420mm vs 400mm?

At last a chance to sit down and put the 300 2.8 with a 1.4TC against the 100-400. Of course the prime is unbeatable, dont know why I am bothering really.

Anyway, I sat down, set up the tripod...baby crying...arghh....put the food out, feed baby, get her asleep...sit down again. Bad weather, crap light and notenough birds for over conclusive testing....800ISO and low shutter speeds too. But. Here is my first result....will be taking the prime to the Farnes as I will not need the TC so much there. Screen grabs from DPP, zero anything done to them.

300 2.8 + 1.4TC @f5.6 (stopped down 1 stop)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hello Neil,

I used to have the Canon 100-400 and now have Canon 300 F2.8 USM IS and use a 1.4xTC on it a lot especially for motorsport photography.

However I have taken some pics in my back garden of some birds (not that I know much about them) but I find the 300 + 1.4 very good even wide open.

I have attached a massive crop showing the head of a Sparrow (I think) at 100% taken also like yours at F5.6. Minor sharpening applied in DPP.

Regard's,

Shane.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Yes no arguing that the option of f4 is there, and sharp....just suprised me how good the 100-400 is against the pricier prime.

Hard to tell from your shots but neither of them, especially the first one, look all that good, imo.

Hello Neil,

I agree with you. I bought my 100-400 second hand and used it for over 3 years and took many thousands of aviation and motorsport photos with it and was always pleased with the results. It is a very good lens for the price and has a very flexible zoom range.
For motorsport photos however I wanted a prime lens and sold the 100-400 to part fund my 300 F2.8 purchase.

Regard's

Shane.

Neilyb wrote in post #7820724
Yes no arguing that the option of f4 is there, and sharp....just suprised me how good the 100-400 is against the pricier prime.

Neil -- your opinion is one i would trust. my quick and dirty tests showed the 100-400L wide open beat the 300L + TC wide open and once the lights go down there was no contest. prime + TC also suffered from "jumpy" AF in low light.

i bought the 300L to mostly use @ 420mm....that was a mistake. at 400mm the zoom is very hard to beat.

thanx for the tests!

ed rader

For some reason I can't find a prime to beat my 100-400 I've tried 300f/4 IS X2 , 300F4 non IS, and a new 400 5.6. The last 2 were the same or very close but not better.

I've seen sharper BIF pics than my zoom can take but for me it's just not happening. I have a replacement 400 5.6 coming and my 50D is at Canon being checked so we'll see.

I'm on the other side of the fence. My 100-400 is a great lens but I feel my 300 + 1.4 blows it out of the water. One of the biggest problems I had with my 100-400 is I had to shoot at f/7.1 to get razor sharp pictures. On a overcast day I was venturing into the ISO3200 range to get decent shutter speeds . With the 300 + 1.4 in the same situation I can shoot wide open ISO800 and get better results.

On top of all that:
300mm is razor sharp at f/2.8.
600mm with AF on xxD bodies with usable results.
Greater control over DOF to blur background.

Maybe I just got a exceptional copy of the 300?.....Jeff

jmik26 wrote in post #7822154
I'm on the other side of the fence. My 100-400 is a great lens but I feel my 300 + 1.4 blows it out of the water. One of the biggest problems I had with my 100-400 is I had to shoot at f/7.1 to get razor sharp pictures. On a overcast day I was venturing into the ISO3200 range to get decent shutter speeds . With the 300 + 1.4 in the same situation I can shoot wide open ISO800 and get better results.

On top of all that:
300mm is razor sharp at f/2.8.
600mm with AF on xxD bodies with usable results.
Greater control over DOF to blur background.

Maybe I just got a exceptional copy of the 300?.....Jeff

or a lousy copy of the 100-400L !

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #7822210
or a lousy copy of the 100-400L !

ed rader

I thought so at first but I had two other photographers check it out and they said I was crazy. They told me to stop pixel peeping and trade my aluminum tripod in for a carbon fiber tripod. I upgraded the tripod which helped but I always will be a pixel peeper. Now the curiosity has got me going, time to break out the 100-400 this weekend...

One other thing I noticed was the OP seems to have posted print screens? Would that be the best way to judge sharpness of pictures? Both seem to be print screens so it is a direct comparison but it kinda kills the photo quality of both lenses I would guess?

I tried to replicate the OP pics are far as size goes. Here is 300m + 1.4tc @ f/5.0 no sharpening or PP work done.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Not 400mm, 1/100sec, f/5.6, iso 1250, 600mm, handheld. Shot with a 300mm f/2.8 & 2X TC.

Dont get me wrong, I got some good shots at 600mm with the prime, and I will use it at 600mm alot because its good. The condition yesterday were poor so the shots are not the sharpest but the lenses were at least tested under same conditions.

Jmik, I took screen grabs whilst viewing at 100% rather than cropping.

Here is one at 600mm wide open, dont have a crop sorry, handheld on the 50D (900mm+) I really should use a tripod at that length but the results are more than good considering the ISO and conditions that day.

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

500mm f/4 & 2x TC