Looking at a long L...

Well I got my 55-250 sold. Now I'm lonely and my camera's naked...

It is just a matter of time, money won't be a problem.

I've got a quick question for anyone who might decide to read this week old thread.

If I was shooting a butterfly for example... Would the 300 f/4 @ MFD fill up the frame more with the butterfly than the 100-400 @ 400 @ MFD?

I know the 100-400's MFD is more than the 300's but the 100-400 has the advantage of going to 400. Does the extra 100mm make up for the around 11 inch longer MFD and slightly less magnification (.04 less)?

I hope this question makes sense... :\

Buying time is drawing very near. I'll be ordering within two weeks, so I just want to make sure my last question or two is answered.

No but pick up a set of Kenko Extention tubes and you could get close to filling the frame with a butterfly

Other than that, you could get as close as the MFD will let you and just crop it the rest of the way, If you can get a nice sharp shot the crop wont hurt.

hope this helps

Canon_For_Life wrote in post #9294321
No but pick up a set of Kenko Extention tubes and you could get close to filling the frame with a butterfly

Other than that, you could get as close as the MFD will let you and just crop it the rest of the way, If you can get a nice sharp shot the crop wont hurt.

hope this helps

Based on your answer I'm not sure if you got what I was asking. I don't plan on it filling the frame, but I want to know which lens would fill the frame with a butterfly more at their respective MFD's and max native focal lengths. Does the extra length of the 100-400 make up for the longer MFD and less magnification?

If you check the specifications for the individual lenses, you will normally see a figure with their maximum magnification. This is the magnification when used at closest possible focus distance, and represents the exact answer to your question.

The 100-400 has max magnification 1:5 at 400m.

The 300 has max magnification 1:4.2.

So the 300 will make the butterfly bigger.

Using extension tubes, you can get closer with either of these lenses and get a higher magnification.

pwm2 wrote in post #9294425
If you check the specifications for the individual lenses, you will normally see a figure with their maximum magnification. This is the magnification when used at closest possible focus distance, and represents the exact answer to your question.

The 100-400 has max magnification 1:5 at 400m.

The 300 has max magnification 1:4.2.

So the 300 will make the butterfly bigger.

Using extension tubes, you can get closer with either of these lenses and get a higher magnification.

Thanks! I guess I was confused as to what maximum magnification was in relationship to focal length.

I'll be going with the 100-400 and then pick up a set of Kenko tubes later when tax returns come. I'll be sure to post some shots when I get it!

Kiwikat wrote in post #9294497
Thanks! I guess I was confused as to what maximum magnification was in relationship to focal length.

I'll be going with the 100-400 and then pick up a set of Kenko tubes later when tax returns come. I'll be sure to post some shots when I get it!

Rather get a good quality close-up lens, like the Canon 500D (MC achromatic doublet) for use with longer teles. With the 300 it'll give you an additional magnification of 0.6X, with the 100-400 0.2X at 100 mm to 0.8X at 400 mm.

It doesn't extend the lens, ok, except for the thickness of the filter mount , you don't lose any light, and it is much more handholdable than it is with tubes.

BTW, additional maginifaction really means that: with the 100-400, f.e., at infinity and 400 mm you'll have an instant 0.8X magnification, or 1:1.25, up to 1:1 (0.8X + 0.2X) at MFD. At 100 mm it varies from about 0.2X to 0.25X. There are quite a few butterfly, dragonfly, lizard, and flower shooters who use this combo in the field. No need to unmount the lens, just screw in the close-up lens, and off you go.

Finally, it is generally advisable to stick with tubes for shorter lenses, say anything below 200 mm. To get any decent increase in magnification, you will need quite a lot of tubes on long lenses, which is why people tend to use good quality closeup lenses with longer lenses. Additionally, i tmakes handheld shooting so much easier. Great for chasing the critters in the field.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9298457
Rather get a good quality close-up lens, like the Canon 500D (MC achromatic doublet) for use with longer teles. With the 300 it'll give you an additional magnification of 0.6X, with the 100-400 0.2X at 100 mm to 0.8X at 400 mm.

It doesn't extend the lens, ok, except for the thickness of the filter mount , you don't lose any light, and it is much more handholdable than it is with tubes.

BTW, additional maginifaction really means that: with the 100-400, f.e., at infinity and 400 mm you'll have an instant 0.8X magnification, or 1:1.25, up to 1:1 (0.8X + 0.2X) at MFD. At 100 mm it varies from about 0.2X to 0.25X. There are quite a few butterfly, dragonfly, lizard, and flower shooters who use this combo in the field. No need to unmount the lens, just screw in the close-up lens, and off you go.

Finally, it is generally advisable to stick with tubes for shorter lenses, say anything below 200 mm. To get any decent increase in magnification, you will need quite a lot of tubes on long lenses, which is why people tend to use good quality closeup lenses with longer lenses. Additionally, i tmakes handheld shooting so much easier. Great for chasing the critters in the field.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for that bit of info! I'll definitely take a look at it.

You guys are great!

I sold the 100-400 and opted for the 300mm f4. Wonderful lens. Extremely sharp, and KILLER macro lens with tubes.

abigailandsam wrote in post #9299406
I sold the 100-400 and opted for the 300mm f4. Wonderful lens. Extremely sharp, and KILLER macro lens with tubes.

But only if you have some other glass to fill in the gaps the 300 will leave . . . I have both, and the 300 f/2.8 IS, but the lens that I carry around most is the 100-400. A dedicated 300 comes along only if I have extra space. It's excellent, but limited by being a fixed focal length.

Jon wrote in post #9299434
But only if you have some other glass to fill in the gaps the 300 will leave . . . I have both, and the 300 f/2.8 IS, but the lens that I carry around most is the 100-400. A dedicated 300 comes along only if I have extra space. It's excellent, but limited by being a fixed focal length.

Yup. If I would have kept my 55-250 I probably would have gone with the 300. But since I sold it to help fund the lens, I want the versatility of a zoom that covers much of the range I used to have.

Well... I did it. Ordered at B&H. Will be here on Wednesday!

After spending a morning and afternoon with the 400 prime and a 80-200 magic drainpipe, I decided to go with the 300 f/4 IS. With the difference in money compared to the 100-400, I'll be able to get a Tokina 12-24 II after tax returns. This lens duo will add a lot of new options to my bag. Though my focal length range between my lenses will be very strange, I'm confident I'll be able to make it work for me.

My first L lens! Kind of an odd one, but cool nonetheless!