Reading mode: Light Dark

canon 300 f4 vs 100-400 f4.5-5.6

Go to last post
K

Kim van Heuven

Well-known member
Messages
128
Reaction score
22
Location
Z Holland, NL
Hi everyone,

Becoming more enthusiastic and serious about photography I want to buy a new lens for my canon 20D. Like to shoot wildlife.

Not having the funds to buy a 400+ mm (2.8) lens I want to buy either the:

Canon 300 f/4 L IS
Advantage: Prime so most probably sharper.

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS
Advantage: zoom lens having 400 mm
Disadvantage: most likely not as sharp as a prime

I have the feeling that you never have enough zoom so I am tempted to go for the 100-400, which also has the advantage that it has the range 100-400.

On the other hand it would irritate me if the shots would be soft especially at 400 mm , since that I will most likely use most. (Is 300 mm f/4 with 1.4x extender sharper?)

Does anyone have advice and/or has experience with these lenses? Do you think I would miss not having a zoom (never has a prime lens before)?

Thanks for your response.

Kim
 
Kim,

Put these lenses into the DPR Search engine..Tons of threads on this subject that has been discussed a lot before!!

I have the 100-400 and yes, find it a little soft @400mm, needs to be stopped down to f8.0 to get Sharp Results! However, with Real Goood Lighting, can shoot wide open @400mm and get Sharp Results!

Ted
 
What about the 400mm f/5.6 -- since you said you'd take most of your shots at that end anyway. The prime will definately be superior wide open at 400mm than the 100-400 zoom, I'd think.

Plus a 1.4x TC could take you even farther if needed.
  • Eric
 
I have used the 100-400, 2 300 f4 IS and 2 300 f4 non-IS versions. Its true that the primes are sharper in controlled tests and that some non-IS 300 f4s are slightly sharper than the IS versions. But I have also seen some incredibly sharp 300 f4 IS's.

In the field is another matter, the differences are far less. To me, the bigger factors to consider are the benefits of IS, wide ranging zoom capability and max aperture.

If you could really benefit from IS, this will overcome any differences in sharpness among this class of lenses. Unquestionably zoom has tremendous advantages in most shooting situations. Maybe you can easily back up or move forward with shorter focal length lenses, but this is much more difficult with telephoto lenses. Try telling a bird photographer to move closer when 200 or 300 mm is too short for a certain shot.

Max aperture can be critical. To make best use of the 100-400 and other relatively slower lenses, its nice to have the ability to stop down a bit. That can be a drawback, but there are work arounds for this too.

If ultimate shapness wide open is most important to you, give strong consideration to the 300f4, perhaps the non-IS version but don't hesitate to get the IS if you think you can use it.

Get the zoom if you value flexibility and don't minding stopping down a bit.
 
the 300 f4 with 1.4x extender will be slightly sharper than the 100-400 in controlled tests; may not be noticeable in the field. I have both of these lenses and can send you some samples if interested.
 
Hi Kim

I have purchased the 300 F4 IS about 5 months ago replacing my Bigma 50-500. I have used and will buy the 400 f5.6 and have used the 100-400. I have least experience with the 100-400. I also have the TC 1.4.

Much has been written on this topic and any search will yield many threads and posts. So do try that.

My opinion as alwaysa is that the answer will be driven by your needs more than major PQ differences in the lenses themselves. Price and weight is also a factor.

The 300 and 400 primes are the best lenses for PQ. The 300 has remarkable bokeh, is razor sharp and has IS. The 400 has all of this except no IS. However, when shooting birs\ds in flight IS is a questionable benefit. If you're shooting wildlife, IS will only really be useful for still shots in low light that are hand held. Both lenses are about $1100

I originally used zooms and checked the 100-400 versus the Bigma. I bought the Bigma for it's reach and price The 100-400 has IS and is a great lens. It's also about $1400 when i last looked. The new DG Bigma is awesome. Both zooms are softer at their long end and the Bigma only really goes to about 460mm.

I abandoned zooms because I found that most of my shots were at the long end. At this single focal length I find the primes are superior. In addition primes do seem to perform better wide open IMHO.

So which prime or should you buy a zoom?

Here is depends on what you shot. The birders want 400, 500 and longer. The nature shooters want 300-400 is seems.

I got great pictures with a zoom and the pooster who said that in the field... is correct. If flexibility and cash are your main concerns then the 300 and 400 zoom solution is probably not right.

One final thought. Try using long lenses before you buy as they are big and heavy and you wnat to be sure you're not buying something you just wont like. Not everyone relishes the size of a Bigma. Also note that the Bigma (ring action) and the 100-400 (push pull0 are completely different to operate. neither is right. It's just a personal preference thing.

Good luck. I hope this was helpful.
Rob
Kim van Heuven said:
Hi everyone,

Becoming more enthusiastic and serious about photography I want to
buy a new lens for my canon 20D. Like to shoot wildlife.

Not having the funds to buy a 400+ mm (2.8) lens I want to buy
either the:

Canon 300 f/4 L IS
Advantage: Prime so most probably sharper.

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS
Advantage: zoom lens having 400 mm
Disadvantage: most likely not as sharp as a prime

I have the feeling that you never have enough zoom so I am tempted
to go for the 100-400, which also has the advantage that it has the
range 100-400.

