EF 100-400 or EF 300 (1 Viewer)

[a.dancy]

Now now Tim you are a fine operator and a better one that me and with more experience too! 8-PI just cannot get over people saying that the 100-400 is crap or in anyway substandard. Most of my 100-400 shots are handheld. :frog:

 

[gkrpepper]

Agree with most of it

While I agree with most about the 100-400mm being a bang up lens and all, I did say to ME it SEEMS slower and less sharp than my 300mmf4 and 1.4 TC.

Since I have a 40D and a 350D, and neither supports the 100-400mm w/TC PROPERLY, not even with the pins taped, I consider them to be equal in focal length, and that is what I based my opinion on, and again, to ME the 300mm w/TC is faster and sharper. TO ME

BTW A. D and Paul, Super Galleries!!!!

 

[erwinx]

Comparing galleries: - I prefer Keith´s gallery (EF 100-400mm) compared to most of the galleries of EF 300 f/4 IS owners.

heres yet another previous thread and my comments on the 300 v 100-400:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=929912&postcount=22

and also note my comment that you can't really tell anything about lens quality from web-sized images. But if you want reviews, there's Bob Atkins from photo.net:

"I found that the EF300/4L + 1.4x TC also outperformed the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM at 400mm "

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html

 

[websurfer]

heres yet another previous thread and my comments on the 300 v 100-400:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=929912&postcount=22

and also note my comment that you can't really tell anything about lens quality from web-sized images. But if you want reviews, there's Bob Atkins from photo.net:



http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html

I have been reading a lot of stuff from Bob Atkins on his website, and I rember that he admitted, that his tested copy of the EF 100-400 was a bad one or sub-standard copy. Link - and I still prefer Keiths and Pauls galleries (EF 100-400mm) in this Forum compared to most EF 300 f/4IS +TC galleries.

 

[a.dancy]

I generally do not get involved much with discussions regarding which is best... 100-400 v 400 prime or 400 v 300 (with or without converters) and the various other combinations and variables which may exist e.g. full frame sensor cameras, cropped sensor cameras, dedicated converters and non dedicated converters. These, I am sure can have an affect on performance and image quality. I am no expert at the technology and far from an expert when using the equipment! However, it does seem to me that the evidence is out there. I have seen sufficient large size prints of images taken using the 100-400 (even wide open) to know that the lens is more than sharp enough to achieve the 'wow' factor and I wonder if we worry too much about sharpness at the pixel level.

As for speed of focus (with 100-400) I wonder if when most photographers are doing flight shots do they turn IS off in order to achieve quicker and better tracking? I am guilty of occasionally leaving it on then kicking myself for it, especially when the shutter speeds obtained do not call for it. However the evidence is out there and you will find large size prints of fast flying birds taken with the 100-400. For this reason alone I think that one would be most unwise to suggest that the 100-400 is in any way substandard since the 'hard' evidence suggests otherwise.

Different lens are designed to suit different situations as well as the pocket so when considering which lens you are going to buy you must consider the distances of the birds you photograph, the light availability for the environment you shoot in for most of the time, whether or not you wish to use a tripod or other form of support or shoot hand held and also consider whether you wish to use a hide. Be realistic about your expectations and check out what others have achieved in the same sorts of locations and situations that you will be in and make comparisons, then make your decision.

In the right hands both the lenses will produce superb results...it is as simple as that.

What I do not like about the 100-400 is the lens hood....it is utter crap but does have the advantage of keeping the weight down.

AD

 

[gmax]

LOL .. good old debate ... || ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ...

Cheers,

Max

 

[GR Triever]

This link will do nothing as far as proving or disproving either side of this debate, but I did find it interesting:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=411757

 

[K-Lex]

LOL .. good old debate ... || ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ...

Cheers,

Max

Hehe! So what have we solved in this thread? Very little in terms of which one is best by the looks of it! We have learned I don't like the zoom and that I'm pretty much out on my own with that opinion and the zoom has a steady following of people. I can't argue with that, I should try but years of relationships and losing arguments have taught me better! a.dancy has hit the nail on the head, what matters is the photographer not the lens. If I may quote one of my inspirations over the years Annabel Williams, "get a camera that suits you, a lens you love; forget about everything else and go and take pictures".

 

[erwinx]

I have been reading a lot of stuff from Bob Atkins on his website, and I rember that he admitted, that his tested copy of the EF 100-400 was a bad one or sub-standard copy. Link - and I still prefer Keiths and Pauls galleries (EF 100-400mm) in this Forum compared to most EF 300 f/4IS +TC galleries.

Thanks for the link. I note that photozone also complained about varying quality in different samples of the 100-400.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

Again, I reiterate that preference for web-sized images has little correlation to lens performance. I am sure that you will also prefer the above 100-400 galleries to some galleries where a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 was used, which is praise for the photographer but doesn't lead me to conclude that 100-400 is better than 500 or 600 f/4.

