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

MalVeauX wrote in post #19322248
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 BirdBlind_1D3_Fuji_Squ​irt by Martin Wise, on Flickr

I just sold my 70-200 F2.8L, 300 F4L and 150-600mm. I no longer any have any AF long lenses. I don't really track birds in flight anymore. And I much more often just seek out birds in their habitat doing what they do, not flying though. I'm just using my telescopes with way longer focal-lengths on a portable alt-az mount and attaching my APS-C mirrorless camera to it these days. These days I'm doing blinds/hides and perches and I walk some trails and look for birds hanging out. I no longer chase Terns in flight or anything at the coast. I actually just like to watch them more than try to photograph them I find.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kMH​Snr ED80_Fuji_XT1_01 by Martin Wise, on Flickr

If you need reach and AF, the 100-400 Mk 2 is one of the most versatile lenses to carry. And if you need even more reach, go for the 500~600mm options out there. Of course it depends on what kind of birding you're doing. Big birds at far distance is way different compared to fast moving close range birds in flight!

Very best,

cristphoto wrote in post #19336663
Image quality is similar. Big difference is the versatility of the 100-400. Plus the IS system is much improved over the 300. My only gripe with the 100-400 is Canon reversed the focus and zoom control locations. Typically the zoom control is closest to the body as it gets used more but not on the 100-400 II.

jmckayak wrote in post #19322218
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.

Nick5 wrote in post #19323419
mallVeaux.
In the top image, what tripod and Gimbal do you have on the left?

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19324562
Marty
What adapter do you use between the camera and the scope?

I have a 1 1/4 nosepiece that I use when doing astro with my Canon's, wonder if there is a better option