300mm F/4L IS vs 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS for bird photos - HELP!

[Gus Stangeland]

I have had the Rebel XT along with the 100-400mm lens for about 1 1/2 years now, and have never been happy with the IQ of my bird photos. So I sold the 100-400mm and bought another one. Same problem. Then I read all the posts here and decided to buy the 300mm F/4L IS lens.

So as soon as the 300mm lens arrived, I immediately went out and shot some pictures of small birds. But as I got home and looked at them on the computer, my heart sank. They were NOT sharp, NOT in focus, basically NO good! Is it me again - I don't think so. I've been into photography since I was 10 yo. I'm not a pro, but I'd say an advanced amateur.

Sure, I could go out and take pictures of buildings and bridges, and people, and they would probably all look great! But that's not my interest. My interest is primarily on bird photography. Those of you that do this know that you can't just walk up until the bird fills your frame. You are going to have to have sharp results at 100% crops or close to that.

So I wanted to do some direct comparisons between this "much better" lens and my 100-400mm. I went out to a nature preserve and spotted a beer bottle sitting on a post. Not mine, I don't drink beer, ha! So I decided to use it as a target to compare the lenses. I used a window mount tripod, and on the non-IS shots, I used the self timer. On all the IS on shots, I pressed the shutter normally. I took 4 shots at each configuration and I selected the best one of the four to post here. So here are my results.

First, below, is two shots with the 300mm, one with IS off, the other with IS on, then one shot with the 100-400mm, pulled back to 300mm (to match the other lens) with IS on. To my eyes, low and behold, the 100-400mm lens is BETTER than the 300mm lens!



The next shot, below, would be my most-used configuration. The 300mm with a Tamron 1.4x TC, the 300mm with a Canon 1.4x TC, the 100-400mm at full zoom with IS off and the 100-400mm at full zoom with IS on. Couple things I see here, first I can NOT see any significant difference between the $284 Canon 1.4x II TC and the $110 Tamron 1.4x TC. Second, I think the 100-400mm lens has a slightly better IQ.



Next, I stacked both the Canon and the Tamron TCs on the 300mm lens and compared that with first the Tamron and then the Canon TCs. I was surprised at how well the 300mm auto focused with stacked TCs. With the 100-400mm lens and Tamron TC, it auto focused well also, but the Tamron TC does not report focal length in EXIF correctly (minor problem for me). When using the Canon TC (without taping the pins) I had to manually focus. I got lucky with one of the four shots I took, but in general, and especially for bird photography, it is NOT possible to use manual focus, at least for me. The winner here is clearly the 100-400mm using the Canon TC.



Now for the REAL WORLD tests, shooting small birds. All shots are 100% crops with no PP.

The first comparison, below, are different birds, but both about the same size. Here is where you can clearly see my total disappointment with the IQ of the 300mm lens. This is junk, in my opinion.



Next, below, are shots of the same bird, taken closely together. Again, the 100-400mm is better.



Next, I did two shots with the 300mm, using aperture priority, one at f5.6 and the other at f11. Here you can see the f11 shot is better. But I thought this super-great 300mm lens was also sharp at f5.6!



Now, below, I used aperature priority at f11 with both lenses. These are different birds, but about the same size. The 300mm shot isn't that bad, but I still think the 100-400mm shot is better.



So what's going on here? I thought by buying the 300mm F/4L IS lens, that my problem would be solved and I would be able to have the nice sharp shots that others have been getting. But it appears to be WORSE than my 100-400mm lens! So what can I conclude? Did I get a BAD 300mm lens? Or is the 300mm lens "normal" and I just happened to get a "good" 100-400mm lens, in spite of the odds? What do I do now! I'm planning to return the 300mm lens. I don't see any value in keeping it. But should I get another one? Or should I get the 400mm F/5.6L non-IS lens for about the same price? Or is the problem my camera? I DID send it in to the Canon repair facility in NJ twice and they supposedly adjusted it to factory specs. But wait, there's more. I bought the Canon XTi and after comparing it to the XT, I decided IT was bad (the shots were more OOF), so I returned it. But, I'm desperate to solve this problem, so I just ordered another XTi from another vendor.

Please help, I'm spending way more money here than I should, but I'll be ok with that if I get the results I want. For example, take a look at Greg Lavaty's small bird pictures here. No THAT'S what I WANT!!

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/new

I realize he's using a 500mm F/4.5 lens, but couldn't I get close to those results using either the 300mm F/4L with TC or the non-IS 400mm F/5.6L?

I'm sorry for the loooooooong post, but felt like I should provide enough detail to present my case. Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Gus in Dallas, Texas

 

[liquidstone]

In the bottle shots, the 300 f4 didn't do too badly, to my eyes.

