Looking at a long L...

This time I'm serious about purchasing a serious Lens. I paid for school next semester and have money left over. By tax return time I'll have enough saved for either of these two lenses. I'll be buying either one of them new, not used.

Which of these two telephoto L lenses would be more useful for me? I've currently got a 55-250 that covers part of the telephoto range, but I am not too happy with its length or image quality compared to these two. I find it to be fast enough in brighter light conditions for most of my shots. I'm mostly interested in shooting wildlife, birds, airplanes, and sports in the future. I am leaning slightly towards the 100-400, but the larger aperture and better image quality of the 300 is very enticing.

If I got the 300mm, I'd also get a 1.4 TC in the future, bringing the price up to what the 100-400 costs. I'm not interested in spending any more money than the 100-400 though. I also do not want the 400mm 5.6 as I've used it in the past and didn't like it because of no IS. Even 2-stop IS at those lengths helps a lot.

Thanks guys. I'm sure I'm going to Love my first L!

I own the 300 so can say it is absolutely sterling. I do not own the 100-400 so can't say anything about it.

Mike

Owned both lense and they are both great pieces of kit.

They both are different thou. Depending on what you want to shoot.

I voted for the 100-400 simply because of the fact that it might be a little more versatile. I would go with the 300 if light was an issue, but you stated you mainly shoot it bright situations.

I have shot birds once and thought that 100-400L IS is more flexible for me.

Kiwikat wrote in post #9205545
This time I'm serious about purchasing a serious Lens. I paid for school next semester and have money left over. By tax return time I'll have enough saved for either of these two lenses. I'll be buying either one of them new, not used.

Which of these two telephoto L lenses would be more useful for me? I've currently got a 55-250 that covers part of the telephoto range, but I am not too happy with its length or image quality compared to these two. I find it to be fast enough in brighter light conditions for most of my shots. I'm mostly interested in shooting wildlife, birds, airplanes, and sports in the future. I am leaning slightly towards the 100-400, but the larger aperture and better image quality of the 300 is very enticing.

If I got the 300mm, I'd also get a 1.4 TC in the future, bringing the price up to what the 100-400 costs. I'm not interested in spending any more money than the 100-400 though. I also do not want the 400mm 5.6 as I've used it in the past and didn't like it because of no IS. Even 2-stop IS at those lengths helps a lot.

Thanks guys. I'm sure I'm going to Love my first L!

the image IQ of the prime is only better without TC, and the difference isn't enough to worry about.

i've owned both and i really never cared for the prime with TC and i found myself using that combo alot because a native 400mm is really what you'll need for your uses. AF takes a pretty good hit with TC too.

ed rader

Sports and action 100-400
Birding and animal stalking 300 + tc

For birds and wildlife you'll want longer than 300mm most the time. For sports you'll want a faster lens. You need to decide what you want to shoot more and then go from there.

Jeff81 wrote in post #9205719
For birds and wildlife you'll want longer than 300mm most the time. For sports you'll want a faster lens. You need to decide what you want to shoot more and then go from there.

It'll be mostly birds, wildlife, and insects like butterflies and dragonflies. The ability to shoot some outdoor sports would be a bonus. From what I've seen, all of these things have been done with these two lenses, and quite well at that. That's why I am having such trouble figuring out which I want...

Also I would get a 1.4 TC with the 300 as I said earlier. That'd bring it to 420mm, which is decent for birds. I've seen many examples of the 300 + TC that have given very sharp and consistent results.

Does the magnification factor affect shooting birds a whole lot? The 300 has a slightly higher magnification than the 1-4.

Thanks for your feedback everyone. Keep the opinions coming! It is a big help.

I shot alot of sports with the 100-400. Never was a problem for me. Mind you I wasnt sitting in a stadium at 9pm and raining

I'm currently looking through the 100-400 archive for some photos. I'm not actually that impressed by the sharpness I'm seeing (compared to the 300). The 300mm is considerably sharper than the photos I have seen so far.

Can someone post some sharp examples from the 1-4?

I vote other! 400mm F5.6L!

Kiwikat wrote in post #9206780
I'm currently looking through the 100-400 archive for some photos. I'm not actually that impressed by the sharpness I'm seeing (compared to the 300). The 300mm is considerably sharper than the photos I have seen so far.

Can someone post some sharp examples from the 1-4?

not at 400mm it ain't .

I'd say go with the 300mm. It's a prime so the photos will come out really sharp. I'd think it'll be a lot more sharper than the 100-400mm since it's a prime, but I haven't had the chance to use neither of them. Since you'll be shooting mainly

the 300mm will give you great shots from a far distance.

Eds seal shot is nice, very nice, but to my eyes it is not near as sharp as those posted earlier taken with the 300. Besides, the subject was cut off on two sides of the shot indicating that the 400 was too much lens in this instance, that shows that length is not always everything.Wildlife and bird shooting is much much more that jumping in the car and driving to the park, hanging a long lens out the window, getting a shot of a lifetime in 5 minutes and driving home. For birds and wildlife you have to seek your prey out most of the time or attract them in close, so close sometimes that even the 300 is too much, as evidenced by this woodpecker.