canon 100-400mm or 300mm?

ady 554d

ady 554d

Suspended / Banned
Messages
232
Name
adrian
Edit My Images
No
basically i went to silverstone over the weekend and found my 70-200 f2.8 just lacking in reach even with my 1.4x converter so i am thinking about shaking the piggy bank and getting another Len's but dint know what would be the better choice either a 100-400mm or the 300mm f4 and use my 1.4x with it if necessary :thinking:
what would you guys be looking at or which way would you swing with your decision and why?
thanks for any help
ady
 
Well I went with the 300mm f/4 and haven't regretted it, but then I'm a prime fan anyway.
Having said that I've recently seen what looked to be a mint 100-400 on here at £700 which seemed a pretty decent price. I personally think you'd get slightly better IQ with the prime though, but you'd lose the versatility of the zoom. But then again you gain IS which won't help for sports stuff but can be really useful at times, and you won't believe how close the 300 can focus... that's pretty useful at times as well.

I guess you'd say I'm coming out in favour of the 300? :)

cheers
 
I am sure you have seen a picture before, but this is the 100-400L at 300mm, 100% crop, with a 1.4 extender inline.



I am not sure how much sharper it can get. Focusing was slow, as the lens is out of spec. for the camera with an extender, but unless you are getting the 2.8 version of the 300, you will probably have the same issue. (400d and 40d can only focus to 5.6? I think aperture.)
 
ive got the 100-400 and it just keeps impressing the hell outa me
 
so it really is 50/50 as far as everyone is concerned i suppose it all comes down to the fact of the zoom having never owned or shot with a big prime i guess its about getting yourself in the right position rather than tweaking your placement with the zoom?
 
ady 554d said:
so it really is 50/50 as far as everyone is concerned i suppose it all comes down to the fact of the zoom having never owned or shot with a big prime i guess its about getting yourself in the right position rather than tweaking your placement with the zoom?
Click to expand...
I think the issue is about what you do when you can't get yourself in the ideal place.

If you have a 300mm prime and the ideal focal length for a particular situation is 400mm or more, then that's not the end of the world. You can crop the image a bit to get the right composition.

But if you have a 300mm prime and the ideal focal length for a particular situation is 200mm or less, then you may have a problem.

Something like this happened to one of our customers a couple of weeks ago. She had gone on a trip to Svalbard to see polar bears, and they were all surprised when a couple of bears came right up close to the ship. Fortunately she'd hired a 100-400mm zoom and was still able to get some good shots at 100mm. If she's had a 300mm prime - as many people do for such trips - then she would have found herself taking close-ups of bits of the bear (or more likely no shots at all).

That doesn't mean the 100-400 is always a better choice. Just that you need to think about the places and circumstances in which you'll be using your lens, and choose accrodingly.
 
I am having a similar dilema, however I have a 55-250 on hand should the need arise and that is why i am leaning towards a long prime, although I have not discounted a zoom quite yet.
If it were not for that I would probably go straight for the 100-400L for the versatility.
 
I have the 300mm f4 and love it, its an older version without IS. The image wuality is superb!
 
StewartR said:
I think the issue is about what you do when you can't get yourself in the ideal place.

If you have a 300mm prime and the ideal focal length for a particular situation is 400mm or more, then that's not the end of the world. You can crop the image a bit to get the right composition.

But if you have a 300mm prime and the ideal focal length for a particular situation is 200mm or less, then you may have a problem.

Something like this happened to one of our customers a couple of weeks ago. She had gone on a trip to Svalbard to see polar bears, and they were all surprised when a couple of bears came right up close to the ship. Fortunately she'd hired a 100-400mm zoom and was still able to get some good shots at 100mm. If she's had a 300mm prime - as many people do for such trips - then she would have found herself taking close-ups of bits of the bear (or more likely no shots at all).

That doesn't mean the 100-400 is always a better choice. Just that you need to think about the places and circumstances in which you'll be using your lens, and choose accrodingly.
Click to expand...

I was up there last year at this time, and I took both a prime (500mm f4) and the 100-400. A lot of the time I used the 500 but as you correctly say, sometimes the bears do get too close even for a 100mm.
If it came to a choice between the two, I'd definitely opt for the versatility of the zoom, but it's horses for courses, and depends what you mainly shoot.
The whales seldom came close enough, and the 500 was useful there, but for sheer versatility, the zoom wins for me.
 
Having had the 100-400 and now got the beast that is the 300 f2.8, I'd go with any version of the 300!

I hate, with passion, the pull push mechinism, it needs light, especially at the 400 end (f5.6) so if it's late in the day, dull and raining, you'll be pushing your ISO. That being said, I think it's more suited to wildlife than sports, that's a personal thing though - focus speed mainly!

