Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Mar 2009 (Monday) 16:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
mattia
Senior Member
528 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 16, 2009 16:37 |  #1

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


5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 16, 2009 16:45 |  #2

mattia wrote in post #7536244 (external link)
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 :D.

give it a shot and see what you think.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,738 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Mar 16, 2009 16:51 |  #3

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!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Mar 16, 2009 17:09 |  #4

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


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattia
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
528 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 16, 2009 17:31 |  #5

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.


5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 16, 2009 17:38 |  #6

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...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RikWriter
Goldmember
Avatar
3,949 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 940
Joined May 2004
Location: Lakeland, FL
     
Mar 16, 2009 18:01 |  #7

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.


My pics:
www.pbase.com/rikwrite​r (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hardcorewaterfowl
Member
165 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Central PA
     
Mar 16, 2009 20:07 |  #8

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headshotzx
Goldmember
Avatar
4,488 posts
Likes: 133
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Singapore
     
Mar 16, 2009 21:37 as a reply to  @ hardcorewaterfowl's post |  #9

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.


Zexun | Flickr (external link) | YouTube (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 16, 2009 22:02 |  #10

Headshotzx wrote in post #7538242 (external link)
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 :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Mar 16, 2009 22:13 |  #11

Headshotzx wrote in post #7538242 (external link)
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.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
westernminnguy
Goldmember
Avatar
2,079 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Western Minnesota
     
Mar 16, 2009 22:33 as a reply to  @ Mike55's post |  #12

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.


IMAGES (external link)

VIDEO YouTube (external link)

VIDEO Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Mar 16, 2009 23:01 |  #13

westernminnguy wrote in post #7538624 (external link)
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?


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 16, 2009 23:15 |  #14

Mike55 wrote in post #7538846 (external link)
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


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John_TX
Goldmember
1,471 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Texas
     
Mar 16, 2009 23:24 as a reply to  @ Mike55's post |  #15

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).


5D4 | 5D3 | 16-35 f4 IS | 24-105 f4 IS | 70-200 f4 IS | 100-400 II | Sigma 20 f/1.4 ART | Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART | EF 1.4x III | EF 2x II | 430EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,900 views & 0 likes for this thread
Telephoto: 100-400, 300/4L IS, 400/5.6
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Zochor
862 guests, 271 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.