• 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.

EF 100-400 or EF 300 (1 Viewer)

Michael Hogan

Michael Hogan

Acroperus
I am buying a EOS 40D and I want to get a walk around lens that I can take bird photos with. I am also buying (next year) a EF 500 f4 for tripod use. I am torn between the EF 300 f4 and the EF 100-400 f4-5.6. Both a L series and have IS and both work with a 1.4x TC. The extra 100 reach of the 100-400 would be useful but it does get some mixed reivew. I have not read a bad review of the 300 f4.

Some help would be greatly appreciated

Michael
 
You wont get AF with the 100/400 unless you tape the pin's
as for walk about the zoom must be the best choice .
Rob.
 
This topic is elsewhere too. The 100-400 isn't really an L lens. It's good, but not worthy of the L badge. Without hesitation I'd buy the 300mm f4 and a 1.4x TC. Like you correctly say there are mixed views on the 100-400 but I've never, ever seen anything bad about the 300 f4. The 100-400 is slow and dim-witted by comparison. The difference in my opinion is the 100-400 is overrated and undertalented. The 300mm is underrated and an unsung gem.
 
Last edited:
Michael, I got a 40D and 100-400mm a couple of weeks ago. I've been using a 350D and 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC for the past 6 months.

The 100-400mm seems slow and not as sharp compared to the 300mm and 1.4 TC, especially in low light. (Sorry, Keith Reeder)

The 100-400mm and pin taped TC combination will work, but will hunt for longer than you have time when you're out shooting birds, unless you're pre focused and on a tripod, so that's no good for walking around.

In my opinion, and I am no expert, far from it, but I would go with the 300mm f4 and 1.4 TC giving you 420mm focal length, sharp glass, pretty fast lens, and hardly any weight to lug around.

The 40D is a no brainer, especially for the money.

Now, if you're really bend on using a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC, go with the 30D (ask Keith Reeder)

Like I said, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it

Hope it helps
 
Comparing galleries: - I prefer Keith´s gallery (EF 100-400mm) compared to most of the galleries of EF 300 f/4 IS owners.
 
I too prefer Keiths gallery and think that he has produced some excellent shots with his non L 100-400. (sic) If only I could match these then I would be a very happy man !
Perhaps, K-Lex, the weather is a touch bad where you are and you are bored ? You then decided to wind a few people up on the Forum ?
OR you could always post a few images to prove your point as I see you have no images in your BF gallery.

Edit ; My apologies K-Lex just seen your gallery at keithwylie.co.uk. Didn`t find any piccies of birds ?
 
Last edited:
The very amateur view, I have a 30d and 100-400L, it's white so must be classed as an L by Canon. I do most of my photos hand held very occasionally use a mono pod, but, I find that a pain to carry round. The camera and lens are very manageable on their own and the fact that it is a zoom is a big benefit to me.
Not all birds, insects and mammals, stand the same distance away and the zoom helps in those circumstances. As for faults, yes I believe a 300 may be sharper, faster and better in low light, but if you can't get near enough loss of 100mm or the subject is too close, over framed at 300 you cant get the photo anyway, where I can.
Are my photo's good with the lens. Only average after what you see on here from the likes of 'Keith Reeder' but I have some printed at A4 and friends don't believe i took them until I show them on the computer in my files. I will be getting a 1.4 converter next year, non canon probably kenko pro3000 and expect further problems but I am sure the equipment will still be better than me and that I will still be very happy to have a zoom and not a fixed lens.
 
Last edited:
postcardcv said:
That's the second time today I've read this statement (from you) any chance you could back it up with some evidence?
Click to expand...

Quite why, JohnZ, you think I'm trying to wind people up is beyond me. All I have done is express my opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to. I don't normally shoot birds, I'm a studio/glamour photographer by trade with a second interest in landscape and I have only recently had a dabbling in birds which is why there aren't any birds on my website. The only one of mind I uploaded is my avatar on here.

