Telephoto: 100-400, 300/4L IS, 400/5.6

I know, I know...yet another one of these!

I mostly shoot wideangle/close telephoto, although I've recently been discovering the joys of my new 70-200/2.8 IS. Thing is, whenever I try shooting wildlife/the occasional bird, it comes up a little short. It's a great 'close quarters' sports lens, very useful for landscape, but I'd like a little more reach.

And here comes the dilemma: 100-400L, 300 F/4L (+ 1.4TC), or 400 F/5.6.

What's essential to me is that the glass be relatively portable. I do alot of my best photography on vacation, and I don't want/can't always take along every bit of glass; I've even pondered getting an F4 70-200 for travel because of the bulk of the 2.8.

What I like about the 100-400 is the versatility, and the fact it's a perfect partner to the 24-105 for a relatively light, compact 2-zoom set for travelling (with a few fast primes in the bag as well). What I don't like is, well, it looks a bit crazy-huge at 400mm, and I wonder about the IQ relative to the primes.

Re: primes, I'm drawn to the 300F4 IS because I shoot almost everything handheld (again, it's the portability thing), it's got a built-in hood (compact!), closer focus than the 400. What 'worries' me is the fact I'd need three bits of glass (24-105, 70-200 and 300+1.4TC or the 400), ie extra weight and bulk, with a lot of potential overlap area (70-200 with TC is damn close to 300 at the same F-stop) for what's likely a minimal quality gain in real-world terms.

I'll be trying out at 100-400 at a store tomorrow, and a second-hand 300 F/4L IS on Friday, and I'll spend some time staring at the pics and mulling it over before biting the bullet, but I appreciate any insights folks care to provide

Mattia

mattia wrote in post #7536244
I know, I know...yet another one of these!

I mostly shoot wideangle/close telephoto, although I've recently been discovering the joys of my new 70-200/2.8 IS. Thing is, whenever I try shooting wildlife/the occasional bird, it comes up a little short. It's a great 'close quarters' sports lens, very useful for landscape, but I'd like a little more reach.

And here comes the dilemma: 100-400L, 300 F/4L (+ 1.4TC), or 400 F/5.6.

What's essential to me is that the glass be relatively portable. I do alot of my best photography on vacation, and I don't want/can't always take along every bit of glass; I've even pondered getting an F4 70-200 for travel because of the bulk of the 2.8.

What I like about the 100-400 is the versatility, and the fact it's a perfect partner to the 24-105 for a relatively light, compact 2-zoom set for travelling (with a few fast primes in the bag as well). What I don't like is, well, it looks a bit crazy-huge at 400mm, and I wonder about the IQ relative to the primes.

Re: primes, I'm drawn to the 300F4 IS because I shoot almost everything handheld (again, it's the portability thing), it's got a built-in hood (compact!), closer focus than the 400. What 'worries' me is the fact I'd need three bits of glass (24-105, 70-200 and 300+1.4TC or the 400), ie extra weight and bulk, with a lot of potential overlap area (70-200 with TC is damn close to 300 at the same F-stop) for what's likely a minimal quality gain in real-world terms.

I'll be trying out at 100-400 at a store tomorrow, and a second-hand 300 F/4L IS on Friday, and I'll spend some time staring at the pics and mulling it over before biting the bullet, but I appreciate any insights folks care to provide

Mattia

all three lenses are portable and all three will give you excellent IQ. of the three lenses i see the 400 f5.6 as more of a niche lens....inflexible but the best at 400mm.

i've owned the 300L twice and i now own the 100-400L. i think the zoom is your best choice. your objections against the zoom are dumb and incorrect....in that order .

give it a shot and see what you think.

ed rader

The 100-400L is practically the same size and weight as the 70-200 f2.8 IS, however if you are talking about taking that lens INSTEAD OF the 70-200 f2.8 IS on trips, then that's your choice if convenience is a big factor, which is sounds like it is.

Just keep in mind that it's 1-2 stops slower at any given aperture!

If you like your lens to extend like a trombone in poor weather and enjoy sharpening in PP, jump on the 100-400.

