canon EF 300mm f4 + 1.4 x converter or EF 100 -400 (4 Viewers)

[Keith Reeder]

Steve, I think you're missing my point.

I've no doubt you've researched your dilemma to death before posting here, and that makes my point for me perfectly.

The problem with questions like this (not "with your question") is that for every positive opinion, there'll be a negative one; for every good, there'll be a bad.

It's an impossible question, Steve. If there was a single, end-of-story, "that's that, then" answer to any question like this, you'd already have found it.

As you say in your original post:

I have gone through old posts but I swing one way and then another

And didn't the previous threads do exactly the same thing?

That's because there is no definitive answer, and no matter how many new ways we try to think of to ask the question (I've done it too), it's still ultimately the same question, and there's still no one right answer.

Going right back to 2007, things were exactly the same (posts 22 and 23 being particularly telling, I think), and nothing's changed since then that suddenly makes The Final Word On The Subject any more possible now than it was then.

So as I suggest above, identify the things you want most from a lens, and then find the lens which does those things best.

Oh - and Craig, who asked in 2007, chose the 100-400mm: I mention this because if you look at his gallery, he obviously didn't make a bad decision. No IQ issues there...

 

[Steve Babbs]

Keith

I think you're missing my point: I'm finding the posts useful and I'm grateful for them, yours included. I thought I'd already said that I wasn't looking for 'a single, end-of-story, "that's that, then" answer'.

Alan your PM box is full!

 

[jameslj]

They're all great. The best photos taken with the 300mm, 100-400, 400 f/5.6 are hard to distinguish from each other. IQ is not a compelling reason to choose one over the other.

Choose based on the features you value the most.
If a lot of your shooting needs 300mm at f/4, that points to the 300mm.
If you would primarily have a 1.4 tc on the 300mm, that points to the 100-400 because you wouldn't often be using the 300mm for it's advantages.
If butterflies, dragonflies, bugs are a significant part of your photography, that points to the 300mm. But high-quality photography of butterflies/dragonflies is also possible with the 100-400 and 400mm. I've never found MFD to be a problem with either of the 400s. Extension tubes easily and cheaply extend their abilities in this area.

The only negative thing I'll say about the 100-400 is that the zoom lock mechanism can wear out after a couple of years and require service. This doesn't happen to all of them. But it did to mine and I've read of the same problem from others. Not a deal breaker for that lens but a definite irritant.

You can do the photography you want with any of those lenses. Whichever you pick, it's not a mistake. Mostly it's a matter of preference for the features you value the most.

 

[Keith Reeder]

I thought I'd already said that I wasn't looking for 'a single, end-of-story, "that's that, then" answer'.

And again Steve, I'm talking about any and all threads like this - ultimately they're pointless.

Fun and all, but pointless.

And with that said, I'll leave you to it.

 

[John In Ireland]

On a footnote here I have always hung on to every word Keith Reeder says in these forums. I would take note. I know we all have our own opinions but if you want someone elses, take his. Anyone doubting it take a look at his website and the equipment he uses. Good enough for me.

 

[gergrd]

I have both the 100-400mm and the 300mm (which I use with the 1.4TC). They are comparable, but I prefer the 100-400mm for birds - it seems to lock into focus somewhat better in low light, poor contrast situations (which I encounter frequently).

 

[Steve Babbs]

I have both the 100-400mm and the 300mm (which I use with the 1.4TC). They are comparable, but I prefer the 100-400mm for birds - it seems to lock into focus somewhat better in low light, poor contrast situations (which I encounter frequently).

Thanks. Just the kind of post that proves this thread is far from pointless.

 

[davethebird]

Oh, and re: the jaguar, Steve - I guess that this is kinda a safari-like experience you're looking forward to.

Well, Google "Canon Safari lens" - and see how many times the 100-400mm comes up..!

Of course the physiological response to being in a boat, so close to a wild Jaguar that you have to zoom out from 300mm might introduce some camera shake. :eek!:

Presumably the same effect for either lens. :t:

 

[Richard G]

I'm hoping to be in a position to upgrade my lens later this year, and this thread has just convinced me which purchase it will be (it'll be the 100-400 zoom btw!!)

Richard

 

[Steve Babbs]

Of course the physiological response to being in a boat, so close to a wild Jaguar that you have to zoom out from 300mm might introduce some camera shake. :eek!:

Presumably the same effect for either lens. :t:

I suspect I'll be shaking, even if I'm rather further away.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I'm hoping to be in a position to upgrade my lens later this year, and this thread has just convinced me which purchase it will be (it'll be the 100-400 zoom btw!!)

Richard

I suspect I'll make the same decision. A zoom is a big advantage for mammal photography, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a large leap in quality and focusing speed with the 300mm. I don't think there is. I think if it was just for birds I would probably still go for the 300mm. It's going to have to wait for pay day anyway; so I may change my mind again.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I suspect I'll make the same decision. A zoom is a big advantage for mammal photography, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a large leap in quality and focusing speed with the 300mm. I don't think there is. I think if it was just for birds I would probably still go for the 300mm. It's going to have to wait for pay day anyway; so I may change my mind again.

Decision now made and lens ordered: the zoom.

 

[Tony_79]

100-400 is better at 400mm compared to 300 4L + 1.4x.

 

[Roy C]

100-400 is better at 400mm compared to 300 4L + 1.4x.

Does the 100-400 even go to 400mm Tony From everything I have read it is nearer to 385 at the long end.
I have seen comparisons between the 100-400 and 400/5.6 and the prime looked a fair bit longer when shooting the same target from the same spot (this is fairly common with zoom tele's I believe)

Having said that I would fully expect the 100-400 to be better IQ than the 300/4 + 1.4 tc.

 

[tjsimonsen]

Does the 100-400 even go to 400mm Tony From everything I have read it is nearer to 385 at the long end.
I have seen comparisons between the 100-400 and 400/5.6 and the prime looked a fair bit longer when shooting the same target from the same spot (this is fairly common with zoom tele's I believe)

As far as I know this is depending on focus distance. The closer you are to the minimum fucus distance, the shorter the actual length of the zoom. When you get closeer to infinity focus the difference evens out.

I read an explanation of this somewhere on the web, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. Age is taking its toll.

Thomas

 

[antshrike]

No one seems to be worried about the dirt inhaling abilities of the 100-400 zoom. I think it's something that needs to be considered with any zoom. Check out what Peter Ericsson is doing with his 400mm f/5.6 in Thailand. http://www.pbase.com/peterericsson

 

[John In Ireland]

No one seems to be worried about the dirt inhaling abilities of the 100-400 zoom. I think it's something that needs to be considered with any zoom. Check out what Peter Ericsson is doing with his 400mm f/5.6 in Thailand. http://www.pbase.com/peterericsson

Had one for four years. No problems yet. Does yours suck in dirt?