It's also built on old lens technology, I have read on other forums about people expecting this lens to be either replaced with a newer version, but I don't beleive that it's happened or happening as yet - hope I'm wrong!

Go 300 is my advice!
Carl.
 
The push/pull is very much love it or loathe it. Personally after hiring one from Stewart, I thought this was very easy to use and allows you to support the lens properly and zoom at the same time - but each to their own!
 
CarlOgden said:
Having had the 100-400 and now got the beast that is the 300 f2.8, I'd go with any version of the 300!

I hate, with passion, the pull push mechinism, it needs light, especially at the 400 end (f5.6) so if it's late in the day, dull and raining, you'll be pushing your ISO. That being said, I think it's more suited to wildlife than sports, that's a personal thing though - focus speed mainly!

It's also built on old lens technology, I have read on other forums about people expecting this lens to be either replaced with a newer version, but I don't beleive that it's happened or happening as yet - hope I'm wrong!

Go 300 is my advice!
Carl.
Click to expand...
I have both the lenses you mention, Carl, but you must admit it's like comparing chalk and cheese!! The 300 2.8 is a beautiful lens, but at £3500 it should be!! I know a lot of people don't like the push pull, but Ive used it on the old 35-300 and on the 100-400, and I can't say it bothers me.
Also the zoom is a pretty transportable hand held lens, the 300 2.8 is pretty heavy!
Anyway, the question was originally zoom versus 300 f4, and I stand by my comments above!!

However if you can afford it, get the 300 2.8!!
 
The 100-400 is a great bit of kit and very versatile. The 300 f4 is a stonkingly good lens though, with no versatility at all.

I've used both and it was the 300 that I bought. Sadly I've not had one single call to use it for work in two years and I've only used it for myself twice in that time. I even put it up for sale on here a few months back but I was more than happy to let the advert slip into obscurity and keep hold of it.

For what, I have no idea. :thinking::lol:
 
George said:
I have both the lenses you mention, Carl, but you must admit it's like comparing chalk and cheese!! The 300 2.8 is a beautiful lens, but at £3500 it should be!! I know a lot of people don't like the push pull, but Ive used it on the old 35-300 and on the 100-400, and I can't say it bothers me.
Also the zoom is a pretty transportable hand held lens, the 300 2.8 is pretty heavy!
Anyway, the question was originally zoom versus 300 f4, and I stand by my comments above!!

However if you can afford it, get the 300 2.8!!
Click to expand...

I appreciate that I've got the f2.8, but I did comment "any" of the 300 versions against the 100-400.

Good Luck to the OP with what you buy!
Carl.
 
I have both and if I'm unsure of what I need, the 100-400 is better. The 300/4 is a cracking lens though and will be my choice if what I need is a 300 lens...
 
CarlOgden said:
I appreciate that I've got the f2.8, but I did comment "any" of the 300 versions against the 100-400.

Good Luck to the OP with what you buy!
Carl.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand that, Carl, and I suppose this is a bit like the never ending 24-75 2.8 and 24- 100 f4 debate, it's a difficult one.
For sheer versatility (and I take your point about the push/pull) I still would go with the zoom as the first one I'd buy, and if funds later permit it, get a prime. However I have enlarged shots taken with a 40D and the 100-400 up to A1 and they are pin sharp. Maybe I'm lucky with a good "un!!

George
 
Isn't the saying "the best lens is the one that will allow you to capture the photo"?

For wildlife, unless i was pixel peeping or doing massive prints it would be the zoom every time. I wouldn't want to miss something magical close up because I was changing glass.
 
Another vote for the 300 F4 IS, :thumbs:

Having recently just gone through the same dilema, I plumped for the 300 F4 and don't regret it. Getting some fantaastic shots, also I think it's improving my photography as you think about the photo composition etc more (due to not having the versitility of the zoom) and I think I'm getting better photos as a result (this was my first big prime lens).
 
wow didnt think i would get this much responce :thumbs:
heres what i am thinking now....

current situation:-
70-200mm f/2.8is + 1.4x conv = 280mm f/4

300mm f/4 sharper than above but only 20mm more reach so i would have to use my tc so i would end up with a 420mm f/5.6 but i dont know how much sharpness i would loose by using my tc?

100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 20mm less than the above combination but more versatility and the top end is still around the f/5.6 the same as the prime and tc combo...:thinking::thinking:

so at the minute in my mind the zoom is edeging it..
if my above working out is incorrect please feel free to correct me on any of the above:cool:
cheers ady
 
Adrian, did you ever make your mind up about which lens? If so what did you go for and were you happy with your decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top