Ed: thanks for the clarification :P

Nicksan: realistically, most of my vacation destinations that would 'require' long glass would be the kind where I wouldn't want to take two big, heavy, bulky L zooms - I like hiking/cycling.

Mike: I shoot everything in RAW anyway, so a bit of sharpening is par for the course. I see you're a 300L fan, though!

I'll definitely try both on for size, just to get a feel for both of the lenses, see which one I think 'fits' me best.

I've heard the 100-400 described as "Not the best, its a compromise, But its a VERY good compromise"

And as you said, a 24-105 and the 100-400 gives you an excellent travel system! Especially on a 5D

They also share filters...

As you said, the extra bulk and weight of carrying 3 lenses plus a TC negates the advantage of the 300...

The 100-400 weighs about the same as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, you should have no problems with it

I remember trying the 100-400 in a store a while ago, its really not as long as you think...

If versatility and portability is your number one concern, get the 100-400. With a 5D and a 24-105 it makes the perfect compact travel kit.

I have a 400 5.6 and find it too long in most places where I'm not using it for birds. The other thing with it is I need to carry my bigger bag and since I have the room, I end up loading it up and regreting the extra weight for traveling. I think the 300 would better suite my needs in those cases.

The only thing stopping me from getting the 400mm f/5.6L is the lack of IS, and the chance that canon might actually listen to its consumer base and update it with IS.

Headshotzx wrote in post #7538242
The only thing stopping me from getting the 400mm f/5.6L is the lack of IS, and the chance that canon might actually listen to its consumer base and update it with IS.

don't let that stop you because you may wait a looong time for that to happen .

ed rader

Headshotzx wrote in post #7538242
The only thing stopping me from getting the 400mm f/5.6L is the lack of IS, and the chance that canon might actually listen to its consumer base and update it with IS.

Hey they listen. Take for example the eight people they listened to when they released the two new tilt shift lenses at the same time.

I read your post a couple of times trying to discern what is your highest priority.

Two of the zooms you have listed, I have and also have both of the other lenses you are looking at.

Best of my two lenses for birding:

70-200 f2.8 IS and 400mm f5.6.....covers just about everything. Most birding/wildlife shots for me are at or over 400mm.

Versatile all around combo:

24-105 and 100-400. The 100-400, for me is a bit more unwieldy at full telephoto than my 400 f5.6.

I.Q. on the zooms are good and on the 400 f5.6....very good.

Re: 100-400

I just don't use the 100-400 much now since I got the 400 f5.6.

Best of luck.



By the way, IS on the 400 f5.6...I guess I don't see the point. More costly, probably heavier and most folks I know shoot at faster shutter speeds for wildlife. Want IS? Canon has that in two other 400mm models and the 100-400 IS.

westernminnguy wrote in post #7538624
By the way, IS on the 400 f5.6...I guess I don't see the point. More costly, probably heavier and most folks I know shoot at faster shutter speeds for wildlife. Want IS? Canon has that in two other 400mm models and the 100-400 IS.

Why root for the 400 5.6 to not get IS?

Mike55 wrote in post #7538846
Why root for the 400 5.6 to not get IS?

the non-IS will be much cheaper and the BIF guys really don't need IS?

ed rader

I'm juggling the same 3 lenses for some wildlife shots.
While I like the idea of the 100-400IS zoom, I frequently use a 70-200 f4 IS with a TC (98-280mm) and it just seems like there would be way too much overlap if I were to keep both lenses.

I like the size & weight of the 70-200 (it's very portable), plus 4-stop IS is a dream. I just can't seem to warm up to the 100-400IS. If I did get the 100-400, I probably would have to sell the 70-200 as it just doesn't make sense to me to have both lenses for just the convenience of a lighter lens.

At this point, I think I'm leaning more towards the 400 f5.6 as it seems to take a TC better than the 100-400. I usually shoot with support for such shots anyways and manual focus @ f8 is something I've kind of gotten used to when using two 1.4x TC's on the 70-200 (makes it 392mm f8).