action than before the pandemic - but it's a maybe.

So, do I go for the "dream" 300 lens assuming the price is right, or "settle" for the 100-400 (I know it won't be settling - different purposes with some overlap) - just wanted to get insight from those who have gone through the same thing and either went for the 300 right off, or started with the 100-400 and either traded or added the 300 to the arsenal. Any regrets or "if I could do it all over again" words of wisdom?

My concern with the 100-400 is the loss of stops as I often find myself is tall-tree coverage with marginal lighting - I am using a 5D4 so I can certainly bump up the ISO.

A safari trip is still a few years off - but that's where the added note of the 400 2.8 comes in - there is one local that I may be able to snag for the same price as the 300 2.8... I'm a sucker for a good deal...

once I got my 100-400 Mk2, I sold my version 2 of 300f2.8, and never regretted it. I cover motorsport most weekends.

try hiring a 100-400v2 and see how you get on before you decide.

DrMitch wrote in post #19203043
.
So, do I go for the "dream" 300 lens assuming the price is right, or "settle" for the 100-400 (I know it won't be settling - different purposes with some overlap) - just wanted to get insight from those who have gone through the same thing and either went for the 300 right off, or started with the 100-400 and either traded or added the 300 to the arsenal. Any regrets or "if I could do it all over again" words of wisdom?
.

.
The way I see it, having a 100-400mm is a no-brainer, that must be in the bag no matter what, because of how useful it is in so many situations. . Then the decision is, do you add a big prime to the 100-400mm, or just get along with the zoom alone?
.

DrMitch wrote in post #19203043
.
My concern with the 100-400 is the loss of stops as I often find myself is tall-tree coverage with marginal lighting - I am using a 5D4 so I can certainly bump up the ISO.
.

.
I think of stops and aperture as being about depth of field, and not about shutter speed or exposure.

Years ago, when cameras weren't much good past 400 or 800 ISO, then bigger apertures like f2.8 and f4 were useful because we often didn't have enough light to get good exposures at f5.6. . But with most of today's cameras, there is almost always enough light to stop motion and get a good exposure at f5.6 ..... so having a big f2.8 aperture isn't about the exposure triangle any more, it is pretty much only about depth of field ..... at least for 99% of our shooting situations. . This is said from a wildlife and nature shooter's perspective .... of course someone who shoots something like high school football will have a totally different reason for using a f2.8 lens.
.

DrMitch wrote in post #19203043
.
A safari trip is still a few years off - but that's where the added note of the 400 2.8 comes in - there is one local that I may be able to snag for the same price as the 300 2.8... I'm a sucker for a good deal...
.

.
I would think that a 100-400mm zoom would be far more useful on a safari than a 400 f2.8 ...... and I used a 400mm f2.8 for 11 years, so I know a thing or two about how useful a 400 f2.8 is for wildlife. . A classic "safari" just seems like a situation where a big 300 f2.8 or a 400mm f2.8 would be awkward to use, and it would end up sitting in a bag, unused, for 99% of the trip while you were busy shooting with your 100-400mm zoom.


.

Thanks for the input!
Yeah, I keep coming back to the 100-400 as a more versatile lens in more situations. Given the cost savings alone is probably the one to get first and add a big prime afterwards.
And yes, I agree the DOF is the important feature overall.
My wife will be happier with a 100-400 as well...

Unless you MUST have a 400/2.8, which doesn’t seem to be you, I would avoid the version 1 400/2.8. It is heavy!

I agree with Tom Reichner that unless you never shoot longer than 200 mm, the latest version of the 100-400 is the base telephoto lens for most Canon people. Get one and the experience you get with it will be your guide of future lenses.

Each person’s desires and needs will be different of course, but I had a 300/2.8 as my “big lens” for several years and always felt it was too short. And I am into mammals, not primarily a bird shooter.

I had a 300/2.8 and got rid of it when I got the 100-400 II. The 100-400 has also replaced my 70-200 when traveling. It is not a lot heavier but can do so much more.

But, after saying those things, for indoor sports like volleyball, or outdoor sports at night at less than professional venues, which are 95% of the places I shoot, you need f2.8. If you think you can get by with a your 70-200 in those situations I would go 100-400 version II. I have a 400/2.8 for those situations but it is much more difficult to carry around.

Points to ponder

The 100-400 ii is a wonderful lens. Very useful focal range with nicely sharp images for what it is, and a great minimum focusing distance, and works very well with the 1.4x iii TC to get out to 560mm.


I grabbed my 100-400 ii and did a rudimentary test. Pointed it at a bright light and started slowly zooming from 100 to 400, watching the max aperture adjust along the way.
The results were:
f/4.5 100mm-125mm
f/5.0 126mm-305mm
f/5.6 306mm-400mm

You pretty much have to consider it an f/5 lens at best. If I was shooting at 100mm all day I'd just grab a 100mm prime or the 70-200 f/2.8 for the benefit of 2.8.

Can f/5-f/5.6 get you by indoors?

A constant f/2.8 lens will be 1-2 full stops faster in poor light. Will 1-2 full stops of shutter or ISO help you indoors? If so you may have to go with your 70-200, unless you just have to have 300-400mm of reach.

When the safari comes just rent a 400 2.8 for one time use unless you could use it year round.

Thanks everyone!
Really helped with my decision.
I end up going for the 100-400 for the outdoor versatility as it should be great for beach volleyball as well as dogs and wildlife and the close focus ability give it somewhat of a “macro” feel for dragonflies etc.
when the big trip comes along i can convince wife i have to have the 400!2.8
Just picked up a mint 100-400ii for $1500 only a few blocks from my house too.
Can’t wait to try it out this weekend.

I took a Canon 100-400L II on safari in Namibia. Worked wonderfully. I didn't see a need for a faster telephoto. Maybe if you were going to do a night animal drive, which we did not do....

You will love the 100-400.

While the lure of a F2.8 super tele sounds great, at the end of the day, you will get LESS shots with it because it's not flexible and versatile compared to the 100-400.

These days, sensors are so sensitive you can use nearly any focal-ratio and get the shot. And I will put a huge emphasis on GETTING THE SHOT. A well composed shot is so much more important than just "getting something" at F2.8 or whatever.

You will greatly appreciate the 100mm side of your new lens. You won't have to carry two bodies just to do something other than attempt shots at 400mm.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #19204490
You will greatly appreciate the 100mm side of your new lens. You won't have to carry two bodies just to do something other than attempt shots at 400mm.

+1 on this.

The 100-400mm is my walkabout lens as I shoot mostly wildlife, especially birds.

And for sure, a lot of the time I'm at 400mm so when I cross-graded from the 400mm prime at first I wondered if I had made the right decision.

But the 100mm end of this lens has been a revelation for me, even on a crop, as I soon came to appreciate the fantastic landscape shots you can get at 100mm, as well as the very useful MFD which enables you to capture a whole range of bugs, smaller critters and flowers close up.

I can definitely see taking my 24-70 and now the 100-400 vs the 70-200 on trips and hikes, skiing etc.

.

I think that the 100-400mm would also serve you much better on safari than a 400 f2.8.

The 400 f2.8 definitely has its place in wildlife photography (it was my main wildlife lens for 7 years), but seems like a very poor choice for a safari type trip.


.

.

Didn't get out the whole weekend - came back FROM my cottage to find a couple of deer on my neighbours property!
This lens is the perfect range for me.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kHR​q1i

I used the 100-400 on a Namibia safari on a crop body with a 17-55 as my second lens. Very happy with that combo. A 1.4x + the 100-400 would be pretty close to the same reach.