Looking at a long L...

Kiwikat wrote in post #9223667
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...

Add a 500D close-up lens to 100-400L. This combo is used by many dragonfly and other small critter shooters. No light loss, very good IQ, and adds 0.2X to 0.8X magnification to the existing magnification (zooming from 100 to 400 mm), while allowing you to keep a good distance.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9224443
Add a 500D close-up lens to 100-400L. This combo is used by many dragonfly and other small critter shooters. No light loss, very good IQ, and adds 0.2X to 0.8X magnification to the existing magnification (zooming from 100 to 400 mm), while allowing you to keep a good distance.

Kind regards, Wim

Do you have any of your photos anywhere with it attached? I'd love to see some examples.

Kiwikat wrote in post #9224896
Do you have any of your photos anywhere with it attached? I'd love to see some examples.

I'll have to look. I'll have a go at it later this weekend. I used to shoot flowers with it that way . That was before I sold my first one (on my second one now, but only recently).

Kind regards, Wim

Kiwikat wrote in post #9224896
Do you have any of your photos anywhere with it attached? I'd love to see some examples.

I don't know anymore which ones I shot with or without the 500D, so I made a few quick and dirty sample shots, just to give you an impression.

First, at MFD and 400 mm, F/5.6, magnification 1:5.
Next, at MFD, 500D and 100 mm F/4.5, magnification 1:4

Final image, at MFD, 500D and 400 mm F/5.6, magnification 1:1, see follow-up post.

Kind regards, Wim

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

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

wimg wrote in post #9230239
I don't know anymore which ones I shot with or without the 500D, so I made a few quick and dirty sample shots, just to give you an impression.

First, at MFD and 400 mm, F/5.6, magnification 1:5.
Next, at MFD, 500D and 100 mm F/4.5, magnification 1:4

Final image, at MFD, 500D and 400 mm F/5.6, magnification 1:1, see follow-up post.

Kind regards, Wim

The final image.

Note that at 1:5 and 400 mm the WD is about 1.5 m, at 100 mm with 500D at MFD it is about 45 cm, and at 400 mm with 500D at MFD it is about 30-35 cm. I held the lens at an angle, right to left in the first picture, pointing down a little in the other two, to show the limited DoF wide open. You'll need to stop down a little further for more DoF. Since at magnifications fairly close to 1:1 only the magnification determines DoF, this is a great way to have a large WD with the same DoF as a shorter lens. BTW, all handheld, 3200 iso, tungsten light (hence the colour differences between the shot, shutterspeeds between 1/45s and 1/100s I think).

Kind regards, Wim

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

You seem to really want the versatility of the zoom. I've seen some great pictures with that lens, so I think the 100-400mm might be perfect for you. If you need that lower focal range, the zoom is the way to go. If it were me making the same chioice for myself, it would be a quick & easy decision. I'd get the 400mm 5.6 prime.

I absolutely love my 100-400. When I was getting it I was trying to choose between the 300F4L IS, 400 prime and the 100-400. Obviously, I ended up getting the 100-400 and I couldn't be happier, sure the 400 prime has the 400mm range, is a bit faster and more accurate and sharper, but it DOESN'T have IS OR a zoom range down to 100mm... To me, The flexibility of having the zoom was crucial as you arent always going to be able to shoot at 300 or 400mm. And really, I haven't had any problems at all with sharpness, accuracy or speed.

Feel free to check out the bird photos on my website, most of them are all with the 100-400

Some examples:
This one was a HUGE crop
#1

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

I've got both. This was with the 20D 300 f/4 and 1.4x TC, ISO 200. Uncropped, minimal post of the RAW:

I voted the 100-400. A great lens, and the ability to zoom in or out can be worth a lot when you don't have the time to switch to a different lens.

If tack sharp images are important to you, the 300 2.8 IS about as good as it gets. The 200 1.8 is probably the only sharper lens I have seen. I also have the 100-400 and it is not in the same league.

NEKKODDD wrote in post #9231089
If tack sharp images are important to you, the 300 2.8 IS about as good as it gets.

LOL, trust me if I had that kind of money I wouldn't be asking what to get.

Huge thanks for the advice and photos everyone, and for everyone who voted! The bird shots are exceptional, and the 500D looks great on the lens on those other shots.

I've decided to go for the 100-400. I'm currently trying to sell my 55-250 for some additional funding for it. Regardless, I'll be able to get it as soon as tax returns come around in about a month.

I thought owning this lens was a distant dream at best... looks like it will come true!

I absolutely can't wait. I am so excited! I'm sure my parents will be happy once it is here too so they don't have to listen to me going on and on about it...

Congrats on the decision, I'm sure you will be plenty pleased

Let us know how you like it. I'm still trying to make a similar decision.

Some real oversharpened shots around here...but if you want 400mm buy the 1-4, if you want 300 with occasional 420mm....get the prime. If you want flexible get the zoom. I have had a 300 f4, I was not gobsmacked with IQ with or without a TC. I Have the 300 2.8 IS and only put up with the inflexibility of a prime because with TCs I can get ultra superb IQ with TCs....but I still like to zoom...and the 1-4 is sharp and contrasty too. My choice for compact, flexible, sharp and light.

[QUOTE=Kiwikat;9231262​]LOL, trust me if I had that kind of money I wouldn't be asking what to get.

Fair enough... there is price that must be overcome. I have seen marvelous work with less than marvelous equipment.