In the bird crops below, it looks like the point of focus is not on the bird, but rather nearer the camera. Either you fed the AF sensor wrong info (the bead was not on the subject), or your combo (camera + 300 f4) has a backfocus issue.

Romy

Next, I did two shots with the 300mm, using aperture priority, one
at f5.6 and the other at f11. Here you can see the f11 shot is
better. But I thought this super-great 300mm lens was also sharp at
f5.6!

--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
(Over 200 species captured, and counting)

 

[liquidstone]

Correction - should read "has a front focus issue."

has a backfocus issue.

--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
(Over 200 species captured, and counting)

 

[speediq99]

I would keep the 100-400, return the 300 and go out shooting w/ a good tripod.

I had a 300mm F/4 no IS. I went through 3 copies before finding the best of the (3). My 100-400 was almost as good as the 300 at 300mm. The 100-400 beat the 300 w/ a 1.4x TC.

I too was hoping that the prime would do much better but it wasn't so and I did try. Sold the 300mm (and a very sharp 400mm f/5.6) and I now use the 100-400 w/ a TC and the occasional macro filter. It works great, no more lens swapping and less dust.

BTW, I went through the same exercise w/ a 400 f/5.6. This thing was very sharp but the 100-400 was just as sharp, more flexible and usable in less than ideal sunny conditions. AF was a little faster on the 400 f/5.6 but not by much. The 100-400 took a TC much better than the 400mm. On both a 20D, 30D and 350XT the 400 f/5.6 would hunt w/ a TC (1-2 secs) before focusing. My 100-400 had faster focusing w/ the TC. This is contrary to what Daniella and others have experienced but it is what it is w/ my 100-400.

If you have a sharp 100-400, I would not waste my time looking for the whollygrail on either a 300mm or a 400 f/5.6.

Mike

 

[speediq99]

Sorry that was 300 F/4 IS.

 

[excal]

That concurs with my experience. The 400/5.6 L (non-IS) is roughly the same IQ as the 300/4 IS L, maybe a hair better. I could not tell any significant difference between 100-400 IS L and 400/5.6 L prime, so the prime was sold. I later bought the 300/4 IS L and that too will be sold. There is one place the 300/4 IS L scores, and that is as a native 300/4. It is a little sharper than the 100-400. However, my 300/2.8 is still in a league beyond any of the others, so the 300/4 is going on ebay. It's a good lens and it's a stop brighter which for some is important. But it's not a lens to use with TCs, certainly if you don't stop down.

Excal

 

[excal]

PS: The best TC you can buy right now, is a 400D. It's tighter photosite density will give you 10% more reach than a 20D/30D/300D/350D, and a lot more than a 5D!

 

[liquidstone]

I'm waiting for the 5 fps 1.12x TC (40D)... hopefully it comes out soon...

PS: The best TC you can buy right now, is a 400D. It's tighter
photosite density will give you 10% more reach than a
20D/30D/300D/350D, and a lot more than a 5D!

--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
(Over 200 species captured, and counting)

 

[Gus Stangeland]

I would keep the 100-400, return the 300 and go out shooting w/ a
good tripod.

Why do you say I need a good tripod with the 100-400? I have not seen any improvement with a tripod, plus it's just about impossible to set up a tripod when shooting small birds. They come and go in seconds, no time to set up. To me, that's the beauty of the IS - permits quick response time.

I had a 300mm F/4 no IS. I went through 3 copies before finding
the best of the (3). My 100-400 was almost as good as the 300 at
300mm. The 100-400 beat the 300 w/ a 1.4x TC.

Now that's VERY interesting! So I'm not going crazy here after all! Thanks for sharing that info.

I too was hoping that the prime would do much better but it wasn't
so and I did try. Sold the 300mm (and a very sharp 400mm f/5.6)
and I now use the 100-400 w/ a TC and the occasional macro filter.
It works great, no more lens swapping and less dust.

BTW, I went through the same exercise w/ a 400 f/5.6. This thing
was very sharp but the 100-400 was just as sharp, more flexible and
usable in less than ideal sunny conditions. AF was a little faster
on the 400 f/5.6 but not by much. The 100-400 took a TC much
better than the 400mm. On both a 20D, 30D and 350XT the 400 f/5.6
would hunt w/ a TC (1-2 secs) before focusing. My 100-400 had
faster focusing w/ the TC. This is contrary to what Daniella and
others have experienced but it is what it is w/ my 100-400.

Yes, I was also considering returning the 300 and buying the 400mm F/5.6L non IS. But you're saying it's no better, and if no better, than why have it? The 100-400 is much more useful.

If you have a sharp 100-400, I would not waste my time looking for
the whollygrail on either a 300mm or a 400 f/5.6.

