300-2.8 300-4 100-400

I've been looking without succuss for a comparision of image quality between these three lenses. I currently own the 100-400 and I'm trying to get an idea of how much quality is being traded for the convenience of a zoom.

Can someone point me to a link that compares images of these lenses? Thanks.

I own both the 300 f2.8 IS and the 100-400. I haven't tested the bare 300 2.8 against the zoom @ 300mm but the main advantage is clearly the 2 stop larger aperture allowing you to choose a faster shutterspeed and/or lower ISO and/or lower DOF. If you shoot at 400mm then the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC is still a stop faster and a bit sharper than the zoom wide open at 400mm.

I posted a comparison with 100% crops between my 100-400, 400 5.6 and 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC lenses here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=305668

I did a comparison between 70-300DO, 300 f/4, and 100-400L. My 100-400 @ 300mm is the sharpest at f/5.6 among the three. And, my 300 2.8 should be arriving next week. I will do another cmparison when it arrives, but I think the 300 2.8 is going to win hands down (at f/5.6) ......otherwise I will not keeping it

Leorooster wrote in post #3190073
I did a comparison between 70-300DO, 300 f/4, and 100-400L. My 100-400 @ 300mm is the sharpest at f/5.6 among the three. And, my 300 2.8 should be arriving next week. I will do another cmparison when it arrives, but I think the 300 2.8 is going to win hands down (at f/5.6) ......otherwise I will not keeping it

Leo, visited your gallery, nice photo's. I'm fond of nature/wildlife photograpy and coping with the question should I save for a 300 2.8 or 500 f4. What made you decide to go for the 300 instead of a 500 ?

loebas wrote in post #3190811
Leo, visited your gallery, nice photo's. I'm fond of nature/wildlife photograpy and coping with the question should I save for a 300 2.8 or 500 f4. What made you decide to go for the 300 instead of a 500 ?

Thanks!

I actually am getting both the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. It really depends on your subjects. If you shoot birds most of the time, you probably will need the reach of 500. If you shoot a lot of larger animal, 300 would probably be better.

Before I decided to go with both, I was thinking which one I should get. I decided that the 500 f/4 would be better for birds which is my main subjects. However, I was lucky that this year I have some extra tax money coming back to my way, so I decided to get both

Nick- For what type of shooting have you been chosing to use your 100-400 instead of your 300 f/2.8? Having both pieces of glass how often do you find yourself going for the 100-400?

Leo- Where in NY are you?

RichNY wrote in post #3191436
...............

Leo- Where in NY are you?

I live on Long Island.........what about you?

I have never owned the 300 f4, but I can tell you that the 300 2.8 with the 1.4X TC has better IQ than the 100-400 at 400.

Leorooster wrote in post #3192116
I live on Long Island.........what about you?

I grew up on the Island but I'm now living across the river in Tuxedo.

RikWriter wrote in post #3192188
I have never owned the 300 f4, but I can tell you that the 300 2.8 with the 1.4X TC has better IQ than the 100-400 at 400.

I have no doubt that the 300 f/2.8 will be superior with and without a TC. Since you also have a 100-400 when do you prefer to use that lens to the 300?

I'm trying to figure out if I'm going to be able to upgrade to the f/2.8 or whether this is just going to be another additive cost- like when I thought I'd replace my 30D with a IIN and then convinced myself I needed 2 bodies.

RichNY wrote in post #3192927
I have no doubt that the 300 f/2.8 will be superior with and without a TC. Since you also have a 100-400 when do you prefer to use that lens to the 300?

I use the 100-400 for hiking/touring, situations where the 300 is too heavy to pack for long distances. I also use it as a backup on my second body when I have the 300 on a tripod. It's also handy when I am taking pictures of something that won't be around more than a couple minutes and don't want to break out the monopod for the 300.
Frankly though, there are times when I think of getting rid of it because of the IQ disparity, and just biting the bullet and carrying the 300 around. I am still undecided, but I think I will make up my mind after I get back from Yosemite this Spring.

RichNY wrote in post #3192922
I grew up on the Island but I'm now living across the river in Tuxedo.

Any great birding areas around where you live?

RichNY wrote in post #3192927
I have no doubt that the 300 f/2.8 will be superior with and without a TC. Since you also have a 100-400 when do you prefer to use that lens to the 300?

I'm trying to figure out if I'm going to be able to upgrade to the f/2.8 or whether this is just going to be another additive cost- like when I thought I'd replace my 30D with a IIN and then convinced myself I needed 2 bodies.

That happens to everyone here .......my gear list just keeps growing

Seriously, RikWriter is right that the 300 2.8 is quite heavy and for long walk or hiking the 100-400 is defintely more portable. Of course, whenever possible, I would bring both.............as I will probably have the 1.4x or 2x TC with the 300 all the time. Therefore, for anything closer, I would need the flexibility of a zoom (i.e., 100-400L).

Not to convince you to keep another lens, but I think it's worth to keep two......just my 2 cents

Leorooster wrote in post #3190883
Thanks!

I actually am getting both the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. It really depends on your subjects. If you shoot birds most of the time, you probably will need the reach of 500. If you shoot a lot of larger animal, 300 would probably be better.

Before I decided to go with both, I was thinking which one I should get. I decided that the 500 f/4 would be better for birds which is my main subjects. However, I was lucky that this year I have some extra tax money coming back to my way, so I decided to get both

Thank you for you reply. Given my kind of photography see
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/Timo%20de%20Krui​f
What lens would you advice me ?

Have a nice day,

Leorooster wrote in post #3193624
Any great birding areas around where you live?

Excellent birding here but I haven't been bitten by the bug to take pictures of them.

I just bought 'Planet Earth' on DVD from Amazon. It was much cheaper than those really long lenses from B&H

I owned both the 300 2.8, 500 4, but recently sold the 300 . For birding, the 300 with tcs just wasn't long enough. For other wildlife, it just doesn't have the versatility. And to carry a 500 around, it's basically impossible to get too far with a 300 hanging around your neck which is why I prefer the 100-400. Although the 300mm performance is stellar for the shots it gets, it's range is a bit too limiting imo especially if you already own the 500. The 100-400 is a relatively light lens, and it wouldn't be too big a deal to tote that around along with the 500.

And as far as the 300 f4, again a nice lens, but I prefer the versatility of the 100-400. I found the 100-400 comparable if not better in IQ to the 300 f4 with 1.4x TC.