• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

canon EF 300mm f4 + 1.4 x converter or EF 100 -400 (1 Viewer)

Steve Babbs

Well-known member
Hi all

I'm considering upgrading from my Tamron 200 - 500, mainly because I want IS - my tripod usually has a scope on it. I was going to go for a 100 - 400 but I'm now tempted by a 300mm f4. The flexibility of the zoom would be good - especially as I'm very much into mammals and so there could be issues of it being too big. But the EF 300 would appear to have better IQ; has a better enlargement ratio - useful when insects are too wary for my macro lens; is faster; and lighter.

Any thoughts on the relative merits? I have gone through old posts but I swing one way and then another. I'm going to have a lot of trouble getting this past my wife anyway, I can't afford to get it wrong. I also have to decide pretty quickly as it is the thought of photographing jaguar (well hopefully anyway) from a boat in this summer that's made me think about this - otherwise I could dither for a year or two8-P

cheers
 
Steve for what you want, the zoom is the best option. But agree with Keith on the IQ thing. I used to own the 300 F4 and kenko 1.4 TC and I dont think there is any difference. The man behind the camera is the difference combined with knowledge of subjects and field craft.
 
i would look at what FL you mostly use with youre tamron if its mostly around the 400mm then the 300 + tc would be my first pic because i think you would have a faster 300mm i.e f4 i think the 100/400 is at f5.6 at 300mm .
agree IQ is about the same .
Rob.
 
I had the 100-400 for 51/2 years and think that this is THE most versatile high quality (almost) affordable lens on the market bar none. Unfortunately I then started looking at the Canon 400 F5.6, I tried two examples and must have found the only two duff ones on the planet! Admittedly neither was new.
Then the guy at my local camera shop stuck a 300 F4 l IS in my hand (he knows exactly how to cripple my credit card!). Well I tried it, bought it, sold the (V nice 100-400) and have never looked back! Below 300mm the 300 is useless, but I have a 70-200 F2.8 IS I hardly use so that didn't matter much. At 300mm and beyond the 300 is significantly better, color appears a little better (but only a very little), sharpness and resolution are at a different level. My 300 will significantly out reach my 100-400 by a significant margin simply by cropping and without resorting to converters/extenders. My friend who also used the 100-400 tried my 300 F4 and about 4 weeks ago he did the same trade! For reference the cameras we use are a 1D3 (him), a 5D Mk1 and 1D4(me) + a few Film bodies.
The 300 lacks the versatility of the 100-400, the IS is a bit clunky, the AF is pretty quick - but not the quickest(my 100-400 was a little better) - however the higher magnification and significantly better IQ/resolution make it (to me) a far better lens. Don't take my word for it - try one!
P.S. after having this lens for nearly a year I thought I would try an extender on it. So I put my Canon 2x Mk2 on it and took shots of a Blue Tit feeding on a Bulrush - not bad, detail was reasonably good, there was a significant loss of contrast and the color was a bit washed out, certainly useable with some PP. I was using the 300 alongside my 600 F4 l IS - so not too shabby for a lens that's nearly £6K cheaper.
I love the 300 F4 l IS! Sorry I am biased, because I have got one!
 
I have the Canon 300 f4 IS lens (had for a while now) and don't often use a converter with it at all. Combined with the 7D, it crops really well. Just bought the new Mark III Canon 1.4 Converter to replace my Kenko 1.4 - I love this combination!

Penny:girl:
 
Last edited:
I use to have a 300mm with a 1.4 and found it very useful ...now I have a 400mm and it is just fine too... So you can't go wrong with the 300. I have never used the 100-400mm nor seen it so can't relate to it.

I know there were times in Ecuador when I wanted to use the 300mm so I would take off the 1.4 (420mm). I don't think there has ever been a time birding that I would use the 100-299mm range...so I personally wouldn't let that be a decision maker with those lower ranges.

The f4 will always beat the f5.6...but admittedly while using the 1.4 you will be at 5.6...

My suggestion...300mm plus 1.4
 
Based on my experiences.. I'd be wary of used 100-400mm's.. Check the date code, thoroughly check the image quality before buying.

Also, check out the 70-300mm L if you are able to try one in a camera shop. Not cheap, and not to everyone's taste perhaps but latest IS, very fast AF, fairly light (1kg) and produces really sharp images. Lots of people who have bought one rave about this lens, (particularly on POTN forum), me included.
There was a used one in the for sale area on here a week or so ago.

However, it doesn't take canon tc's only kenko, and not sure how it performs with a tc, I prefer to zoom in and crop the images.

And good luck with the Jaguar!

Peter
 
Last edited:
This is the same decision I had to make back in January. A search of the web pulled up many discussions each of which included champions for each lens and most of which included a few sharp words.

I talked to any birders I saw with these lenses and found all of them willing to talk about the good (no real bad) points of each.

Most of my photography prior to this year was with a Sigma 400mm macro on a Pentax body. I can only remember a few occassions when I would have liked a shorter focal length - a Wattled Guan close to a path and hummingbird feeders come to mind. It is likely that the 300mm would have been short enough for these circumstances (or at least a marked improvement).

In the end I went for the 300mm and usually use it with a Canon mkII 1.4x. I have not found this to be too long for any bird shots and it delivers great shots of butterflies, etc. This is not to say it is a better combination than the 100-400, just that it suits me.

I am constantly amazed at the quality this set-up can deliver unless my poor technique gets in the way. :-C

Good luck with the decision making.
 
