Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS or Canon EF 300mm f/4 USM L

rgrebby

rgrebby

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,835
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I realise that the prime lens will be sharper, but how does this zoom compare IQ wise.

is thw 100-400 the best telephoto zoom lens around?
 
I haven't used the 300 f4(I have a 2.8 which is the doggy's bits!!) but, and there will be those who disagree, but my 100-400 is probably the lens I use most as it's so versatile and my copy is really sharp (although I got Canon to calibrate it).
I also persuaded Sue (Sue Fisher on the forum) to buy a 2nd hand one which came up recently for £750 so I'm in trouble if she doesn't like it!!
We'll get all the usual discussion of zoom v primes, but for me, the sheer versatility of the zoom wins hands down every time for most situations, although I do have a variety of primes for specific things.

You shouldn't be disappointed in the IQ.
George
 
The zoom is excellent for its versatility, however I think there are better zooms out there........say either the 100-300 f4 or 120-300 f2.8 both sigma but top quality optics, little short on range though compaired to the 100-400.
 
how does the IQ compare with the sigmas?

Just looked at the sigma 2.8 and its over 2 grand! lol

the 100-300 f4 is interesting though, but doesnt have IS
 
The 100-400mm is a versitile lens and is the affordable lens of choice for motorsport and airshow photographers. If you get a good copy then it's a good lens, unfortunately this lens suffers quite abit from poor Quality Control by canon has to be sent back for recalibration. In good light it takes very good images, but as the light falls off, it beings to struggle and performance drops. The primes are faster and better IQ's, but are fixed focal lengths and not as versitile, depends what focal length you constantly take images at. I've been very happy with the performance of my 300mm f4.

Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a good lens, sharp, an f-stop faster than the 100-400 through the range, but only 300mm, works ok with a 1.4x TC in good light and is a real gem of a lens for the $$$. Sigma's 120-300mm f2.8, fast autofocus, heavy (2.5kg), sharp, but does suffer with autofocusing problems when light conditions drop off especially for non motorsport subjects (aircraft) and build quality isn't great, problems with tripod mount and lens hood fixings, but still very much cheaper alternative than canon's 300mm f2.8, lens of choice.
 
rgrebby said:
how does the IQ compare with the sigmas?

Just looked at the sigma 2.8 and its over 2 grand! lol

the 100-300 f4 is interesting though, but doesnt have IS
Click to expand...

What are you going to be using IS for. If motorsport or anything like that, you don't need IS, IS is really for stationary object handheld in failing light giving you a few extra stops of light to play with.

I've been very impressed with images from my friends sigma 100-300mm f4.
 
I had a similar choice to make and went for the price. Firstly I didn't particularly like the push-pull zoom action, and secondly I figured I can *usually* move closer or further away from a subject and utilise the F4 aperture, whereas with the zoom I would have been stuck with F4.5 at best, and 5.6 at worse. For me, the aperture was worth more than the convienience of zoom, and to date, I'm confident I made the right decision.

Plus, I bought it at the right time and it cost me less than £700 :)
 
I can't say I've noticed any difference in the shots I get from my 100-400 to folks with the 400 F5.6 prime. There were some issues with earlier lenses, from the early 90s, but no-one seems to have bad ones these days.

The push-pull thing takes moments to get used to, in my experience.

However, getting the best out of the lens can take some time, which is why a lot of people claim the lens gives poor results.

I guess it depends on your subject matter though. If it's wildlife, then you'll want as much reach as possible, as it's not always possible to get closer.

Alternatives also include the new Sigma 150-500mm, with image stabilisation on it.
 
pete.rush said:
What are you going to be using IS for. If motorsport or anything like that, you don't need IS, IS is really for stationary object handheld in failing light giving you a few extra stops of light to play with.

I've been very impressed with images from my friends sigma 100-300mm f4.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that. I use IS all the time for motorsport shots on my Sigma 120-400mm lens, and it helps me enormously when I'm using quite slow shutter speeds to get good motion blur.

That's another lens to add to your list by the way, it's an excellent lens and about half the price of the Canon 100-400mmL for very similar performance.
 
I've owned both and much prefer the IQ of the 300mm F4 than that of the 100-400. Also didn't like the bokeh, and the push-pull nearly caught me out a few times but luckily didn't damage the lens. The colour and sharpness just wasn't what I was used to from other L lenses

The 300mm F4 isn't as versatile, but I use it with a 1.4x TC and am very happy
 
RichardC27 said:
I'd disagree with that. I use IS all the time for motorsport shots on my Sigma 120-400mm lens, and it helps me enormously when I'm using quite slow shutter speeds to get good motion blur.
Click to expand...

Thats maybe what you use it for, but it's not what it was intended for and you can achieve really good motion blur in motorsport shots without the IS on, it's all down to a smooth panning technique.
 
tarmac_chaser said:
I've owned both and much prefer the IQ of the 300mm F4 than that of the 100-400. Also didn't like the bokeh, and the push-pull nearly caught me out a few times but luckily didn't damage the lens. The colour and sharpness just wasn't what I was used to from other L lenses

The 300mm F4 isn't as versatile, but I use it with a 1.4x TC and am very happy
Click to expand...

I second the above.
 
pete.rush said:
Thats maybe what you use it for, but it's not what it was intended for and you can achieve really good motion blur in motorsport shots without the IS on, it's all down to a smooth panning technique.
Click to expand...

It does have two modes for the IS, and mode 2 is for panning, as it only corrects for vertical movements. It is perfectly possibly to get good motion blur without it, it's just another tool that makes life easier and makes shots that might not be possible handheld, possible.
 
I've seen some truly excellent results from the 100-400mm and also some pretty dire ones too, I don't know what it is about this lens? I don't often believe the reports of "bad copies" and so on as I've had a lot of Canon lenses and all have been perfectly acceptable for IQ. But when I was looking for something around this focal length I obviously considered the 100-400mm.

I eventually went with the 300 and a 1.4x extender. I haven't regretted it at all. I'll accept it's not as versatile but it works for me.

cheers
Bill
 
tarmac_chaser said:
I've owned both and much prefer the IQ of the 300mm F4 than that of the 100-400. Also didn't like the bokeh, and the push-pull nearly caught me out a few times but luckily didn't damage the lens. The colour and sharpness just wasn't what I was used to from other L lenses

The 300mm F4 isn't as versatile, but I use it with a 1.4x TC and am very happy
Click to expand...

Yup, bang on! You just need to get the idea that zoom is the only way to go for long telephoto. Once that is straight, you'll never look at another zoom over 200mm!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top