Question: Canon 100-400L mk ii vs Canon 300L f/4 ?

This may be a dumb question also I wonder if I would be able to see the difference?
I currently own both the 100-400ii and the 70-200iii but have read some posts from people saying how they prefer the 300L f/4 for birding.

I am wondering if I set the 100-400 at 300mm and compared it to a 300L f/4 at 300mm would I really see much of a difference? Is it that much sharper?

I often get GAS, which my kids are happy for as I often pass on my extra gear to them, and I just wonder if it is just a nice to have thing. It would be lighter by about 25% although I find my 100-400 easy to handhold (even my 150-600C is easy to handhold from my chair in the field)

It is more a question of would I notice that much of a difference? Also the advantage of the zoom is that you can get closer or wider with a twist.

What are peoples thoughts on the differences or similarities between the lenses?

the 100-400ii is a much newer lens than the old 300f4.
I have both, using the 100-400ii most weekends, but it's years since I picked up the 300f4.
to be honest, the 100-400ii was that good, for me, that I sold my 300f2.8ii several years ago now.

if you really need to find out, how it works for you, then try and hire / borrow a 300f4 for a day or so.

Based on your shooting needs and distances you are shooting at, optical reach would seem to be the highest priority, not less reach and then cropping more.

This is just my opinion from some of the prior posts.

I agree with both of you. Thank you.

That is why the RF 100-500 looks interesting

I've never used a 100-400, but I've been coveting one. Seems all the rage, and probably for good reason.

I've got a 400 5.6 that I use almost exclusively for its reach. Birds, wildlife, sports. That's all. And it's pretty darned sharp. I keep it on a 90D for a 640mm efl.

Two things keep me from seriously considering the 100-400: price and weight.

Even used, a 100-400 would easily be my most expensive lens - by a factor of 3. That's a tough pill to swallow. I paid about as much for my used 400 prime, 70-300 'L' and 90D, combined, as the price of a used 100-400 mk ii.

I'm comparing the weight of the 100-400 to the 70-300 'L'. That's my daily-driver, medium telephoto lens and a 100-400 would have to replace that as well as the 400 prime. The 70-300 isn't petite at all but the 100-400 is half again heavier. And 300mm is very long for everything except birds/wildlife/sports (which is why I favor it over a 70-200 variation).

That brings up a question. Do the folks who own a 100-400 also use it as a replacement for one of the 70-200mm lenses?

I only use my 70-200f2.8ii when it's really low light ( LeMans during the night for example) otherwise it's the 100-400ii for me for motorsport on the 5d3

Yeah, I can see where the 100-400 would be a perfect lens for motorsports, especially if you're only carrying 1 body or want a shorter lens on a 2nd body. You don't always need maximum reach, but sometimes you really do.

For just the reach, no, IMO the 1-4 is a better option as it's an all around lens, and renders quite well. If you were talking about the f2.8 version, then there's the background bokeh to consider, but at f4 ur already past that point.

I loaned a 300 2.8 mk 2 from Canon, and found it very nice in rendering, but for horse racing there's a limited use as they approach the finish line, the 1-4 works better there, since I can back off to capture the whole scene.

I often use The Digital Picture for comparing lenses. I find their comparisons mirror my own experience with lenses I own or have used, and I trust them to compare lenses I am thinking of buying.

This shows they are very close at 300mm so there is really no reason to buy a 300 f4 if you already own the 100-400 II.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1

I suspect the folks saying they prefer the 300 are coming at it from a background rendering and available light perspective; not a sharpness one (which I believe the older f/4 loses pretty handily). The 100-400 at 300mm is already at the f/5.6 threshold, so you're "missing" almost a full stop of light. I put missing in quotes since that stop can't easily be compensated for with ISO in older bodies w/o some heavy PP; but, in most bodies since the 7DII/5D4, that isn't so much of an issue. I also believe (I've never shot the 300 myself) that the f/4 gives bit more smooth and less..."jittery" background rendering than the ole Pump in some scenarios, which I can see some folks wanting for their own look; but it isn't something that reaches any level of concern for me, myself.

I would really only suggest the 300 as an alternative if, as mentioned above, you happen to struggle with light and need that extra stop of light over reach.

