My main lens is the Canon 100-400L IS. As a member of CPS, I can get most any lens when I need it, but am looking at buying an L prime.
Until I win the Powerball, budget constraints will likely limit me to the Canon 300mm L f4 IS and Canon 1.4 TC. Here's my question, and please, only those with specific comparison experience need reply. I know the basic relative plusses and minuses from each possibility, and would really like to hear from someone who has done a direct comparison, or at least has some pertinent experience with both setups. I shoot the 20D most often, though I have access to both DSLR "1" series bodies as needed.
Question: Which is sharper?
1. 100-400L IS at 400mm wide open with no TC?
2. 300L f4 IS wide open with 1.4 TC and the slight image degradation the 1.4 TC delivers?
My copy of the 100-400L is just a bit soft wide open at 400mm, but that's easily counteracted by stopping down one stop. Both combos will yield an f-stop of f5.6, fairly slow, but IS and the monopod have helped me get tack sharp images of still wildlife and indoor blues concerts at 1/40 sec, and I'm comfortable with all that.
Question No. 2:. Which will focus faster with my 20D?
Question No. 3: Is the IS version of the 300L less sharp than the non IS? I've shot both versions of the 400L f2.8, and in my experience the non IS is sharper. Lens that big, you're using a tripod anyway, so IS is less important.
Hi Steve,
I have tried both of them (but I didn't buy neither)...
1) IMHO the 300 f4 + 1.4 at 5.6 is just a little sharper than 100-400 at 400 5.6. I haven't done any side-by-side comparison, but this is my impression by using them in the field.
2) I didn't see any difference.
3) I have tried only the 300 f4 IS, so I don't have an answer here. That said, the stabilization is very useful even with big lenses and tripod...I use the 600 IS with Wimberley head II and Gitzo 1548, but the IS helps a lot!
I have owned both lenses. The 300 f4 is sharper, even with the 1.4x. I hate to add to the bashing that the 100-400 takes but I did have to buy 4 to get 2 good ones (my wife has one). One had a large piece of felt or flocking that was visible in the lens and the other would not take a photo that didn't look like the camera was jarred. But, the two I have are great (especially the one I use <g> - dont tell her). So, if sharper, why did I sell the 300 and replace it with the 100-400? Flexibility. The zoom range is just fantastic and I've used every setting between 200 or 250 and 400 and am not afraid to shoot at 400. I can also use it on a monopod with IS on and get excellent results. If you plan on a 500 f4 soon, then the 300 makes a good in-between lens. If no such plans exist or are some time down the road, you need a 400mm of some type if you are doing birds (IMO).
here is a link to a pretty good review and tests with the MTF resolution tests.
First the 300 f/4 : http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm
Second, the 100-400: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
I had both, first the 300 f/4 which was very accurate and sharp. But I sold it because I needed a zoom (more practicle for me). But down the road the 300 f/4 is cleaner , more contrast etc.
John
Posted by Jeremy Cram on August 22, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Just curious...why not the 400L 5.6 prime? I love mine and it is incredibly sharp and very fast AF. From what I have read it is sharper than the 300+TC combo and faster. I realize IS would be on both, but I really don't miss having it on the prime. It is the only lens I use for my wildlife shooting and I have been very impressed with the results. I think proper shooting techniques can really help with the lack of IS. imo. Just an idea.
Posted by Mike Broderick on September 7, 2006 at 12:45 AM
One nice trait of the zoom is to be able to custom-size your image to get exactly what you need covered, rather than crop an image from the prime lens. This assumes you can get as close as you want, or at least closer than you have to be, of course.
I own both the 300/4 IS and the 100-400L, and use them for different things. The 100-400L is used when flexibility is needed--More and more when I am flying someplace, for instance. The 300/4 IS is a super-duper lens for flighty insects such as dragonflies.
As an aside, my copy of the 100-400L is very sharp down below 250mm. Almost, but not quite as good as my 70-200/4. Like yours (and I think most) above 350mm it needs to be stopped down a stop or perhaps more to get very good quality, it is merely "decent" when wide open. This isn't as true on a crop factor DSLR, there I shoot it wide open all the time with fine results.
Hi Steve,
My first Canon DSLR was in fact a 20D. I had owned the 300mm f4 and used it together with the 1.4TC on the 20D. It was very sharp.
I had part exchanged for a 100-400 to add versatility, I preferred the 300+1.4 option it was sharper. Now I resold the 100-400 and have a 400mm 5.6L, its great. It lacks the IS but with the 50D's capability of retaining control over noise at high ISO its not a problem for me, I prefer a prime without attachments, its sharper.
