100-300 vs 300 f4 vs 100-400 vs 400 5.6

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3042693
looks like the 300 f4L IS will be almost the same size as my 70-200 F/4L (not sold yet) when both hoods are extended

No, the 300 with hood is quite a bit longer than the 7-4 with hood. Even though I don't have that comparison, you can get an idea from this and the previous ones posted:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

You can see some of the physical properties of the 300 and 400 here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/300v400

LightRules wrote in post #3042668
Ron, truth be told, any lens that zooms (twist or push/pull) is going to get dust into the sensor chamber. Some think the 1-4IS is a dust vacuum, others think it's absolute slander and overexaggerated. I won't tell you which camp I'm in...

Lightrules,
Looking at your sig I THINK I know which camp you are in.
Seeing as I am quite new to this forum, I most likely should NOT be doing this. AND I mean no disrespect, just trying to understand.
BUT, I just took my 100-400L and put it next to a candle and a cig. Zoomed back and forth with it and found that the candle or cig smoke did not flutter from the BACK of the lens while zooming. Not wanting to get into a battle here my first day on this forum,(or anytime for that matter) just trying to understand how this lens will suck/pull dust into the cam body?!
Try it and see if your's does it please.
Respectfully,
Ron

And I just noticed that there was a HIJAK on my part that I need to apologize for. To the OP JagWire my SINCERE apologies. This will NOT happen again.
Ron

LightRules wrote in post #3042668
Ron, truth be told, any lens that zooms (twist or push/pull) is going to get dust into the sensor chamber. Some think the 1-4IS is a dust vacuum, others think it's absolute slander and overexaggerated. I won't tell you which camp I'm in...

The 100-400 gets more dust than twist-zoom lenses. That said, it's still a handy, versatile lens.

Taken yesterday with 100-400

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The 300 f/4L IS USM is a great lens - very sharp and has lightning fast AF. When I shoot soccer with it, I can put the AF point on a player, turn the AF on in AI Servo and track them continuously without losing focus. It is really quite amazing.

When you add the 1.4 TC, the AF slows down considerably. But if you track it with manual focus and then let the AF pull it the rest of the way in it works just fine. In point of fact, it is about as fast as other slower USM lenses.

The image quality with the 1.4 TC is just ever so slightly worse than without the TC. Printed, even large, you cannot hardly tell the difference. Even when compared to the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6, it is difficult to tell the difference unless pixel peeping. From what I have seen of the 100-400, I would not say it is better than the 300+TC at all. Very close.

It is really hard to beat the versatility of this lens and its ability to handle the TC. The 400 f/5.6 is probably a bit better if you need just 400 but it is far less versatile. Too, the 5.6 is going to challenge the AF of all but 1D bodies. Even then, you won't have IS. The 300 f/4L with TC gives you 420mm plus you get IS out of it. Any IQ the 400 would have over the 300+TC is probably a wash when you consider the IS.

This is really one of my favorite lenses. Here's one I took at the Minnesota Zoo yesterday.

Johnj,
with lenses like my 70-200 f/4L, I could not track birds. Maybe because it was because the field of view was not narrow enough, I don't know. I am guessing the af of the 300 f4L with 1.4 is bout the same speed.
I think 300, however, will do most of the time.
Thanks for the useful reply.

I'd put the AF speed of the 300 + TC at slower than the 70-200 f/4 (I have that too).

The 70-200 f/4 has no apparent loss in performance with a TC either in AF or IQ. IMO, the 70-200 f/4 is one of the lenses that tolerates the TC the best.

The 300 f/4 IS with the TC, I could tell the difference in IQ by pixel peeping in test shots. In actual experience, I couldn't tell at all.

I was able to use the 300+TC to shoot soccer with no problems once I followed the action with the manual focus ring and kept it "in the vicinity" of where it was to be. Once the AF was engaged, it brought it right in and kept up well enough to shoot. That all said, I don't do it often because the 420mm FL is a bit much for the soccer I shoot because I can get close enough to the action.

Truthfully, if you are birding, then I'd be looking at the 400 f/2.8 (but that is a lot of coin).

I'd buy one from someplace that has liberal return policy and give it a try - either that or rent one.

J.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #3048282
I'd put the AF speed of the 300 + TC at slower than the 70-200 f/4 (I have that too).

The 70-200 f/4 has no apparent loss in performance with a TC either in AF or IQ. IMO, the 70-200 f/4 is one of the lenses that tolerates the TC the best.

The 300 f/4 IS with the TC, I could tell the difference in IQ by pixel peeping in test shots. In actual experience, I couldn't tell at all.

I was able to use the 300+TC to shoot soccer with no problems once I followed the action with the manual focus ring and kept it "in the vicinity" of where it was to be. Once the AF was engaged, it brought it right in and kept up well enough to shoot. That all said, I don't do it often because the 420mm FL is a bit much for the soccer I shoot because I can get close enough to the action.