That sound good, but I'm still not totally convinced that my 100-400 is good, but in comparison to the 300, maybe it IS good, and I just need to get closer to my subjects and NOT expect 100% crops to be any good. Is that the answer?
Gus

Mike

 

[Gus Stangeland]

OK, another person that concurs with what I saw. That's good, helps me to decide what to do, and that is to return the 300. It's a pretty lens though, I like the looks of it, but I guess that doesn't count!

So how do you explain the fantastic IQ that Greg Lavaty is getting on his small bird pictures. He says he has a 500mm F/4.5, but the ones I see for sale are 500mm F/4. So is he using a previous version, or a typo? And why would it, being a f4.5 be so much better?

That concurs with my experience. The 400/5.6 L (non-IS) is roughly
the same IQ as the 300/4 IS L, maybe a hair better. I could not
tell any significant difference between 100-400 IS L and 400/5.6 L
prime, so the prime was sold. I later bought the 300/4 IS L and
that too will be sold. There is one place the 300/4 IS L scores,
and that is as a native 300/4. It is a little sharper than the
100-400. However, my 300/2.8 is still in a league beyond any of
the others, so the 300/4 is going on ebay. It's a good lens and
it's a stop brighter which for some is important. But it's not a
lens to use with TCs, certainly if you don't stop down.

Excal

 

[Gus Stangeland]

Yes, I understand, the 10 MP actually results in a larger image. I have one on order, should be here wed or fri. I may wait to return the 300 until after I try it on the XTi.

PS: The best TC you can buy right now, is a 400D. It's tighter
photosite density will give you 10% more reach than a
20D/30D/300D/350D, and a lot more than a 5D!

 

[netgarden]

Actually to tell you the truth I hvae not seen in 2 years much discussion here about 300f4 problems. Once in a while the heated discussion about 'what lens is long enough' or 'is a 1.4x equal to....' comes up. But no, it is not a big issue. The 300 f4 is one of the well recieved lenses around. Unfortuately it is a little short for serious birding. I use it because it is the most light weight one, sacrificing length. And yes, of course any lens with a teleconverter on will be a little slower and you have to adjust to that.

It looks to me like your photos are not focused properly. Did you use centerpoint focus? I get less focused %'s using Alservo with larger evaluation areas. Especially around tress or dirt that matches similar colors to the birds. It just picks the wrong thing to focus on....that simple.

Heres a 1.4x+300mm shot, the bird was in the top of a tree 30 ft. away. It was so sharp I had to slightly sharpen it or the green glowed too much, ; )



these guys are at least 250ft distance away. tallest trees in the area and I was another 70 ft. away. Also a Tamron 1.4xteleconverter.



--



Linda~ http://sweetlight.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/362
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown

 

[lightrules]

..EVERYTHING stated below is my own findings, and this is with various copies of the lenses in question.

Here are some of the lenses at 400mm (or 420mm with TC)
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53297349/original

Some at 560mm/600mm (TCs)
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53297351/original

1-4IS v 300f4IS
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53297347/original

A more recent test, with a brand new 300f4IS (2nd copy)
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/66141674/original

There are more test shots at my site but I am in agreement that the 300+1.4x cannot match the native 1-4IS. The TCs really affect contrast on both the 300f4IS and the 7-2IS.

Good post, Gus.

That concurs with my experience. The 400/5.6 L (non-IS) is roughly
the same IQ as the 300/4 IS L, maybe a hair better. I could not
tell any significant difference between 100-400 IS L and 400/5.6 L
prime, so the prime was sold. I later bought the 300/4 IS L and
that too will be sold. There is one place the 300/4 IS L scores,
and that is as a native 300/4. It is a little sharper than the
100-400. However, my 300/2.8 is still in a league beyond any of
the others, so the 300/4 is going on ebay. It's a good lens and
it's a stop brighter which for some is important. But it's not a
lens to use with TCs, certainly if you don't stop down.

Excal

--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

 

[PhillipA]

Taken with a 100-400 @400 on a 20D



In answer to your 500mm question - yes, the 500 f4.5 is an earlier version without IS

 

[Tannin]

Gus, I feel your pain. I agree with Romy and a couple of other posters that there is a pretty clear focus problem in your bird shots, especially with the 300mm, but I think a little with the 100-400 too. Maybe you would do better with a 30D - they are supposed to have better AF than the 350D (not sure about the 400D). But that's only hearsay, I've only used my 20Ds, so I can't say from my own experience.

1. 1 problem: focus.

But I think there is a second problem there too, though it's hard to tell when the focus is out. I think you are getting movement problems. What shutter speeds are you using for bird shots? (In those composite images you made, very helpful though they are, there isn't any useful EXIF info, of course.)