Sharpness is mainly what I have always been after, since 35mm.
Hope it helps
Simon.
Wow, bringing back this thread feels like a blast from the past.
I ended up selling the 100-400 and picking up the 400 f5.6 and the 70-200 f2.8. I needed the f2.8 for all my interior wedding work but badly wanted to maintain the 400mm for avian/wildlife. So when I'm out in the woods, the 70-200 is on one body (flexibility), and the 400 is on the other. It's been a great one-two punch that has served me well.
300 + TC was sharper in my experience too Steve. Now I use the 70-200 + either 1.4 or 2 TC when I need that focal length range. Mostly (95%) I use the 500 f4 - a marvellous lens but heavy and spendy... sigh
Hi Steve,
Didn't notice the date, oops, but as I had experience with these lenses thought I could share my experience, after all you have helped me many times with advice, which I thank you very much.
Simon.
Discussion
10 repliesUntil I win the Powerball, budget constraints will likely limit me to the Canon 300mm L f4 IS and Canon 1.4 TC. Here's my question, and please, only those with specific comparison experience need reply. I know the basic relative plusses and minuses from each possibility, and would really like to hear from someone who has done a direct comparison, or at least has some pertinent experience with both setups. I shoot the 20D most often, though I have access to both DSLR "1" series bodies as needed.
Question: Which is sharper?
1. 100-400L IS at 400mm wide open with no TC?
2. 300L f4 IS wide open with 1.4 TC and the slight image degradation the 1.4 TC delivers?
My copy of the 100-400L is just a bit soft wide open at 400mm, but that's easily counteracted by stopping down one stop. Both combos will yield an f-stop of f5.6, fairly slow, but IS and the monopod have helped me get tack sharp images of still wildlife and indoor blues concerts at 1/40 sec, and I'm comfortable with all that.
Question No. 2:. Which will focus faster with my 20D?
Question No. 3: Is the IS version of the 300L less sharp than the non IS? I've shot both versions of the 400L f2.8, and in my experience the non IS is sharper. Lens that big, you're using a tripod anyway, so IS is less important.
Got help? Sock it to me!
I have tried both of them (but I didn't buy neither)...
1) IMHO the 300 f4 + 1.4 at 5.6 is just a little sharper than 100-400 at 400 5.6. I haven't done any side-by-side comparison, but this is my impression by using them in the field.
2) I didn't see any difference.
3) I have tried only the 300 f4 IS, so I don't have an answer here. That said, the stabilization is very useful even with big lenses and tripod...I use the 600 IS with Wimberley head II and Gitzo 1548, but the IS helps a lot!
here is a link to a pretty good review and tests with the MTF resolution tests.
First the 300 f/4 : http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm
Second, the 100-400: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm
I had both, first the 300 f/4 which was very accurate and sharp. But I sold it because I needed a zoom (more practicle for me). But down the road the 300 f/4 is cleaner , more contrast etc.
John
I own both the 300/4 IS and the 100-400L, and use them for different things. The 100-400L is used when flexibility is needed--More and more when I am flying someplace, for instance. The 300/4 IS is a super-duper lens for flighty insects such as dragonflies.
As an aside, my copy of the 100-400L is very sharp down below 250mm. Almost, but not quite as good as my 70-200/4. Like yours (and I think most) above 350mm it needs to be stopped down a stop or perhaps more to get very good quality, it is merely "decent" when wide open. This isn't as true on a crop factor DSLR, there I shoot it wide open all the time with fine results.
I've rambled, hopefully something here is useful!
My first Canon DSLR was in fact a 20D. I had owned the 300mm f4 and used it together with the 1.4TC on the 20D. It was very sharp.
I had part exchanged for a 100-400 to add versatility, I preferred the 300+1.4 option it was sharper. Now I resold the 100-400 and have a 400mm 5.6L, its great. It lacks the IS but with the 50D's capability of retaining control over noise at high ISO its not a problem for me, I prefer a prime without attachments, its sharper.
Sharpness is mainly what I have always been after, since 35mm.
Hope it helps
Simon.
I ended up selling the 100-400 and picking up the 400 f5.6 and the 70-200 f2.8. I needed the f2.8 for all my interior wedding work but badly wanted to maintain the 400mm for avian/wildlife. So when I'm out in the woods, the 70-200 is on one body (flexibility), and the 400 is on the other. It's been a great one-two punch that has served me well.
Didn't notice the date, oops, but as I had experience with these lenses thought I could share my experience, after all you have helped me many times with advice, which I thank you very much.
Simon.