300/4 and 100-400

Hmm, some very good wisdom there. I was going to ask a few prime shooters 'what if the subject approaches too close' - unlike sports shooters on the sidelines we seldom have two bodies kitted out with zooms, although I can carry this rig, it's very unwieldy in the field. Good advice there and about the rental. I agree there's no way I could make a snap judgement. I wonder who has a sharp copy they are letting go....hehehe

Interesting experience with your filter. Can't say I've had the same with mine. I pixel peeped this lens with box shots and my 5D, as well as pixel peeping the duck shots and it has always been amazingly sharp. A fraction of a stop down to f/4.5 and it becomes mind blowing sharp rivalled only by things like the 60 macro.

Heheh...almost everyone is going to say they've got a sharp copy, especially when they're selling it. But then again sharpness is a subjective thing. A person going from say, the 18-55mm kit lens or the old 35-80mm III is going to find almost anything to be sharp.

Maybe you could bribe fstopjojo to let you have his copy.

Yeah, I'm very disappointed with what the filter did to my lens. It's a very sorry state of affairs. So now I have no choice but just to use the lens without a filter. Wonder why the filter did that. Very strange.

I hear that some Hoya UV(N) filters were not made from optical glass, and there are some HMC UV(N)s. Had one on my 17-85 and it seemed fine for thousands of shots before I discovered the difference so I left it alone, but I made sure to buy the better and more expensive UV(0) S-HMCs henceforth.

fWord wrote in post #2193872
Maybe you could bribe fstopjojo to let you have his copy.

It seems like our resident birding expert (Romy) has come upon a great copy of the 1-4IS too. Maybe they do exist? Sorry mate, I won't ever sell mine, and I'm sure many others won't either. The 1-4IS is a great lens, period.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=20620680

LightRules wrote in post #2195291
It seems like our resident birding expect (Romy) has come upon a great copy of the 1-4IS too. Maybe they do exist?

I understand there's 1 or 2 out there but i'm damned if i've ever seen one

GSH wrote in post #2195339
I understand there's 1 or 2 out there but i'm damned if i've ever seen one

There's at least three, 'cuz the one I just got is sharp too! (And I'm an inveterate pixel peeper!)

GSH wrote in post #2195339
I understand there's 1 or 2 out there but i'm damned if i've ever seen one

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post there Geoff?

JNunn wrote in post #2195782
There's at least three, 'cuz the one I just got is sharp too! (And I'm an inveterate pixel peeper!)

Well make that 4, there's virtually no difference in sharpness between my 400 prime and my 1-4 at 400mm both wide open. 3 of my work colleagues also own the 100-400 and none of them have any sharpness issues either. So where exactly are all these soft copies?

Back to the OP, I'd definately opt for the 100-400 IS over the 300 f4 IS every time.

Think I may buy this one from my local camera dealer... yup I'll pixel peep it first!

Thanks for the confirmation that sharp copies are easier to find than expected. The true test of any lens is wide open, ESPECIALLY when 'wide open' means 'mostly f/5.6' - it had dang well be good!

Okay, here is my question, and it matters the most to me:

Does ANYBODY have a comparison of both lenses side by side? I have a feeling there is a significant size difference, with the 300mm being smaller and probably both easier to handhold and carry. What about one comparing them all and the 400mm?

If nobody has one, perhaps somebody can do one with a measuring tape? With and without hood?

I usually use mine on 5.6 and think it's a pretty good copy...even buying it used. You won't be sorry Lightstream. I'm sure of that....in fact, I'm waiting to hear, after you've done it, how much you actually do use your 300...(I'm still debating on a large fast prime or not)....so when's the big day?

Well this is the 300f/4 IS by the 70-200 IS and another photo of the 70-200 IS by the 100-400 (both opened and closed)...couldn't find anything side by side

edit: the 100-400 isn't too bad...I usually carry around my neck the 30D w/100-400 and 5D w/the 24-105....that combo wears me out in about 3 hrs....and I'm a middle aged woman in only moderate shape....

Permagrin wrote in post #2197858
I usually use mine on 5.6 and think it's a pretty good copy...even buying it used. You won't be sorry Lightstream. I'm sure of that....in fact, I'm waiting to hear, after you've done it, how much you actually do use your 300...(I'm still debating on a large fast prime or not)....so when's the big day?

That is what I am thinking of doing. If I really don't use the 300 any longer, sad to say, I will let it go to a deserving home where it will be taken care of.


Big day may actually be a while from now. I am still scratching my head over where best to buy it, local cam shop, B&H (dangit I KNEW I should have went for it....but then probably no 1D for me), or somewhere else. Will start trawling soon....

FWIW I did a quickie backyard comparison of the 400 5.6, 100-400@400, and the 400 DO on a 5D that's here http://www.pbase.com/r​cicala/image/62804123
Not sure its very useful - I was just looking to see if there was a HUGE difference, and there wasn't.
I'll throw one other bit in: I've got 6 copies of the 100-400 that I rent and renters NEVER complain about them. In fact they rent them again pretty regularly. Take that with a grain of salt because obviously for a lot of renters its their first experience with an L telephoto of any kind.
The 300 f4 IS is one of my favorite lenses, but a big reason is it can focus so closely for a telephoto - like that feature a lot. But if I had to have one, and only one, tele it would probably be the 100-400.

My $.02, FWIW - I've owned the 300/4 IS and 100-400 IS simultaneously. Both great lenses with different applications. Here's my take:

300/4 - obviously, an f/4 lens so it's a bit faster than the 100-400 at 300 mm (either f/5 or f/5.6 at 300, don't remember).

The 300/4 at f/4 is as sharp or a pinch sharper at 300 mm as the 100-400 at 300 mm wide open.

The 300/4 has smoother bokeh at equal apertures.

At f/8, both lenses are generally equal in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness.

The 300/4 with a 1.4X teleconverter is very equal to the 100-400 at 400 mm - both are slightly soft at f/5.6, and both sharpen up nicely by f/7.1.

The 300/4 has a fairly short close-focus distance, making it a "near-macro" lens.

If you prefer the convenience of the 100-400 zoom, you're not really giving up a lot in terms of IQ, though there is a difference wide open at 300 mm. If you prefer the good close-focus capabilities of the 300/4, it is a good choice.

In the end, I sold my 300/4 in favor of a 300/2.8. Though I do miss that close-focus capability, I love the fast aperture.

evandavies wrote in post #2191370
Yep, I duno where you get that idea.

100-400 IQ does vary between copies. Some have been amazingly good so I guess others may not be quite as impressive.

I'm happy with mine but I can't compare to the 300 f/4

It will be very nice of you if you could show me some 100% crop image of your good copy 100-400. Thank you.