300f4 + 1.4 or 100-400

[graham catley]

can anyone comment or direct me to direct comparisons between the 300 f4 with the 1.4 versus the 100-400 at 400mm 5.6
the 300 will become a 420 and 5.6 very similar to the 100-400 5.6 at the upper end---what I am after is a comparison of focus speed of the two combinations and quality---is there a notable loss witht he 1.4 v the prime lens?---

I have tried the 1.4 with the 100-400 on manual and it may be my eyesight but I found there was a notable loss of quality with the converter but maybe I was not getting the focus spot on--it seemed difficult

[christineredgate]

Graham,I am not really the best person to answer your question,as I know nothing re cam settings etc,but I use both these lenses.I keep the 1x4 on the 300F4 all the time,it auto focuses quickly and it is spot on.,although I think at times the images can be a little soft.If you go to my gallery pics,you will see some very recent pics taken with this set up,also lots of images taken with the 100-400.I had no luck using the converter on the 100-400.But that is a superb lens,and the images taken are very sharp and bright.I bought the 300 as a used lens very cheaply,and I do enjoy using it,but there are times when the zoom on the 100-400 is more useful for a bird which is too close for the prime lens.Also the 100-400 can be used for the odd landscape shot,for which one cannot use the 300.

[robski]

Graham are we talking about the IS or non IS version of the 300 F4 ?

I bought a secondhand non IS version and mainly use it with a Canon 1.4 Mk2. I went for this combo because you have a killer lens @ 300 and it can't be any worse than the 100-400 @ 400. I've yet to see a review that rates the 100-400 very highly on the optical front. I must admit I am very happy with this combo and was cheaper than the zoom option. Another factor in it's favour is there is less on it that can go wrong.

The 100-400 has 17 glass elements where as the 300 f4 Non IS plus 1.4 has a total of only (8+5) 13 glass elements. If you are looking for optical performance I think this is a case of the prime plus TC will edge infront of the zoom. With the 1.4 added you can see a very slight loss of sharpness but streets better that other lens I've used at 400.

If you are talking about the IS version of the 300 then there are extra (IS)elements to consider and reviews mark this lens down a tad on the non IS version. So the difference will be somewhat less.

Robert

[compa]

I have the 100-400mm f/5.6 IS and the 300mm f/4 IS and I use the Canon 1.4x teleconverter on each of them at times.

Without the teleconverter, the 300mm is noticeably better than the 100-400mm in all areas except versatility. - sharper - faster focus - lighter weight.

The 300mm with 1.4x is still sharper than the 100-400mm without a teleconverter. Not a big difference, but it is noticeable on large prints.

With the teleconverter in place on the 300mm I feel it does not focus as well as the 100-400mm alone. Both may be f/5.6 at that point but there must be something more going on.

I gather from your post that you are using a 350 or 20D body since you mention using the 1.4x on the 100-400mm lens in manual. You can reactivate the auto-focus with this combo by taping over 3 of the electrical contacts in the teleconverter.

[graham catley]

having just looked at several of the reviews on the Fred Miranda site noted on another thread here, most people who have compared the 300 f4 & 1.4 x versus the 400 5.6 seem to rate the latter as being much better even without the IS in terms of sharpness and speed of AF---must admit I did not really consider the 400 5.6 when I bought the 100-400 (on several recommendations) but I used to have a 400 Sigma APO manual focus on my old Nikon 301's for many years and it was a useful lens and looks very similar on the outside to the Canon 400 5.6----I still find the 100-400 is pretty damned sharp when the light is good and birds are close but the light in the UK seems to be poor 98% of the time (not just dull but poor atmospherically)--there is no comparison between UK pics I have taken with the same 20D and 100-400 combo and pics taken in N Norway and Finland and the only real difference must be light/air quality---
as stated before I have been unable to get any decent results with the 100-400 and the Canon 1.4x attached which is why I am considering the 400 5.6 (NOW!) as several people seem to be getting good quality pics with that combination in spite of the loss of autofocus---I use my gear hand held 95% of the time so the lack of IS on the 400 may be a disadvantage but I used to have a pretty steady hand with the old Sigma
anyway thanks for all the comments ---
GPC
Purple Sand and Long-tailed Duck in good UK light showing what the 100-400 can do
more pics wth the combo at http://pewit.blogspot.com/ and http://nycteagallery.blogspot.com/

[christineredgate]

Is it possible to tape over the elements on the 2x converter ?.because then it could perhaps be used with the 100-400 lens on auto focus,handheld.

