100-400L vs 300L 2.8

Has anyone compared the 100-400LIS to the superb 300 2.8LIS? I presently have the 100-400 lens and mostly use it at the 400 end. If I added the 1.4 t/c to the 300LIS or cropped 300LIS images to match 100-400LIS size which image would be better? Thanks.

Sounds like you did not bother to do a search on this forum before asking your question. No contest, 300 wins.

only thing the 100-400 does better, is zoom.

Thanks for the reply. I did look at reviews of both lenses via google, but never found this duo compared. I saw some comparisons between the 100-400 and the 300 f4 but never the 300 2.8 lens. Plus nobody in my area stocks the 300 2.8 so doing a hands-on test won't happen either. I might just go ahead and order the lens from either Adorama or B&H as both of them have a 30 day return policy. Since it's not a trivial purchase I like to gather as much data prior to purchase as possible.

joeseph wrote in post #11140872
only thing the 100-400 does better, is zoom.

So does the 300 but you need a comfortable pair of shoes.

cristphoto wrote in post #11140902
So does the 300 but you need a comfortable pair of shoes.

exactly. I borrowed a 300 f/2.8 IS a while ago to shoot an airshow when my 100-400 was in for repair. Lovely lens...

Can't believe it's 30minutes and no one has come in to harp on the fact that "foot zooming" changes perspectives.

I personally would stick with the 100-400. That is unless...
A: I'm just rich enough to blow money on whatevers...
B: I get paid to shoot night time sports.

300/2.8 is a nice lens. (Heck all the four horsemen primes are.) But if I was in the market for a f/2.8 telephoto lens... then the longer the good"er", so I might as well go for the mother of f/2.8 lenses: 400.

I have a 100-400 IS and a 300 2.8 non-IS. While not an IS to IS comparison, the speed of the 2.8 is an advantage, while the zoom of the 100-400 is an advantage. The BIG advantage with the 2.8 is that both my 1.4x and 2x TC's are autofocus compatible, which gives me up to 600mm with the same minimum aperture (5.6) of the 100-400 when zoomed out.

The IQ of the 300 2.8 beats the 100-400, but not as much as one would expect. If you pixel-pick, you can see the difference. However, the 300 2.8 with the 2x TC versus the 100-400 by itself is a virtual draw. (Or, it is to me)!

I can't make a call on this as both lenses have their purpose. The big advantage of the 300 2.8 is performance in low-light situations. The big advantage of the 100-400 is the zoom and (in my case) the IS.

I like both, and it would be a hard decision on which one to do without!

jwcdds wrote in post #11141113
Can't believe it's 30minutes and no one has come in to harp on the fact that "foot zooming" changes perspectives.

I personally would stick with the 100-400. That is unless...
A: I'm just rich enough to blow money on whatevers...
B: I get paid to shoot night time sports.

300/2.8 is a nice lens. (Heck all the four horsemen primes are.) But if I was in the market for a f/2.8 telephoto lens... then the longer the good"er", so I might as well go for the mother of f/2.8 lenses: 400.

Foot zooming does change perspective! Yes, the two lenses are different for sure. I don't get paid to shoot anything, and if I was rich enough to blow money on anything, I'd go directly to B&H and buy the Canon 1200mm they have in the used department for $120,000. This lens is the mother of the mother of the mother of Canon lenses!

Uh, dream on!

cristphoto wrote in post #11138179
Has anyone compared the 100-400LIS to the superb 300 2.8LIS? I presently have the 100-400 lens and mostly use it at the 400 end. If I added the 1.4 t/c to the 300LIS or cropped 300LIS images to match 100-400LIS size which image would be better? Thanks.

The 300mm f2.8 IS L can even take a 2*Teleconverter and still retain a very high level of image quality and focusing speed whilst being cheaper and lighter than the regular 600mm L.

Overall there is no contest the 300mm f2.8 IS L beats the 100-400mm totally. However that said many who do use the 300mm do keep a 100-400mm lens as a support lens. This is either sitting on another tripod right next to them incase whatever they are shooting (be it cars or birds) comes closer than the 300mm can handle. It also serves as a good quality lighter and smaller option for when the 300mm is just not practical to take out.

Hi, I have both of these lenses and they have very different uses. The 300 comes into it's own when light levels are low, or when I need maximum reach, as it takes a 2x TC well to give a 600 f/5.6

On the other hand, the 100-400 has the benefit of zooming. I have frequently had problems with the prime being a touch long, as subjects move about, so I end up cutting part of the subject off. The 100-400 could simply be zoomed out a bit to get the better framing.

I love both lenses and will often have them both at the ready, on different bodies, so that I canuse the zoom when I need it, or the prime when that is better.

As for IQ, yes the 300 is better, but not dramatically so. The difference is clear when pixel peeping, but once processing is finished and the image resized for output and sharpened, it is very hard to see any difference in sharpness in the finished image.

I would place them very close in terms of IQ when the 300 has a 1.4xTC on it, although the edge would go to the 300 still. However, you would have to pixel peep pretty closely to see the advantage. In real world usage, you are unlikely to see a sharpness advantage.

On the other hand, the bokeh of the 100-400 is pretty crap, and the 300 has it solidly beaten there, with the difference being clear in the final image too.

The 300 is the better lens, as you would expect, but not so much so that I would stop using my 100-400, particularly when I need the extra versatility.

sandpiper wrote in post #11141247
Hi, I have both of these lenses and they have very different uses. The 300 comes into it's own when light levels are low, or when I need maximum reach, as it takes a 2x TC well to give a 600 f/5.6

On the other hand, the 100-400 has the benefit of zooming. I have frequently had problems with the prime being a touch long, as subjects move about, so I end up cutting part of the subject off. The 100-400 could simply be zoomed out a bit to get the better framing.

I love both lenses and will often have them both at the ready, on different bodies, so that I canuse the zoom when I need it, or the prime when that is better.

As for IQ, yes the 300 is better, but not dramatically so. The difference is clear when pixel peeping, but once processing is finished and the image resized for output and sharpened, it is very hard to see any difference in sharpness in the finished image.

I would place them very close in terms of IQ when the 300 has a 1.4xTC on it, although the edge would go to the 300 still. However, you would have to pixel peep pretty closely to see the advantage. In real world usage, you are unlikely to see a sharpness advantage.

On the other hand, the bokeh of the 100-400 is pretty crap, and the 300 has it solidly beaten there, with the difference being clear in the final image too.

The 300 is the better lens, as you would expect, but not so much so that I would stop using my 100-400, particularly when I need the extra versatility.

Seems someone else shares most of my observations. I agree the bokeh is different on the 100-400, but have snagged some pretty amazing shots with excellent bokeh with the 100-400. Depends on what the end-user decides which is best. I ended up choosing both as it does give a lot of flexibility. The one thing I failed to mention earlier is portability. Drag the 300 around all day and the 100-400 seems like a helium balloon compared in weight!

joeseph wrote in post #11140872
only thing the 100-400 does better, is zoom.

Which, for many purposes, is *huge*. For my needs, 100-400 wins, no contest.

That said, I'm seriously looking forward to the Sigma 120-300 OS, and hoping it performs well with a 1.4x TC - if it does, it may become the new safari lens par excellence!

richardfox wrote in post #11141287
I agree the bokeh is different on the 100-400, but have snagged some pretty amazing shots with excellent bokeh with the 100-400.

Yeah, it depends on the background. I shoot a lot of animals, so often have messy backgrounds with bushes, branches, grasses etc., with those backgrounds you get an almost 'double image' effect at times and it ain't pretty. Given a less cluttered background, yeah the 100-400 isn't bad.