I have used the 300mm f4IS lens for several years now and always with a Canon 1.4 extender. I agree with the posts above, it is fantastic. I get sharp images from the combo, but cannot comment on how it compares with a 100-400 as I have never used one (Keith's always impresses me).
I very rarely miss a focal length in the 100-400 range, on the few occasions that it would be useful I go for the headshot instead.
The main drag with the combo is the slightly slower AF acquisition, but in servo (once it has locked on) it has no problems. Greatest side benefit is the close focusing; an instant macro(ish) lens that is great for insects and flowers etc.
From my point of view the decision really comes down to whether you want the zoom range or a fixed focal length with good close focusing.
 
In noting a slower AF speed above I was referring to the 300 with 1.4 compared to the 300 alone, and NOT to the 300 vs 100-400!
 
I had the 300mm and 400mm. The 100-400 I have now is not only more versatile it is also tack sharp (this comes from someone that also has the 800mm) and would never sell it.
 
I think the comments so far underline the "problem" with which lens should I get? threads.

The fact is, they're all bloody good, and you're best making the decision based on what it is you want a lens to do and pick the lens that either does it (if the other doesn't), or does it best.

I wouldn't give up on the ability to focus from 100-299mm - as I say I use it a lot for birds (Bempton Gannets can get bloody big in the frame! ;)) - and in my experience the 100-400mm is as sharp a lens as anyone could reasonably want. I don't find it lacking in AF speed terms either, and I have no problem shooting pigeons, ducks, auks and the like, which is enough for me.

So - for me - the 300mm + 1.4x combo doesn't deliver any specific thing that I need and that I can't get from the zoom, and it lacks the ability to do some things the zoom can - primarily the shorter focal lengths, as well as the ease with which you can get there (you can and will miss shots if you've got to chop a TC in and out). Others have different needs and expectations and choose accordingly.

The point is, by taking some time to analyse what your own priorities are, you can get very close to understanding which is the right lens for you. That's why I don't use the 400mm f/5.6 prime, incidentally: IS, a short MFD and 100-399mm are more important to me than slightly faster focusing; and sharpness isn't an issue for my 100-400mm...
 
Last edited:
I must say I agree with Keith. To me the zoom flexibility of the 100-400 was the deal breaker when compared to the 300/4 + TC. The 400/5.6 was already ruled out because of the mediocre MDF. I often use these two images to illustrate the versitality of the zoom:

First I took this image at close to max zoom (ca. 360mm):
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624259
Then the situation changes and I got this one at ca. 100mm:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624261

Ignoring the fact that niether would have been possible with either the 400/5.6 or the 300/4 + 1.4TC, the zoom allowed me to get to very different images only a couple of seconds apart.

Although I mostly use the zoom at 400mm (some 80% of the time), a significant number of my best images would never have been possible with a 300 or 400mm prime. But that is just my way of taking pictures. Only you can decide what fits your way best. But given you already have a zoom, you probably have a good idea of how important the zoom flexibility is to you. I don't think image quality is an issue between these lenses.
 
I think the comments so far underline the "problem" with which lens should I get? threads.


The point is, by taking some time to analyse what your own priorities are, you can get very close to understanding which is the right lens for you. That's why I don't use the 400mm f/5.6 prime, incidentally: IS, a short MFD and 100-399mm are more important to me than slightly faster focusing; and sharpness isn't an issue for my 100-400mm...

Trust me Keith I have spent a great deal of time analysing what my priorities are. I've gone through old photographs and looked at what my zoom was set to. In the vast majority of cases it was above 300mm. In a few it was below, nearly all African mammals. Below 300 would be covered by another lens but I would agree that it was far more convinent if it was the same lens.

There can be no 'right' answer, and I was never expecting one, but these kinds of discussions are useful, especially from people who've had both. All the reviews, I've found, compare the 100 - 400 with other zooms. I would very much like to choose the zoom, but if the IQ of the 300mm is considerably higher, and if it focuses more quickly, then I may be willing to sacrifice that. I'm also attracted for by the better minimum focus distance of the 300mm - I photograph a lot of insects.

It does seem that there is not a lot of difference in IQ or focus speed so I suspect it'll be the zoom. But I'd still be interested in peoples opinions.

I presume they both have much the same IS ability?
 
I've found, compare the 100 - 400 with other zooms. I would very much like to choose the zoom, but if the IQ of the 300mm is considerably higher,

Steve, I've got a 100-400 and its not sharp (proved by comparison with another identical lens). Most travelling birders I know have got rid of their 100-400. I think the 300 (with a converter where required) is a good way to go. I'll PM you about other views given above.

Cheers, alan
 
I have used the 300mm with and without x1.4 for many years. You will find each lens has it's niche. If you really need a zoom (i.e constanly going from short to long and back again) the the 100-400 is the way to go. Personally I have not had many occassion where I wished I had a zoom.

I think the 300mm combo wins in the close-up department and I note you photograph bugs like myself. The focus speed is quick with and without x1.4. The drop in IQ is minimal with x1.4 attached.

The 300mm magnification at minimum focus distance is 1:4 and 1:3 with x1.4 attached. Whereas the 400mm magnification is 1:5.
 
Most travelling birders I know have got rid of their 100-400.

Most of them?

Really?

I find that very hard to believe - if they've got rid of them for quality reasons that is, rather than (say) upgrading, packing it in or jumping ship to another camera brand.

I know - what? - about a dozen 100-400mm users personally (more if I count the people I "know" via the net) and not one of 'em has anything but good things to say about their lenses. Not one.

I have no problem with believing you might have a bad one (yes, they exist - and they're eminently fixable incidentally, assuming it's definitely the lens), but I just don't buy the notion that there's an endemic quality issue with 100-400mms in your part of world.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top