100-300f4 v 80-400 os (1 Viewer)

I have been gettng great results from my D300 and 100-300 F4.After borrowing a friend's canon body and 100-400 L i have started wanting a 400.Looking around a bit i think i want an 80-400 EX.I know about the slow autofocus and the trick with getting close with manual focus and then finish with the autofocus.
Is the 80-400 going to give the image quality i have been used to with the F4.If you have an 80-400 i would love to know how you find it...Thanks

After a very limited experience with the 80-400OS I decided to look elsewhere for a telephoto zoom.
The IQ was not that impressive (compared to the Nikon 70-300VR I had a the time, and slightly worse than 80-400VR I bought afterward).
The AF very sluggish and screwdriver type. You cannot override it without the AF/MF switch.

Although I have no direct experience with it, I think your Sigma 100-300 is a much better lens.
Getting a 80-400OS instead might disappointment you in picture quality.

One obvious option would be to add a 1.4x teleconverter to the 100-300. It retains AF operation and the IQ won't degrade that much.

Or get a much longer lens, like the 150-500mm OS.
It doesn't seem to match the performance of the bare 100-300, but it might be very close to it with TC1.4x attached. Also the extra reach mike make it worth your while.

Thanks for that Twolf.I am going to take your advise and get a 1.4 converter for it.My 100-300 gives me superb sharpness so why risk a change from it.I appreciate your input...

From everything I've seen, the TC would be the best of the two options you mention. The 1-3 is a very good piece of glass, and degrades very little with the 1.4. The 80-400 is ok, but the internal motor is not HSM, so focus is supposed to be very slow.

I guess it boils down to whether you really need OS. If you're not getting many keepers due to shake, then maybe you should think about the 80-400. But If I had your current rig, then I think I would save money by getting the TC now, and saving for something bigger and faster in the future.

Personally, I have just bought a Bigma. After doing heaps of research, and them some test shots with my rig in the shop (including review on my laptop), I found the new 120-400 OS and 150-500 OS to be optically inferior to the Bigma*, especially wound out to maximum reach. For me, this was more important than the OS as I have a D700 so I can crank the ISO.

Matt.

* These were my findings, in case you were considering either of these alternatives. GYRob has been getting great results with the 150-500, but the vast majority of samples I've seen out on the web have been pretty soft. Maybe there's quite a large sample variation with this lens.

You're very welcome.

PS: I apologize for my horrible spelling.

I wouldn`t rule out the sigma 150-500mm it just needs stopping down to around f8 this seems to be the sweet spot.I`m ordering one on Monday for my Canon.

STEVE.