Posted by Michael Cempa on April 23, 2006 at 12:33 AM
So, I just picked up a 30D (a step much closer to my A2 than my 300D was), and I'm looking into a longer lens for wildlife/bird photography. I have around $1K (US) available, and was looking into the Canon 300mm f/4 IS and the 100-400mm IS. I'm leaning toward the 300mm, since I think it'll produce better images with the 1.4x converter. Currently my only other telephoto is the 70-200 f/4L. If anyone has any insight they'd like to share or other ideas, please let me know. Thanks.
300mm is a nice lense and will be great with TC for birds and such. HAving said that 100-400 offers you 'zoom convinience' and is also a fantastic lense. Let us know your decision and how it works for you.
Posted by Robert Ganz on April 23, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Mike...my first tele lens was the 300 f4 non-IS. I then got a used 300 f4 IS, and I have to say that I have been extremely happy with it. I use the 1.4X often.
I also have the 70-200 f4, and find they complement each other well as far as lengths go.
The 300 is faster than the 100-400 and that has come in handy. The 100-400 is more convenient if you only want one lens.....but the ones that I have used well....I will stick to my 70-200 and 300 combo....I must stress this is ONLY a personal preference.
I have the 100-400 and like it a lot. It is a sharp copy and recently has been calibrated by Canon as after a trip to Africa Ihad it cleaned and gone over. Yes, it does get dirty in dusty environments. It does not work well with the 1.4. It's OK, but not great. Sharpness depends on good light and stopping down a little.
The 300 will overcome these deficiencies. However, I find the versitility of the zoom to outweigh the disadvantages. Often I find I need a fast focal length change and the zoom is fantastic. It is a nice lens to carry when weight is important as the 3.5 lbs is lighter than several lenses combined.
I also use it very well with extension tubes. Close ups of butterflies and other semi macro things are great.
So, it is different strokes for different folks. Have fun studying. Let us know what you decide.
If you absolutely need IS then the 100-400 outclasses the 300IS + TC at the 400 mm end.
If you dont need IS and need one long and light lens : the 400 mm f/5.6 prime is a no-nonsense winner.
If you dont need IS and want the versatlitly of 300 mm and the 1.4x then the old 300 mm non IS lens is the way to go.
These links might help:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=103852
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
I suggest finding out how much of a problem is caused by the lack of IS is on the 400/5.6 from users of the lens. People seem to really like it with birds and wildlife. With a 1.4 TC on you 70-200 you can get to 280mm with good results. So maybe a 400 prime would be the way to go. And you can add the 1.4 to the 400. The best quality by a considerable margin at 400 will be with the prime.
I suggest finding out how much of a problem is caused by the lack of IS on the 400/5.6 from users of the lens. People seem to really like it with birds and wildlife. With a 1.4 TC on you 70-200 you can get to 280mm with good results. So maybe a 400 prime would be the way to go. And you can add the 1.4 to the 400. The best quality by a considerable margin at 400 will be with the prime.
Posted by Michael Cempa on April 24, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Thanks for all the replies! Honestly, I've never had a lens with IS, and never really felt I've missed it, but then again, I have tended to use a tripod a lot, and shoot more static subjects. My recent interest in wildlife and bird photography made me realize that I probably need more than than my 70-200. I guess I'm not sure about the IS, but looks like I have some more research to do.
I shot birds for a long time with the 300/4 IS, almost almost always with 1.4x. Finally I got the 500/4 and I use it the most, but I still find use for a lighter weight lens for walking around. I ended up getting the 400/5.6 and find I use it much more than the 300/4 now for lightweight. I routinely use it with a light monopod, and often add a 1.4x (Tamron Standard which doesn't report to the camera so I can autofocus with my 20D). It is both somewhat sharper, and quicker and more accurate to focus than the 300/4 -- though the 300 is a really fine lens, look at Cindy's results with it -- and for me those plus the possibility of going to 560 outweigh the IS on the 300.
This choice -- 100/400, 300/4, or 400/5.6 for birds -- has probably more bandwidth devoted to it than any other Canon lens topic online, and searching the web you can find every possible position devoutly espoused! I know two of these solutions are really good, and I suspect the third one is too -- so whichever way you go will turn out fine for you. So make the decision and enjoy your photography!
Discussion
8 repliesI also have the 70-200 f4, and find they complement each other well as far as lengths go.
The 300 is faster than the 100-400 and that has come in handy. The 100-400 is more convenient if you only want one lens.....but the ones that I have used well....I will stick to my 70-200 and 300 combo....I must stress this is ONLY a personal preference.
The 300 will overcome these deficiencies. However, I find the versitility of the zoom to outweigh the disadvantages. Often I find I need a fast focal length change and the zoom is fantastic. It is a nice lens to carry when weight is important as the 3.5 lbs is lighter than several lenses combined.
I also use it very well with extension tubes. Close ups of butterflies and other semi macro things are great.
So, it is different strokes for different folks. Have fun studying. Let us know what you decide.
If you dont need IS and need one long and light lens : the 400 mm f/5.6 prime is a no-nonsense winner.
If you dont need IS and want the versatlitly of 300 mm and the 1.4x then the old 300 mm non IS lens is the way to go.
These links might help:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=103852
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
- pradeep
http://www.varyinglight.com
This choice -- 100/400, 300/4, or 400/5.6 for birds -- has probably more bandwidth devoted to it than any other Canon lens topic online, and searching the web you can find every possible position devoutly espoused! I know two of these solutions are really good, and I suspect the third one is too -- so whichever way you go will turn out fine for you. So make the decision and enjoy your photography!