Postcardcv, It's my opinion not an extensive scientific study which is why the only evidence I need is my experience with both lenses. I'm not forcing anyone to take what I think as gospel, they can make their own minds up.
 
My opinion only but if your getting the 500 f4 next year then personally I would opt for the 300 f4 why you ask well nothing against the 100-400mm IS but you could add the 1.4x tc to the 300mm & you will effectively have 3 lenses & possibly the 300mm would be a lighter walkabout lens.Just my thoughts.

Steve.
 
Well it would be wouldn`t it. Nobody, in their right mind, would deny you the right to express your opinion. However if you choose to visit this Forum and then declare that the 100-400 is not really an L lens then you should expect some fairly sharp replies.
Yes people will make their own minds up and, I suspect, that one look at Keiths gallery may sway them towards the 100-400, L or not.
 
Well I've got the 500mm f4is and the 100-400 so here comes a biased opinion.
I think this setup works well, I've used the zoom for all sorts of photography at everything from 100mm - 560mm and have been more than happy with the results. My shots with the tc on aren't a patch on Keith's but I still got decent shots from long birding walks I wouldn't otherwise have got.

The af isn't lightning fast, but with the range limit set its fast enough virtually all the time, and should be noticeably quicker than your old Tamron.

IQ, no complaints at all

Using a tc on a 40d could be a problem. The pin taping trick seems a bit hit and miss. There are other threads going into detail on this, so I'd have a good read of them.

I did consider the 300 f4 but felt the flexibility of the zoom outweighed the possible benefits of a 300mm prime and nothing has altered that opinion in the year I've had the zoom

Paul

Edit: I've just knocked together a quick gallery of shots with the 100-400, so if you're really bored go here http://www.pbase.com/pauls_20d/canon_100-400is_sample_images

Edit II: Should have said, all shots handheld, first thing I did with mine was to take the tripod mount off and chuck it in the back of a drawer. Its a doddle to handhold!
 
Last edited:
Nothing like full blooded debate. But I am no nearer a decision than before. I have just switched from Nikon - in fact I haven't picked up my EOS 40D yet. I havd a Nikon D80 + 300 f4. I really like the 300 - so sharp and nice to hand hold. Before that I had a Tamron 200-500 but sold it as I was not that happy with the results - that was probably down to me rather than the kit but I get so much better results with the 300 + 1.4x Kenko 300 pro than the Tamron. I had decided to get the Canon EF 300 f4 but then I looked at the 100-400 and hence the thread. I am a bit worried about it because of my experience with the Tamron but I know they are miles apart in IQ.

So has the decision been made any easier - you must be joking, but thanks for all the advise.

Michael
 
paul goode said:
Well I've got the 500mm f4is and the 100-400 so here comes a biased opinion.
I think this setup works well, I've used the zoom for all sorts of photography at everything from 100mm - 560mm and have been more than happy with the results. My shots with the tc on aren't a patch on Keith's but I still got decent shots from long birding walks I wouldn't otherwise have got.

The af isn't lightning fast, but with the range limit set its fast enough virtually all the time, and should be noticeably quicker than your old Tamron.

IQ, no complaints at all

Using a tc on a 40d could be a problem. The pin taping trick seems a bit hit and miss. There are other threads going into detail on this, so I'd have a good read of them.

I did consider the 300 f4 but felt the flexibility of the zoom outweighed the possible benefits of a 300mm prime and nothing has altered that opinion in the year I've had the zoom

Paul

Edit: I've just knocked together a quick gallery of shots with the 100-400, so if you're really bored go here http://www.pbase.com/pauls_20d/canon_100-400is_sample_images

Edit II: Should have said, all shots handheld, first thing I did with mine was to take the tripod mount off and chuck it in the back of a drawer. Its a doddle to handhold!
Click to expand...

About your EF 100-400 Gallery: Some stunning shots, great work. Well done. I am really impressed. I wish I could get such a good copy and have your skill.
 
