100-400L IS vs 300L2.8IS+1.4TC

Does anyone know how the IQ compares between a Canon 100-400 at 400mm(f/5.6) vs. 300mmLIS2.8+1.4TC (=420mmf/4)?

Thanks

According to this site, pretty close.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=1&API=1

(mouse over to the image to load and compare between the two)

um... don't you mean to compare the 1-4 @ 400mm 5.6 vs 300mm f/4 IS +1.4 TC @ 420mm f/5.6 ?

Isn't this combination like $2000 apart from one another?

kinghong1970 wrote in post #10728123
um... don't you mean to compare the 1-4 @ 400mm 5.6 vs 300mm f/4 IS +1.4 TC @ 420mm f/5.6 ?

That would be this comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=1&API=0

Still pretty close.

kinghong1970:
Yes I was in error...what I ment was to compare the 1-4 @ 400mm 5.6 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS +1.4 TC @ 420mm f/4.0.

sagebrush wrote in post #10728323
kinghong1970:
Yes I was in error...what I ment was to compare the 1-4 @ 400mm 5.6 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS +1.4 TC @ 420mm f/4.0.

One is much lighter, and much cheaper, than the other and gives you more flexibility in choosing focal length.

...Mike

I have both, 300 plus TCs beats the 100-400 and I have a good copy of both. But the 300 is far larger and heavier, not so good for travel. Bokeh too is better on the prime. If you have the 300 you are sorted. If you have both even better. If you have the 1-4 then you are lusting after the 300. If you have the 300 you will always wonder if the extra was worth it......and around in your head it will go....

Like Neilyb I have both. I also reckon the 300 + 1.4x beats the 100-400 for IQ.

I'm off to Kenya next month and was dithering about which to take - 100-400 for the weight and flexibility or the 300 for the image quality. What finally made me decide was the fact that the 300 + 2x TC gives me 600mm @ f5.6 - that's 50% more reach with acceptable image quality. I'll also be taking a 70-200 for animals that are too close.

I asked this same question a few months ago. I had only the 100-400, and finally bit the bullet and bought a 300 2.8. Both lenses have their advantages. The 100-400 zoom is handy, while the speed of the 300 2.8 can't be matched by the 100-400. I have Canon 2x and 1.4x TC's, and on the 300 2.8 I get full autofocus. I've done some IQ test shots, and while there is a difference between the 300 2.8 and the 100-400 (tested at 300mm), it's not enough to worry me. If you're a "pixel picker", you may not be satified, but the difference is SO small I can't fault either lens. The big advantage of the 300 2.8 is speed. I get crisp shots hand-held easily, and my lens is non-IS. Having the ability to select much higher shutter speed makes the 300 2.8 stand out. However, the 100-400 does have IS. To me, it's nearly a toss-up. If I need speed, I use the 300 2.8. If I need zoom, I use the 100-400.

Thanks for the advice. I decided to go for the 300mm 2.8 IS. I go to Costa Rica on Photo Safri about once a year. The shooting conditons are almost always warm, humid, and can be quite dark deep in the jungle. I usually take my 100-400 but have had a few problems that I expect the 300 2.8 to solve.

1) The 100-400 push-pull design at times can fog-up making it impossible to use.
2) I noticed 90% of my shots were at the long end of the 100-400 and still needed more reach w/AF.
3) The speed of the 300 will really help make the shot in low light conditions.

Sometimes I go into the jungle chasing a pack of monkey or a bird and grab my 500mm f/4 and tripod. After an hour or so dragging this setup around if I get a shot it turns out very good. But with the 300mm it will be much lighter than the 500mm w/tripod and with IS I hope to leave the tripod behind and with the 2xTC in my pocket I hope to get acceptable shots at 600mm f5.6 and retain the AF on the 7D.

I hope my rational is correct.

Neilyb wrote in post #10729619
If you have the 1-4 then you are lusting after the 300. If you have the 300 you will always wonder if the extra was worth it......and around in your head it will go....

I went in to look at the 300mm 2.8 and TC, then I saw the 100-400mm L.

Hmmmm ... so much for 300mm lusting.

I can do things with the 100-400mm that cannot be done with the 300mm 2.8 w/TC.

How's that 300 look when shooting at say 110mm? 150mm? 220mm? 270mm? Oh wait the 300mm cannot shoot at those focal lengths. How silly of me!

I own the 100-400mm and I can tell you I do not 'lust' after that 300mm.

I now lust after the 500mm and 600mm lenses!

sagebrush wrote in post #10731184
1) The 100-400 push-pull design at times can fog-up making it impossible to use.

In the right conditions any lens can fog up. On a recent vacation where we had air conditioned housing this was very evident going out into the hot and humid environment. My solution was risky, but I left my gear secured in the vehicle that was parked outside in the shooting environment and this resolved the issue. I was trying to use my 100mm L Macro and it was fogging up until it 'acclimated'.

sagebrush wrote in post #10731184
But with the 300mm it will be much lighter than the 500mm w/tripod and with IS I hope to leave the tripod behind and with the 2xTC in my pocket I hope to get acceptable shots at 600mm f5.6 and retain the AF on the 7D.

I hope my rational is correct.

If I were you I would if possible test out that combo with the 2X TC. I tried the 2X TC on a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and was not happy with it. The 1.4 was acceptable but only took the 200 out to 280.

On my vacation I had the opportunity to exercise the heck out of the 100-400mm and I am very happy with the experience. I now have a level of confidence with that lens that I did not have before, because up to that point I was shooting in the same conditions.

AF on 7D - I found a way to AF on the 7D with the 2X TC.

You can AF with it in LIVE VIEW, but it will be slower. Hunting can be an issue but with practice the issue is non-existent. What I did to make it work was manually focus turning the ring to the left of the in focus point. AF went to the focus point and locked in. If the lend is to the right of the focus point AF will cause it to go all the way out and then back in.

sagebrush wrote in post #10727835
Does anyone know how the IQ compares between a Canon 100-400 at 400mm(f/5.6) vs. 300mmLIS2.8+1.4TC (=420mmf/4)?

Thanks

the 100-400L focusses better in low light and, imo, the IQ is better. i bought the 300L last year and i knew i would be using it most of the time with TC. i much preferred the 100-400L and returned the prime in less than a week.

ed rader

But don't forget you can use the 300mm f/2.8 IS at 300mm. And that thing will smoke the 100-400 anyday in contrast and sharpness.