• 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 300 2.8 IS vs 100 400 (1 Viewer)

Ian Hay

Well-known member
Ok this sounds an easy one but.... in order to buy the 300 2.8 I would have to sell my 100 400 which is a good copy. This would mean my Kit Bag would consist of a 7D and 24-105 and the 300 plus a couple of converters. Would I miss the lightness of the 100 400 and it's flexibility or would the the focus speed, sharpness and ability to give a 600 5.6 with converter out make it a better choice.

I mainly shoot UK wildlife, birds and cetaceans

Ian
 
Do it!

You will soon get used to the 300. I haven't picked up my 100-400 since I got it - and that was my walkabout lens. In low light I still use a tripod when I have the 2x attached, but I find this easy to use as a walkabout lens and for handholding.

I don't think I would have got this beauty with the 100-400. The speed and quality of the 300 f2.8 - especially wide open - is amazing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42839163@N08/5655379034/lightbox/
 
Ok this sounds an easy one but.... in order to buy the 300 2.8 I would have to sell my 100 400 which is a good copy. This would mean my Kit Bag would consist of a 7D and 24-105 and the 300 plus a couple of converters. Would I miss the lightness of the 100 400 and it's flexibility or would the the focus speed, sharpness and ability to give a 600 5.6 with converter out make it a better choice.

I mainly shoot UK wildlife, birds and cetaceans

Ian

Ian,

Exactly what I did sold my 100-400 (which was excellent but didn't do well with the 1.4 II on it) and got the 300 2.8 which is great with the 1.4 and 2.0 II TCs.

Do it you will never look back |:d|

Jamie
 
Canon 300mm F2.8 IS-USM Mk I (Superb)

Theres no match, Get the 300. Ive used the 100-400 as my walkabout lens & since getting the 300 the 100-400 is stuck in the cupboard. The 300 is now my walkabout lens, sometimes with a monopod. Its amazing at 300, stunning with a 1.4x TC & excellent with a 2x TC. Just have a look at the pictures, more & more people seem to be upgrading to the 300 f2.8 IS Mk I lens. I was thinking the same as you & I can say Its better than I thought It was going to be..

Sean..
 
In terms of AF speed and light gathering, the 300mm f/2.8 is definitely going to improve on the 100-400mm (although I reckon that Marcus' eagle - killer shot, Marcus - would be doable with a 100-400mm on a 7D and Zone AF), but there's not the quantum leap in IQ from a good 100-400 to a 300mm f/2.8 that some might anticipate: an improvement, almost certainly, but not night-and-day.

And I say that as someone who definitely sees the 300 as my next lens (unless the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is as good as it should be): but it's the other stuff (and especially handholdable 600mm) that makes the upgrade tempting for me, not a vast improvement in IQ.
 
There is a couple popping up on ebay lately, but they look at bit suspect. After one myself, may have to wait until the mk 11 version hits the shelfs, and then a few more secondhand mmodels become available, I am seriously thinking of a trip to New York too acquire one.
 
Another vote for the 300f/2.8. Get one, you will not regret it. I bought mine from kerso and can recommend him.
 
For what it's worth?
My carry about lens was the 100-400 for over 5 years and it served me well. However I had a play with the Canon 300 F4 L IS and promptly sold my 100-400 on the spot! I find I can crop to the equivalent of 400mm and get better pictures than the 100-400 and as I rarely used the 100-400 at less than 250mm the 300 simply makes more sense. The 300 F2.8 is simply more of the same, and performs considerably better with converters than either of the above.
However you do loose two things! Firstly the minimum focus distance is rather long on the 300 F2.8 (butterflies/lizards etc). Secondly you loose a lot of your savings!
If these two things are not a problem then go for it! Having played with one I am lusting after it, but would probably keep my F4 as well!
 
I have never owned the 100-400 but did step up to the 300/2.8 from a similarly slow 400 (400/5.6). The main point to a 300/2.8 for me was the ability to shoot at 600/5.6 with good AF on any Canon body. What surprised me was just how many more birds seem to come into shooting range with those extra 200mm.
Another important point is that even if you only shoot at 420mm you have twice as much light as the f5.6 lenses, this not only gives low light shooting but also helps a lot with the AF. The 300/2.8 is stunning at 300mm excellent at 420mm (better than the bare 400/5.6 IMO) and very good at 600mm, an extra bonus is that you can also get some very reasonable shots at 840mm with stacked converters. Only downside for me is the weight compared to the 400/5.6 but it is still easily hand holdable. You really have to own this lens to fully appreciate it.
 
I currently have the 400mm f5.6 and was thinking of upgrading to the 500mm f4, which thanks to Rob I have just been to see. I do quite abit of walking about here and also in Africa ( where it is quite hot). Although I would dearly love the 500 , if I am honest I think it really is too large for carrying distances. My next thought was the 400mm f4 DO but now maybe the 300mm f2.8 should come into my thoughts. Any advice is always welcome.
 
The only downside of the 300mm f2.8 are the weight. Even with the converter on, there is a something in the picture...
 
I have the 100-400mm and it is a very nice lens. It is quite portable and easy to handhold.

The 300mm f2.8 is a great lens. It is very sharp and produces a different kind of photo from the 100-400mm. It has a very thin DOF and I like the creamy background it can produce. The ability to have a 2.8 opening, or a longer focal length with extenders make it also very versatile.

It may need a bigger tripod and head which will add to the weight.

But my wife always uses the 300 f2.8 when we go birding. She leaves the 100-400mm and the 400mm f5.6 at home. She can handhold the lens but she uses a tripod most of the time. She weighs 117 pounds and finds the weight is very manageable. It is her favorite lens.
 
I currently have the 400mm f5.6 and was thinking of upgrading to the 500mm f4, which thanks to Rob I have just been to see. I do quite abit of walking about here and also in Africa ( where it is quite hot). Although I would dearly love the 500 , if I am honest I think it really is too large for carrying distances. My next thought was the 400mm f4 DO but now maybe the 300mm f2.8 should come into my thoughts. Any advice is always welcome.

The 300 F2.8 should certainly be considered, it's probably Canon's "best" lens overall. However although the 400mm F4 DO gets a lot of bad press and is over priced, it's well worth a look. I tried a used one recently, my initial impression was it was very light and could be hand held all day. When I looked at the images I was a bit disappointed - they were a bit flat and uninteresting. That was cured in pp and then they looked great. What surprised me was the sharpness of this lens. From what I understand of the DO optics it shouldn't be great on the sharpness front - wrong! It was simply the SHARPEST long telephoto I have ever tried. I still prefer my 300 F4 IS & 600 F4 IS but the 400 DO may suit your needs - I'm thinking of one!
 
I find the 400mm DO overpriced, lacking in contrast and will not take the 2x converter on the 7D with autofocus. Cannot believe it is anywhere close in sharpness to the 300mm f2.8 IS
 
Required reading.

For example:
I often shoot side by side with friends who use the 300 f2.8 w/1.4 TC and 500 f4. Honestly it is very hard to see any difference at all in the images.
and:
I have been using the 500 f/4L IS and also the 300 f/2.8L IS. But for weight reasons, I have sold them to buy the 400 DO. Before doing so, I have done quite some test with all tree to make my decision and I do not regret it at all.
So at least some folk find it that good...
 
Last edited:
I have try one (400DO) and find it very very good, in a heartbeat, I will have trade it with my 300mm f2.8. It is so light and the IQ excellent. It is always preferable to dont use a converter, even with the big white.
 
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