Truthfully, if you are birding, then I'd be looking at the 400 f/2.8 (but that is a lot of coin).

I'd buy one from someplace that has liberal return policy and give it a try - either that or rent one.

J.

Birding will be a very very little portion. Where I am, I don't see more then seagulls and pigeons (which I want to get some in flight shots of anyway, haha.) Squirrels should be fine I think.
I figure maybe I'll see a bird in a tree near my house or something and want to snap off a few shots though.
This will probably just be my tele (which is why I think 400 might be a little long as a whole for the majority of the time), and why I think the size is pretty ideal.
I'd either buy it from BH, or henry's here. Hard decision, considering bh may be a little cheaper, however henrys is easier to return.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #3047923
Even when compared to the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6, it is difficult to tell the difference unless pixel peeping. From what I have seen of the 100-400, I would not say it is better than the 300+TC at all. Very close

While the 300f4IS is a superb lens, and while it certainly offers its own "perks" over the 1-4IS and 400f5.6 (e.g., 300mm f4, IS, close MFD, excellent native IQ), I have yet to find it comparable when peeping at 100% to the other two. Having used 2 brand new 300f4IS copies, then putting them against 1 copy of the 1-4IS and 1 copy of the 400f5.6, the 1-4 and 400 always came out ahead (when put at 420mm and 600mm, using a 1.4x and 2x). Again, I like the 300 very much and think highly of it, but when pitting them together under identical conditions, same fstops, subject distances, taking the best AF out of many for each, there was clearly a difference between the 1-4 and 300 from 400mm and beyond. Certainly printed small or at web-viewing resized, they will look closer in IQ; but at 100% the difference is very evident, both in resolving power and contrast reproduction.

Here is a sampling of what I found:

1st copy of the 300 f4 IS:
300mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329734​7/original
400mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329734​9/original
600mm f8 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329735​1/original

2nd copy of the 300 f4 IS:
300mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6617145​2/original
400mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6614167​4/original
400mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6617146​4/original
600mm f8 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6614167​6/original

LightRules wrote in post #3048495
While the 300f4IS is a superb lens, and while it certainly offers its own "perks" over the 1-4IS and 400f5.6 (e.g., 300mm f4, IS, close MFD, excellent native IQ), I have yet to find it comparable when peeping at 100% to the other two. Having used 2 brand new 300f4IS copies, then putting them against 1 copy of the 1-4IS and 1 copy of the 400f5.6, the 1-4 and 400 always came out ahead (when put at 420mm and 600mm, using a 1.4x and 2x). Again, I like the 300 very much and think highly of it, but when pitting them together under identical conditions, same fstops, subject distances, taking the best AF out of many for each, there was clearly a difference between the 1-4 and 300 from 400mm and beyond. Certainly printed small or at web-viewing resized, they will look closer in IQ; but at 100% the difference is very evident, both in resolving power and contrast reproduction.

Here is a sampling of what I found:

1st copy of the 300 f4 IS:
300mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329734​7/original
400mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329734​9/original
600mm f8 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/5329735​1/original

2nd copy of the 300 f4 IS:
300mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6617145​2/original
400mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6614167​4/original
400mm f5.6 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6617146​4/original
600mm f8 http://www.pbase.com …s/image/6614167​6/original

Anyone else have the same findings?
At 300, the 300 f4 I would think should be sharper then the 1-4 @ 300?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3048511
Anyone else have the same findings?
At 300, the 300 f4 I would think should be sharper then the 1-4 @ 300?

With both at 300 f5.6, they are actually fairly close. The great thing about the 300 prime is that you have f4 and excellent IQ; the 1-4 can only do f5.6 at 300mm, but it's very impressive still.

The 400 5.6 AF is lightning fast... The other (sunny) day I was trying to get close to an Osprey, and never even noticed the focus adjusting at all... It was instant... I was very proud to find it functioning so well... It's a keeper lens for shure...

Anything shorter than a 400 is useless for birds...that's unless you plan to sit by your window feeder all the time...

johnstoy wrote in post #3048700
The 400 5.6 AF is lightning fast... The other (sunny) day I was trying to get close to an Osprey, and never even noticed the focus adjusting at all... It was instant... I was very proud to find it functioning so well... It's a keeper lens for shure...

Anything shorter than a 400 is useless for birds...that's unless you plan to sit by your window feeder all the time...

Shouldn't 300 on the crop work?
Back in the day didn't people bird with like a 400 on a 35mm? I have trouble believing everyone could afford 500's, 600's, 400 2.8's, 300 2.8's, etc, unless they had a crap load of light and nice manual focus skills.