Looking at a long L...

trmwf wrote in post #9208120
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.


this deer was taken while walking through some woods enroute to a lake to shoot some ducks


and I doubt that a 400 or even 500 would have made the shot any better. The butterfly was taken in the yard and requires a lens that is also good up close.


You hear a lot about length is everything when it comes to birds and while it is important I just don't subscribe to the fact that it is everything. I have drove 60 miles to get some shots only to find all the exotic ducks way out in the middle where even the hubble telescope couldn't get them and the next time they will be so close you have to back off from them to get a shot. To me, it is a mix of both length and quality. I think the 300 is a super sharp lens, sharper than the 100- 400 and well worth the sacrafice in the 100 meters....I'll just crawl a little further if need be.

seals don't have ears. that's a sea lion. and in case you missed my intent that wasn't meant to be my sharpest shot. it is very sharp but it was also shot on the beach at mid-day. don't confuse the cropping with the versatility of the zoom....it was shot @ 250mm.

you're comparing a zoom with a prime and of course the zoom will come out on the short end. once you add a TC to the prime then the zoom is the winner, in both AF and IQ.

like i said i've owned both lenses. in fact i've owned the 300 twice and i've also owned the 300L f2.8. the lens i decided to keep of the three was the 100-400L, which is very hard to beat by any appreciable margin @ 400mm by anything that canon offers except for the 400L f2.8.

if you do any travelling you'll also appreciate the compactness of the 3 lb. zoom.

the prime has it's uses but if you're using it with a TC alot i think you are much better off with the zoom. and like you said you've never used the zoom.

also, if you're in a safari jeep or shooting grizzly bears fishing for salmon you won't be crawling anywhere .

ed rader

Kiwikat wrote in post #9205774
It'll be mostly birds, wildlife, and insects like butterflies and dragonflies. The ability to shoot some outdoor sports would be a bonus.

Hmm, since you threw in insects/butterflies/dr​agonflies into the mix, I think that would swing you over to the 300. While not a macro, the 300 does allow for some nice close-ups of the small critters.

I haven't used the 100-400, so I can't give you a comparison, but I have taken shots that I really like of birds/wildlife/insects​/sports with the 300. I will say that I while I love shooting with primes, you will miss some shots because you don't have the right focal length. That doesn't bother me, but I know for others it does.

I use the 1.4x about a 1/3 of the time that I shoot with the 300, and the only negative that I notice is that it is slower to auto focus. Even pixel peeping, I don't notice a decrease in sharpness. I tend not to use the 1.4x if I think I will be aiming at fast moving subjects.

ed rader wrote in post #9209014
seals don't have ears. that's a sea lion

Um.... Eared Seals

I voted for the 300mm with 1.4X (eventually).

I simply prefer a prime lens for 300mm and longer lenses.

I've seen a lot of great shots made with the 100-400, too, but am not a fan of push-pull zoom design (but have to say this is just a personal preference, and dates back to the days of manual focus lenses).

The 300/4 is a very nice lens all on it's own (yeah, I know I've posted this shot a few times already) ...

I own both and love them....

ed rader wrote in post #9209014
you're comparing a zoom with a prime and of course the zoom will come out on the short end. once you add a TC to the prime then the zoom is the winner, in both AF and IQ.

like i said i've owned both lenses. in fact i've owned the 300 twice and i've also owned the 300L f2.8. the lens i decided to keep of the three was the 100-400L, which is very hard to beat by any appreciable margin @ 400mm by anything that canon offers except for the 400L f2.8.



ed rader

I to have owned both the 1-4 also own the 300 and 400 5.6 and the 1-4 never came close to sharpness nor focus speed even with a 1.4 added to either one of the primes. The 1-4 is actually flat at the long end and tests has proved this many times. Some like the 1-4 and it suits them but it isn't a substitute for a good prime.

300mm is the way to go!

Sorry Ed,

When someone else said that the 300 was sharper then the 100-400 and you came back and said "not at 400 it isn't" and then added a pic to make your point I just naturally assumed the photo was at 400mm. Guess i just didn't think you would be using a photo taken @ 250 to demonstrate how sharp the 100-400 was at 400. Further, did not mean to insult your sea lion.

The whole point is that primes are usually sharper than zooms. At least that is my opinion and the general concensious I get from reading many threads on this forum for about a year now. Do zooms have a place, they certainly do. While I have never used the 100-400 I have used and still own and use a couple of zooms and enjoy them. The object of my post is that longer is not always necessary as there is such an alternative as moving closer when you can. In your examples of safaris and grizzlies that is not always adviseable, but then the additional 100mm of the 100-400 probably isn't going to do you much good either.

It all boils down to how much sharpness you might be willing to lose to gain the extra 100mm as even you yourself admit that if you compare the zoom to the prime the zoom will come out on the short end.

trmwf wrote in post #9209684
It all boils down to how much sharpness you might be willing to lose to gain the extra 100mm as even you yourself admit that if you compare the zoom to the prime the zoom will come out on the short end.

For me its not just gaining an extra 100 on the long end. It's also gaining 200 on the short end. The 100-400 from 100-250 has much better image quality than my 55-250. Obviously the range 250-400 on the 100-400 and 300 on the 300 is better than what I have now, because I don't have that range now.

Comparisons between the 300 at 420 and the 100-400 at 400 don't really matter to me a whole lot. 300 at 300 and 100-400 at 300 would be more relevant as if I had the prime, it would be without the TC most of the time- unless I am shooting small birds. The 300 prime is definitely sharper than the 100-400 at 300.

Right now I am leaning towards the 100-400 because of its versatility. I think it would be a lot easier to handle when on hikes and such because I wouldn't have to change lenses as often. (though I know I bought a DSLR and changing lenses is part of it)

It very well may come down to how much money I have when I'm ready to buy. It seems that neither one of these lenses would disappoint me. They are both considerably better than anything I currently own. They both have many satisfied owners.

I would go 300mm. Simply because I spent months researching the 100-400 against 400mm 5.6 prime. The 400mm came out on top.

THE TROOPER wrote in post #9221268
I would go 300mm. Simply because I spent months researching the 100-400 against 400mm 5.6 prime. The 400mm came out on top.

Why exactly are you trying to sell yours then? Just curious.

I would go for the 300. It'll have superior IQ and it will take the 1.4x much better than the 100-400.

SiaoP wrote in post #9223622
I would go for the 300. It'll have superior IQ and it will take the 1.4x much better than the 100-400.

The point is that the 100-400 wouldn't need the TC. I wouldn't even buy one with it. On the charts, the 100-400 at 400 is marginally sharper than the 300 with 1.4 TC. On the charts, the 300 is sharper than the 100-400 at 300.

On the charts, the 100-400 is sharper from 100-299 and 301-400...

I'm still not decided though. The close-range abilities of the 300 really interest me as I love shooting dragonflies, butterflies, and bees. I'm still leaning towards the 100-400 because of its versatility. As I said before, it will probably come down to how much money I've got when it is time to order. The 100mm L macro is also enticing me...

I voted for the 100-400 because it has a very usable range for a zoom and the fact that I have this lens. I find it very usefull for what I like to shoot such as air shows, around the bay, out in the field with the dogs.
Not putting the 300 down at all by voting for the 100-400 and infact I may start looking at primes soon and this would be one, for sure!

100-400mm just for the sheer versatility of it.