 

[websurfer]

Thanks for the link. I note that photozone also complained about varying quality in different samples of the 100-400.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

Again, I reiterate that preference for web-sized images has little correlation to lens performance. I am sure that you will also prefer the above 100-400 galleries to some galleries where a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 was used, which is praise for the photographer but doesn't lead me to conclude that 100-400 is better than 500 or 600 f/4.

I agree - the result mostly depends on the photographer - and I haven´t made any conclusions about which lens is better - I can only tell you which galleries I find great. And I did find it a bit provoking to claim, that the EF 100-400 doesn´t deserve the red L-ring.
I still haven´t bought any wildlife lens myself, I am saving up. My only main concern about the EF 100-400mm is to get a sub-standard copy because of mixed reports as you mention.

 

[a.dancy]

LOL .. good old debate ... || ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ...

Cheers,

Max

LMAO.....certainly has me banjaxed! I guess it's one of those love it or hate it things.


K-LEX...wish I had your knowledge of history Annabelle Williams seems to have got it spot on.

websurfer....I can only say that if goods bought in the UK are not fit for purpose or do not live up to the standards advertised or if there has been a misrepresentation then consumer rights law would have (by now) exposed any real problems with the lens and accordingly canon would have had to act on it. That as far as I am aware has not been the case. I dare say that any lens which is as popular as the 100-400 will have the odd lens come out of the factory as being substandard having escaped the rigours of quality control. This applies to any consumer product not just 100-400 zooms. It is just a fact of the real world.

I might also add, that last year I pulled my lens out of the bag thinking the strap was still around my neck. I lost grip and the camera and lens took a big hit with the concrete pavement.The lens took the intial impact, it bounced and the camera took the lesser hit. When I picked it up I immediately took a shot and everything worked and the lens remained unmarked. It is a tough old beast.

There is nearly always a practical solution to any problem. Tell them your concerns. If you buy from a store see if you can test the lens outside, or hire one and buy it if suitable. I am sure you can find a way to overcome the problem.

Good luck with your choice and good luck with your purchase.

 

[CCRII]

LOL .. good old debate ... || ... What I don't understand is why whenever someone dares (rightly or wrongly, there's no difference in terms of reaction) to say something "not" absolutely positive about the zoom (and its combinations) he is immediately and politely shot down ... the same doesn't happen with any other lens, Canon or Nikon or Sigma etc, where pros and cons are more or less objectively laid down and discussed ... it seems to me that any (less than positive) hint to this lens is getting on somebody's nerves sooner or later :-O... mysteries of bird photography ...

Cheers,

Max

I think because the zoom is the ultimate Amateur Intermediate lens and all the other lenses stink! J/K! :-O

Actually I have noticed this too. Weird. **Shrugs Shoulders**

 

[Modular]

I'm still not sure what to get and been Watching this Thread on the Hope It would
Make up My Mind ... I know I want the 400mm End ... That's for sure and "IS" sound's
Nice to have ... But I'm leaning More Toward's the 400mm Prime now and going with just
the "L" instead of "L" and "IS" ...
I do notice more 100-400's for Sale than You do a 400mm Prime ... I've also noticed that many 100-400 user's Do a Lot of Post Processing aswell ... I thought Nikon user's
did this more as they have to? ... I'd guess the Prime is better sealed too?,
Many Question's lol,
Take Care All,
John,

 

[websurfer]

I'm still not sure what to get and been Watching this Thread on the Hope It would
Make up My Mind ... I know I want the 400mm End ... That's for sure and "IS" sound's
Nice to have ... But I'm leaning More Toward's the 400mm Prime now and going with just
the "L" instead of "L" and "IS" ...
I do notice more 100-400's for Sale than You do a 400mm Prime ... I've also noticed that many 100-400 user's Do a Lot of Post Processing aswell ... I thought Nikon user's
did this more as they have to? ... I'd guess the Prime is better sealed too?,
Many Question's lol,
Take Care All,
John,

I understand your interest in the 400mm prime.Have a look at the Gallery of gmax. A marvellous collection of high quality pics. I have been tempted to buy the EF 400 f/5.6 - but I am afraid that I am not as skilful as gmax, and I am afraid I can´t do good enough without IS. I really don´t know. Damn good pics from this lens. I think its very difficult to judge which lens is better based on pics in here cos there are so many good photographers in this forum, and I just feel that most of them can get good shots from any lens - but Good luck with your choice.

 

[JohnZ]

K-Lex, We seem to have decided that a lot of people on here are firmly on the side of the 100-400. I personally am not an advocate of this particular lens and use the 400mm prime lens. However, at the risk of repetition, one cannot argue with the results some people, like Keith, get with this lens. The results are little short of excellent in my opinion.
Max, I think that we may use the same lens, the Canon 400mm f5.6. I have had a few discussions with Keith on here regarding the relative merits of both lenses. There is no doubt in my mind that the prime is a better value for money lens. It is tack sharp, wide open, in the right hands, and very very fast in the AF department. However one look at Keiths gallery will also demonstrate that similar, if not better, results can be had using the 100-400.
To quote somebody on another forum "You will have to prise my 400mm prime lens from my cold dead fingers !"

