Canon 100-400 + Canon 1.4X vs Canon 300 2.8 + Canon 2X

Does anyone have experience of this comparison in particular IQ?

Jamie

I have a 50D with the 100-400mm and just got a 1.4X First of all the loss in image quality is noticable and i don't have autofocus, also my light meter goes beserk in AV mode so i have to shoot full manual settings. from what i gather the prime lenses seem to take handle the teleconverters alot better. Do you want this as a birding safari lens? By the time you buy the 300mm 2.8 and 2x converter you are almost at a 500mm f/4 price wise and you will have a faster lens with better autofocus. I would be taking that into consideration. And since you already have a 1.4 you will than have some really big reach.

shoshone wrote in post #9409688
Does anyone have experience of this comparison in particular IQ?

No competition. The 300 + 2x is much better than the 100-400 + 1.4x.

Jeremy87 wrote in post #9409769
By the time you buy the 300mm 2.8 and 2x converter you are almost at a 500mm f/4 price wise

That's a darn expensive TC. Here in the UK the 300 costs £3885 and the 500 is £5615. For the difference in price you could buy six Canon TCs.

I also have a 50D and a 100-400. I ran some interesting tests late this summer comparing the following lens and teleconverter combinations. 100-400 alone, and 100-400 with Canon 2x. My 300 2.8 FD with Canon 1.4x teleconverter modified as FD to EOS adapter. (See this link for details http://vp7.de/eosfd/eo​sfd.html). Canon FD 500mm f8 reflex with mount converted to EOS alone, and then with FD 2x teleconverter “B” changed to EOS mount. I mounted to my tripod outdoors, and used a Tide plastic detergent bottle 40 feet away as a target. As this bottle has multiple colors, high contrast and very sharp printing, it provided a baseline for reference. I was surprised beyond belief at the comparison results. The 100-400 was very sharp by itself, and I could see no visual difference with the 2x teleconverter attached. The 300 2.8 as described above was equal to the 100-400 without teleconverter. Even the 500 f8 reflex lens yielded excellent results, however a bit less sharp that the 100-400. Obviously the 100-400 with 2x had to be manual focus. I have a Katz-Eye split microprism viewfinder, and focusing is a snap. I spent half a day shooting and then reviewing the RAW files, and could find so little differences in the separate configurations that I’d call them all more than acceptable. True, a new 300 2.8 USM with IS is the answer, I guess it depends on how much one is willing to spend.

shoshone wrote in post #9409688
Does anyone have experience of this comparison in particular IQ?

Jamie

Folks, Many thanks for your input however today I bought a S/H 300 2.8L IS and put my 100-400 up for sale to contribute to the purchase.
Jamie

shoshone wrote in post #9419550
Folks, Many thanks for your input however today I bought a S/H 300 2.8L IS and put my 100-400 up for sale to contribute to the purchase.
Jamie

I'm looking as of today for a 300 2.8 IS myself, but also don't want to sacrifice the 100-400 as the flexibility of having the zoom still makes it a valuable lens. I've learned that with my 300 2.8 FD, in that there are times one just can't take a few steps forward or back. "Foot zoom" isn't always convenient!

richardfox wrote in post #9419622
I'm looking as of today for a 300 2.8 IS myself, but also don't want to sacrifice the 100-400 as the flexibility of having the zoom still makes it a valuable lens. I've learned that with my 300 2.8 FD, in that there are times one just can't take a few steps forward or back. "Foot zoom" isn't always convenient!

Richard,
Unfortunately I couldn't afford the luxury of having both

Let me know how you get on in your search...
Jamie