K-Lex said:
Quite why, JohnZ, you think I'm trying to wind people up is beyond me. All I have done is express my opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to. I don't normally shoot birds, I'm a studio/glamour photographer by trade with a second interest in landscape and I have only recently had a dabbling in birds which is why there aren't any birds on my website. The only one of mind I uploaded is my avatar on here.

Postcardcv, It's my opinion not an extensive scientific study which is why the only evidence I need is my experience with both lenses. I'm not forcing anyone to take what I think as gospel, they can make their own minds up.
Click to expand...

I never said that you were trying to wind people up, I was just trying to work out where you got your information about the 100-400 was not being a real L lens (I'd guess Canon would disagree). The way you stated in this (and another) thread made it sound like a fact so I was curious as to where you got it from. Perhaps you could elaborate and explain what it is that the 100-400 IS lacks that all other L lenses have?
 
Hello Michael,

Only for the fact that you may be getting the Canon 500mm next year, I'd have suggested you consider the Canon 400mm f/5.6 ( the lens I use for bird photography) A beautiful lens to use, very sharp wide open. Having said that, the 300mm f/4 may give you a bit more flexibility in range (coupling it with the 1.4tc) along with the 500mm in your collection.

If birds arent going to be your main subject, then the Canon 100-400mm may be more suited.

Whatever your choice, I'm sure you'll be aware, that personal technique is what makes any of this equipment do the business.

All the best in your decision :t:
 
100-400

Black Redstart Juv 14 August 06 016.jpg

Black Redstart Juv 14 August 06 207.jpg

Here are a couple of black redstart shots taken with my 100-400 and demonstrating the lens working well against the light . I carry this lens to work with me every day (although not used every day) and would not want to change it.


The peregrine (below, full frame) was flying at around 40-50mph I would guess. The lens was fast enough at focusing IMHO. I use a 500mm prime lens when spending the day out photographing birds and often bring the 100-400 even though I have the option of a 300f2.8. Sometimes I leave the 500 at home and take the 100-400 instead. I am a bog standard amateur bird photographer but will second the comments made by Nigel Blake and others. It seems to me that poor results come about with the 100-400 owing to a too higher expectation being placed on it especially in regard to image stabilisation. If I produce a bad image I blame myself and not the lens. With respect I would not place any value on the opinion of someone who has had very little practice with the 100-400 since I do believe that it does take practise to optimise the results. This of course is just my opinion....I have been using the lens for about 4 years.
 

Attachments

  • ter.peregrine. kestrel orig ex 004.jpg
    ter.peregrine. kestrel orig ex 004.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 270
100-400

One late afternoon after doing a load of shots with the 500 I did a load with the zoom pulled in...why go for full frame shots every time? I took the attached sparrowhawk shot at about 180mm ISO800 at about 1/125 sec.hand held (slightly cropped no adjustment to levels or colour)

Given the choice of the 300f.4 or the 100-400 it would be the good old zoom nearly everytime without question.
 

Attachments

  • sparrow hawk July 07 A.Dancy 314.jpg
    sparrow hawk July 07 A.Dancy 314.jpg
    234.5 KB · Views: 273
Wow, some great shots from the 100-400 here. For some more modest shots with the same lens you can look at mine too - same lens but a less skilful operator! It very rarely gets used at less than 400mm but I found myself shooting my son's rugby match the other day and the zoom was varied a lot then. Makes it much more compact for travelling too of course. I also use it with a monopod in some situations - eg standing still for 30 mins snapping birds near my garden feeders.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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.

Similar threads

F
New Equipment Starting over
Replies
3
Views
496
Luvfatbirds2
L
C
I've got a Canon R7 and need to update my lenses
Replies
15
Views
1K
Barred Wobbler
Barred Wobbler
B
Canon EF 400/f5.6 L USM + EOS 7D Mk II combo anyone???
Replies
2
Views
979
BoldenEagle
B
ermine
Canon EF USM L 100-400 Mk1 repair -
Replies
0
Views
788
ermine
ermine
Steve Babbs
Zuiko 100 - 400 vs 300
Replies
9
Views
717
Steve Babbs
Steve Babbs

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top