On the other hand it would irritate me if the shots would be soft
especially at 400 mm , since that I will most likely use most. (Is
300 mm f/4 with 1.4x extender sharper?)

Does anyone have advice and/or has experience with these lenses? Do
you think I would miss not having a zoom (never has a prime lens
before)?

Thanks for your response.

Kim
Click to expand...
 
Daniella and I once compared our lenses, her 400 f/4.5 and my 100-400. It was very difficult to tell them apart, even wide open. But I use my 100-400 almost all the time at 400, so the prime makes more sense. It will AF better and work better with TC's. For birds the IS is not really an issue, unless the bird is dead or stuffed. You need 1/1000s or so, where IS is not very helpful.
Maybe you need both.
--
Charlie

Better lucky than smart. The more shots I take, the luckier I get.
 
I'm totally amateur and enjoy travel photography. I have only 1 true telephoto, the 100-400 which I use on my 20D (=160-640). It is phenomenal, even when used without a tripod. I took a number of pictures in a bird refuge with it, hand held, using iso 400-800. The pictures were sharpened (USM) in photoshop, and the feather and eye details were excellent. I consider it a more useful all-around lens than any prime.
--
DeepJay
 
Thanks for the insight Charles. I'm looking at expanding into the 400mm range sometime soon for birding. I'll have to consider the 100-400 carefully as well.
  • Eric
 
Charles Rettner said:
Daniella and I once compared our lenses, her 400 f/4.5 and my
100-400. It was very difficult to tell them apart, even wide open.
Click to expand...
no it was difficult to tell them apart at F8 :) but we only did a quick test handheld on some license plates. not really a reliable test.
Charles Rettner said:
But I use my 100-400 almost all the time at 400, so the prime makes
more sense. It will AF better and work better with TC's. For birds
the IS is not really an issue, unless the bird is dead or stuffed.
You need 1/1000s or so, where IS is not very helpful.
Maybe you need both.
--
Charlie

Better lucky than smart. The more shots I take, the luckier I get.
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
It's clearly soft and shows nothing about this lens in a favorable way. Showing large the moon is doesn'tmatter either..... I could shoot with my 70-200 with a 1.4x teleconverter and crop and have a larger better moon shot than this.

Still not sure why you shared this photo.
-John Lehmkuhl
--
*********************************************************
Main Photo Gallery: http://www.realkuhl.com/gallery
Lens Example Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl/lens_examples
 
A factor no one mentioned yet (an important one to me.) The 300/4 L IS has very close focus! I can be doing wonderful macro of butterflies with the 300, 25mm ext, maybe 1.4x even on a monopod (the IS does help.) And, if a deer or bird suddenly comes by, take out the 25mm and I'm in business. I have another sharp 300 but wouldn't give up this lens just for that reason.
 
I just added the latest PZ test data to my graphs.
Telephoto Resolution: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/51256678
Supertele Resolution: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/52709599

For wildlife, you'll probably always want to get closer and would use the long end of a zoom almost always, so I'd say go with a prime, and if you don't get one with IS, then make sure you use at least a monopod.

Good luck,
Lincoln :)

--
ALL PhotoZone.de lens test data compared graphically:
http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/lens_tests
 
I have both (300mm IS version). I like them both very much. But at least in my case the 300mm + Canon 1.4x TC is slighly behind the 100-400mm, even wide open, and loses some AF quality (without the TC it is superb).

If you are going to buy only one lens, I would give fuctionality the major consideration - optically and mechanically both will give very good results.
Consider:
  • a zoom is very useful in shooting Nature.
  • FD as large as possible is also very useful
  • the 300mm is excellent for flowers or small subjects at relatively short distances (in fact, it is excellent at that)
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/
 
I have both. When I got the 100-400 I thought I would sell off the 300, but several years later it hasn't happened. Last trip I took the 100-400 because I knew I would use the entire zoom range. Next trip I'm taking the 300 and a 1.4x because everything will be at the long end.

If you compare them at 300, I don't think there is a huge difference in image quality. Maybe the 300 is a bit sharper and it certainly is a stop faster. It's also a few ounces lighter (feels like more) and has a built-in lens hood that is much more convenient than the 100-400's hood, so for all those little reasons I have held on to the 300. But this is 100-400 at 400 and I don't think the 300 with TC would have done any better:


Kim van Heuven said:
Hi everyone,

Becoming more enthusiastic and serious about photography I want to
buy a new lens for my canon 20D. Like to shoot wildlife.

Not having the funds to buy a 400+ mm (2.8) lens I want to buy
either the:

Canon 300 f/4 L IS
Advantage: Prime so most probably sharper.

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS
Advantage: zoom lens having 400 mm
Disadvantage: most likely not as sharp as a prime

I have the feeling that you never have enough zoom so I am tempted
to go for the 100-400, which also has the advantage that it has the
range 100-400.

On the other hand it would irritate me if the shots would be soft
especially at 400 mm , since that I will most likely use most. (Is
300 mm f/4 with 1.4x extender sharper?)

Does anyone have advice and/or has experience with these lenses? Do
you think I would miss not having a zoom (never has a prime lens
before)?

Thanks for your response.

Kim
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top