.
The 100-400 v2 seems to have lots and lots of advantages over the 300mm f4. . But the 300mm f4 seems to have almost no advantages over the 100-400 v2, except for price and weight, which don't/shouldn't matter to the OP for reasons he has already stated.

One great advantage that the 100-400v2 has is its close-up abilities for things like frogs, flowers, butterflies, etc. . At 400mm it can focus at just 3.2 feet. . Meanwhile, the 300mm f4 has a minimum focus distance of 4.9 feet, which is a real handicap when one wants real close up shots of small subjects.

For birding, I can hardly think of anything that the 300mm f4 would be better at than the 100-400mm v2 is. . Perhaps if one is shooting birds at VERY close range from a blind, where 300mm is plenty of reach to fill the frame, and you are very light-challenged and need that extra 2/3 of a stop, and could benefit from that extra bit of background blur. . But you'd have to be just a few feet away from the bird. . How often does the OP shoot that way, at extreme close range from a blind, where the 300mm f4 could be of some slight benefit?

.

I have the 100-400mm ver2. Use it all the time, mostly with a 1.4x tc. I also have a copy of the 400mm f5.6. Had the original 100-400, the old non-IS 300 f4 and the 300 f4 IS. The 100-400 ver 2 is the way to go. The old 300 had a minimum focus distance at around 10 ft. It seemed like a shorter version of the 400 5.6. I have a broken copy of the 300 f4 IS. The IS system broke twice, then it had impact damage so not worth fixing it again. The optics were excellent but the IS system was weak. The original 100-400 was sharp in the center but the new version is better in every way. The 400mm f5.6 is a good bird in flight lens but the 100-400 ver 2 is at least as good. And it's a MUCH more versatile lens. If you plan to go the R system, get the 100-500mm.

Heya,

The 100-400 Mark II is superior in basically all ways. The weight is a wash frankly in my book (and if that weight difference mattered at all, you'd be better off using a much smaller system like a M43's, etc). The 300mm F4L is a great lens, its just one of those earlier lenses where for a good price you could get F4 speed, 300mm focal length and very fast AF with a sharp wide open high contrast image. Fantastic for close range anything and especially great for larger animals at closer range on a bigger sensor. Ultimately though, its an aged lens. F4 isn't as important as it used to be on this focal length as our tech allows much more sensitivity than it ever did that is useful. So going to F4.5~5~5.6 really isn't much different, and while there's a tiny bit of DOF difference in that for subject isolation (if you care about that at all), it's not enough to really fuss over I think here. And honestly the shorter your focal length and closer you are, the faster the angles are changing if you try to track something, so fast, that you probably won't be able to keep up panning with it. It's significantly easier to track a bird at a vast distance with a long lens, as the angle reference frame is not changing nearly as fast relative to your perspective. So keep this in mind. Its so easy to say "get a short fast lens and get close" until they fly and you can't even keep it in the FOV.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Qedh​BE

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kMH​Snr

Marty
Is that the Orion 120mm?

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19322339
Marty
Is that the Orion 120mm?

This image is just an ED80 with a Fuji X-T1. Compact and light weight.

I have a little 70mm F6 ED frac that I like to use even more, its so tiny compared to this even. I like having a little flip down LCD so I can put it close to the ground and just look down at it without killing my back or having to bend into a weird contorted position. Lazy and good.

But the EVF is great in bright sunlight to see well. The manual focusing peaking of these mirrorless systems makes it dead easy to get focus no problem. So easy I sold my AF stuff (I never would have imagined doing that, but that's what ended up happening...). I guess I went backwards, from AF lenses to being a "digiscoper" ?

120mm fracs are a little too big for my taste to carry around for this purpose. I have a 120mm F5 but its not ED and its CA is wild, but its light and compact, but same focal length as this 80mm with FPL53 glass. I don't mind long focal-ratios (relative speaking, these are fast for telescopes, slow compared to "camera lenses" of course).

+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++

Here's a 70mm F6 ED (420mm focal length) frac with a 2" crayford focuser (these are $299) and my Fuji X-T1 attached. Very compact and small. Simple. Bullet proof and very light weight. I toss it on a wee alt-az mount and its a simple trail walking digiscope setup. Sharp.