[mjmw]

Hi Graham, not sure I am going to add much but I bought a 20D and 400mm f5.6 a couple of months back. Went for the prime rather than 100-400 because I knew that I would want reach more than the 'wider' range. This was based on the fact that most reviews I saw seemed to show that the prime was sharper than the 100-400 at the top end. Also, I didn't like the push-pull zoom when I tried it, but I guess I could have got used to it.
I am very happy with the 400mm, and it does exactly what I wanted. However, I have only used it occasionaly hand-held and mainly for flight shots - I do not have the steadiest hands - even so, I am pleased with these results.

Cheers Mark.

[graham catley]

checking the spec on the 400 5.6 the single greatest disadvantage seems to be the very poor close focus at 3.5m v 1.8m on the 100-400 and 1.5m on the 300 f4----I have found for small birds particularly but even for tame waders that I have been down to min focus on the 100-400 so double that distance with the 400 5.6 would be very limiting and I hate the thought of having to use extension tubes or whatever they are called now

[hillie]

Graham,
I have the 400 5.6 and like Mark am very pleased with the lens. It does everything I want at the moment.
I also purchased the Kenko extension tubes and have used them on a few occasions.
You can get pretty close up with them, the only drawback being in you want to take a shot further away you can’t focus to infinity. Before I first purchased the lens, like you, I was in a dilemma between 400 and 100-400. I ended up getting the 400 and the Canon100 macro. Its more expensive but I am happy with both. In the past I have had quite a few manual focus zoom lenses and about 99% of the time used them at maximum range.
I also use the 1.4 T/C with the 400 and use the tape trick on the pins. Autofocus is a bit slow but acceptable.
Whatever you decide you can’t go wrong with an L lens
John

[DaveB]

I orderred the 300f4 & 1.4 Converter from Warehouse Express who promised delivery back on 15th december. Now they are saying it is going to be late February so I have withdrawn my order. Following a few leads on these forums, I have found a seller who can supply the 300f4 & 1.4 Converter next week at a cost of just under £1000 for the pair.

Problem is, I have also been offered a 6 month old, 100 - 400 IS Zoom for £700.

Reading the reviews, there is very little to seperate the 300f4 & 1.4 Converter and the 100 - 400 zoom, so which one do I choose?

Will it be the 6 month old 100 - 400 zoom or the 300f4 with 1.4 teleconverter. Your opinions please :scribe:

[compa]

Reading the reviews, there is very little to seperate the 300f4 & 1.4 Converter and the 100 - 400 zoom, so which one do I choose?

Will it be the 6 month old 100 - 400 zoom or the 300f4 with 1.4 teleconverter. Your opinions please :scribe:

I have both but if I had to pick one there is absolutely no question about it - it would be the 100-400mm.

[QuantumTiger]

Problem is, I have also been offered a 6 month old, 100 - 400 IS Zoom for £700.

Reading the reviews, there is very little to seperate the 300f4 & 1.4 Converter and the 100 - 400 zoom, so which one do I choose?
£700 for a secondhand 100-400 is quite good (they generally go for nearer the £800 mark on ebay).

Both are good lenses. The 300 is undoubtedly better quality than the zoom (without the extender). My question would be do you have the 100-200 range already covered in an other lense, and if not are you likely to shoot in that range?

If you need that range then go for the zoom. If not, I'd go for the prime. Having said that when I had to make the same decision I went for the 400mm f/5.6.

[tommo]

Thats cheap. Buy the 100-400 and if you don`t like it resell it for a profit!! Besides, it is a lens I would not be without.

[Nigel G]

Christeredgate has just put her 300 f4 IS on the market at £650. See the FS Threads. Decisions decisions. :h?:

[DaveB]

Thats cheap. Buy the 100-400 and if you don`t like it resell it for a profit!! Besides, it is a lens I would not be without.

Thank you for the replies. I quite like the sound of giving the 100 - 400 lens a try, possibly even using this lens while I save for a larger prime (I've always liked the sound of the 300 F2.8 with both converters).

[DaveB]

Picked up the 6 month old 100 - 400 IS Zoom yesterday. First impressions of the lens is good.

Had a go with the flash, inside the house last night. Images were excellent at picking up the detail on the ornaments and my other half (she wouldn't let me post that one).

Tested it in the field today. Light was below average so this was going to be an issue. Got the chance to test it out on four Whooper Swan that were a surprise tick for Ramshaw (local patch). I think they are quite good, but could have been better with more practice and more light.