 

[Tannin]

It's quite noticable that pretty much all of the bird shots you posted are either low contrast shots (I mean that the bird is more or less the same colour as the background) or part-obscured shots (in the sense that the background is very "busy", meaning that the poor AF system has a difficult task if it's going to figure out that you want the bird in focus, not the grass in front of it or the sticks behind it).

In short, these are situations where I wouldn't be all that confident of getting a good shot because more than likely the focus will be only vaguely correct - and remember that I'm using a 20D (probably better at AF than a 350D) and either a 100-400 or a 500 f/4 - both very good lenses indeed.

Adding to the difficulties, the busy background makes for a difficult choice when you are thinking about depth of field: doesn't much matter what you do, if you stop down you sacrifice shutter speed (=clarity) and get the background only vaguely in focus, and if you open up wide you risk getting parts of the bird OOF and yet not really blurring the background enough. Worse yet, you need to apply some sharpening to lift the bird and give it visual impact, but the more you sharpen, the worse the background gets! Do you really want to spend all your evenings for the next month buggerising around in Photoshop cutting out the birds and blurring just the backgrounds?

Bottom line: shots of birds smaller than about duck size on the ground almost never work, unless the ground is bare earth or something similarly plain.

OK, I know I've ventured a long way away from lenses here, but I hope it is of some help. Don't stop trying! If it wasn't hard, we wouldn't love working to improve our mastery of the art. Stick with it.

 

[Tannin]

Bah! I'm stupid! You wrote the shutter speeds and other info on the pictures, and I didn't even see it. I must be too used to ignoring advertisments or something. Or possibly just stupid.

Yup, as I suspected, (IMO) you need to get your shutter speeds up a bit higher. Open up the 100-400 to f/6.7 as routine, f/5.6 if you have to. If pressed to it, go to ISO 800 (but 400 is better if you have good light). I like to see my average shutter speed up around 1/1000th. Even with IS and the best long lens technique in the world, small birds move so fast and so unpredictably that faster shutter speeds are usually much more successful. (OK, I've got good shots at pretty low speeds sometimes, but I throw heaps of shots away at (e.g) a 250th, keep lots more at a 1500th.

Anyway, that's what works for me. Maybe it will work for you too.

 

[Gus Stangeland]

Hi Linda, see my notes interspersed below:

Actually to tell you the truth I hvae not seen in 2 years much
discussion here about 300f4 problems. Once in a while the heated
discussion about 'what lens is long enough' or 'is a 1.4x equal
to....' comes up. But no, it is not a big issue. The 300 f4 is one
of the well recieved lenses around. Unfortuately it is a little
short for serious birding. I use it because it is the most light
weight one, sacrificing length. And yes, of course any lens with a
teleconverter on will be a little slower and you have to adjust to
that.

Yes, I like the feel of it too, and I don't always have to worry about the lens sliding out with a bang at the end when I pick up the camera. Do you ever use it with stacked 1.4x's? If so how do you like your results?

It looks to me like your photos are not focused properly. Did you
use centerpoint focus? I get less focused %'s using Alservo with
larger evaluation areas. Especially around tress or dirt that
matches similar colors to the birds. It just picks the wrong thing
to focus on....that simple.

Yes, I use center focus, and I used AIservo but lately have switched to OneShot, but I haven't seen any difference. Yes I can see how the camera could focus on the wrong thing, but I have hundreds (maybe thousands) of photos of birds on a fence post, or on a dead branch where there is nothing else around to confuse the camera and they are still OOF. That's very discouraging.

Heres a 1.4x+300mm shot, the bird was in the top of a tree 30 ft.
away. It was so sharp I had to slightly sharpen it or the green
glowed too much, ; )

That's a fantastic shot of the hummingbird! That's exactly what I'd like to achieve? What camera body are you using?

these guys are at least 250ft distance away. tallest trees in the
area and I was another 70 ft. away. Also a Tamron 1.4xteleconverter.

Also, perfect focus!

--

Thanks for your reply!
Gus

Linda~ http://sweetlight.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/362
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown

 

[Matt latham]

I can honestly say I have been very pleased with this lens so far. Loads of shots on my website. Got the canon 1.4x converter last week and tried it for the first time this weekend, with an obliging Purple Sandpiper. I am very pleased with the results. A couple of examples wide open at f5.6 are posted below.





--
Matt
http://www.pbase.com/latho

 

[Gus Stangeland]

Lightrules,

Thanks SO much for the link to your comparisons. I know that took a long time to do, and I appreciate you're doing this. Folks will probably say that you happened to get one of those "super" 100-400mm lenses. It certainly appears to win in every test.

Gus