 

[a.dancy]

I do not wish to knock any one or their lens of choice. As I said it is horses for courses.

There are probably more zooms than primes on the 2nd hand market because there have been a lot more made. Perhaps the buying public just keeps buying rubbish?


Zoom users do more post processing...... I'm not sure I agree with that one ?????, but in any event, so what? There are those who use 500 and 600 primes and do a lot of post processing....I'd do it if I knew how and had the time and the software! If you can improve an image what is wrong with it....provided of course that you do not diminish the integrity of the shot, but I digress. Please take a look at the sparrowhawk shot above....hand held at a low shutter speed about 1/125th sec. I took shots covering the full zoom range and every one or nearly every one was sharp and I might add no adjustment with levels and sharpening was minimal and probably not even necessary. I have on the few occasions that I have tried got sharp shots between 1/25th sec and 1/60th sec hand held (on a calm day of course) and I have posted these shots elsewhere. The point I make is that you can go on taking pictures with the zoom when others might have to go home ...unless they use a tripod of course.


I am going to be a bit self indulgent but only to nail home the point I am making.I will post a few more sparrowhawk shots (fledged juvenile). The eye level shots were taken with me standing on tip-toes! The light had completely gone. I shot most I think on ISO1600 (check the EXIF data) with very low shutter speeds at the 400 end of the zoom. I have NOT sharpened the shots and I have NOT carried out any post processing with levels, saturation , blur, or neat image. All I have done is downsize the full frame shots and stuck on a boarder. I hope you take a look and make fair comment. My only caveat is as stated before, I am a bog standard amateur who does on average a full days shoot about once a month and gets the odd shot in in the mean time.

The shots in the sequence which are missing are due to subject blur (moving head)

 

[Modular]

Zoom users do more post processing...... I'm not sure I agree with that one ?????, but in any event, so what? There are those who use 500 and 600 primes and do a lot of post processing....I'd do it if I knew how and had the time and the software!

So What? ... Well in Honesty if Zoom user's have to Sharpen more than
Prime user's then I think I know So what ... The Prime is Evidently Sharper!,

So All I'm saying is ... IF Zoom user's HAVE to Sharpen more than PRIME
user's ... Then the Answer is pretty clear to Me ... That's what I was
Saying ... And Your Probably right about user's buying Rubbish :t:

The Picture's are Nice ... A Few Underexposed etc but You said the Light was Awful anyway ... The First 2 Are
800 Iso and the Other 3 are 1600 Iso ... They don't Look Sharp as You have'nt Sharpened as Yet,
Like You say ... Picture's won't Prove anything ... I know what the 100-400 Can Do ... In the Right Hand's and
In the Right Software,
I agree also that the "IS" Helped with HandHolding Shot's ... That's what appeal's to Me,
I did'nt say ALL 100-400 User's use Software either ... I said Many ... And Many Do ,
Take Care,
John,

 

[Roy C]

I think that Brits have an inherent love of zoom lenses. When I am out walking with my 400mm f5.6 slung around my neck I almost always get one of two comments, either 'thats a big camera you have' or 'thats a big zoom'. When I explain that it is not a zoom most people are completely perplexed and come back with something like 'oh I thought it must be a zoom if you are photographing birds' :-O:-O:-O . Perhaps this proves that the zoom must be best

 

[Tim Taylor]

I think that Brits have an inherent love of zoom lenses. When I am out walking with my 400mm f5.6 slung around my neck I almost always get one of two comments, either 'thats a big camera you have' or 'thats a big zoom'. When I explain that it is not a zoom most people are completely perplexed and come back with something like 'oh I thought it must be a zoom if you are photographing birds' :-O:-O:-O . Perhaps this proves that the zoom must be best

Well done Roy, you've nailed it. Here's a shot my sister took of some bloke out birding with a big zoom the other day - good looking chap too. 3

Apologies to Michael the thread poster - not helpful in your decision making. The only real negative I've encountered with the zoom is the insect that seems to have got in somehow and about which I'm about to ring Canon. I'd love to have a go with the 300mm IS + 1.4TC combo.

 

[citrinella]

I think that Brits have an inherent love of zoom lenses. When I am out walking with my 400mm f5.6 slung around my neck I almost always get one of two comments, either 'thats a big camera you have' or 'thats a big zoom'. When I explain that it is not a zoom most people are completely perplexed and come back with something like 'oh I thought it must be a zoom if you are photographing birds' :-O:-O:-O . Perhaps this proves that the zoom must be best

To Joe Public "zoom" means telephoto. They have no idea of the distinction between prime and zoom. As for "wide angle zoom" - are you speaking Martian ?

Mike.