arrrgh,100-400 or 300f4?

Old Bob · May 9, 2003

--

Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the 70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also have a tc1.4..Bob

bdnc · May 9, 2003

bought the 300/4 IS. I decided higher image quality and speed outweighed the convenience of the zoom. Plus it was significantly less expensive - used.

I am glad I did - the 300 is significantly better than my 70-200IS which is probably as good as any Canon zoom. But your mileage may vary - either one you get, just sell it if you don't like it!

Old Bob said:
--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

lawdog · May 9, 2003

I have the 100-400 and love it. The reach is great and so is the IS. I have never shot the 300f4 but I'm sure it's sharper because primes typically are.

Old Bob said:
--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

--

EOS D60, 50mm 1.8, Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS, 100-400L IS, Bogen monopod, 550EX Speedlight, an old Pro90 in the trunk of my car (just in case) and a very happy trigger finger.

Adam-T · May 9, 2003

I tried out the 300mm non-IS and it was totally knockout! - the cheapest I've seen the IS for in the UK is £999 which isn't much more than a used one.

it becomes a 600mm with a 2X of course and I doubt that even then the quality would be less than my 75-300IS, I thought that it would probably be worth hanging on to the 75-300IS for the range and compactness for less critical moments but to be honest I couldn't envisage myself using it again after owning the 300F4IS , I'd just carry a tripod and the 80-200L f2.8 ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Jeff Pritchard · May 9, 2003

Hi Bob,

I bought the 35-350L and absolutely hated the push pull zoom design (same as 100-400). I sent it back to B&H and now have the 70-200LIS and am much happier with it. Try out the 100-400 before you buy one to see if you like that style. Other than that, I have heard mostly raves about the 100-400.

jp

Old Bob said:
--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

--
===================================================
No photograph worth taking is more than 50 feet from the road.

Ansel Adams

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jeffpritchard.com
===================================================

bdnc · May 9, 2003

$700US in excellent used condition - a new one is $1100+. The 100-400 is about 1250 new and used seem to go for at least $900 (usually 100 more).

So on the used market, in the US, it looks like the 300 retains less of its original value. This works well for buyers!

I have found that I notice that the 1.4 TC is degrading the image more with the 300 than 70-200. I do not have a 2x, so I don't know how that would be..

Adam-T said:
I tried out the 300mm non-IS and it was totally knockout! - the
cheapest I've seen the IS for in the UK is £999 which isn't much
more than a used one.

it becomes a 600mm with a 2X of course and I doubt that even then
the quality would be less than my 75-300IS, I thought that it would
probably be worth hanging on to the 75-300IS for the range and
compactness for less critical moments but to be honest I couldn't
envisage myself using it again after owning the 300F4IS , I'd just
carry a tripod and the 80-200L f2.8 ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Isaac Sibson · May 9, 2003

Adam-T said:
it becomes a 600mm with a 2X of course and I doubt that even then
the quality would be less than my 75-300IS,

Judge for yourself....

EOS 3, 300 F4L IS + 2X TC, AF (mmmmm... F8 AF...), F8, Provia 400.

Oh, and tracking Red Kites when they swoop for food like this is almost impossible with an EOS 3 or 1V, let alone anything slower...

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.

cpr1954 · May 9, 2003

I've had a hard time deciding also over these 2 lens.. and have decided to go with the 300/4.. sharpness is the key..

i've heard more people unloading the 100-400 and getting the 300/4

cheers..

Old Bob said:
--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

--
CANON 10D - S-30 - A-1 film

Steve Haehnichen · May 9, 2003

Jeff Pritchard said:
Hi Bob,
I bought the 35-350L and absolutely hated the push pull zoom design
(same as 100-400).

Not to mention the 100-400 piston action sucks in dust like no other lens. If you're a stickler for clean innards, well...

I'm hoping the next "little L" lens is a twist-zoom 200-400 IS, probably f/5.6, sub $1k.

Thomas Gardner · May 9, 2003

Old Bob said:
Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob.

You can also consider getting the 400mm f/5.6. It get's rid of the TC but you'll need a monopod/ballhead combo.

I really can't say as I don't see telephoto. Haven't a clue why

Don Lashier · May 9, 2003

bdnc said:
So on the used market, in the US, it looks like the 300 retains
less of its original value. This works well for buyers!

How's that? 100-400 new is $1389 (street), 300 f4 IS is $1149, so I'd expect about a $200 diff used.

DL

bdnc said:
So on the used market, in the US, it looks like the 300 retains
less of its original value. This works well for buyers!

I have found that I notice that the 1.4 TC is degrading the image
more with the 300 than 70-200. I do not have a 2x, so I don't know
how that would be..

Adam-T said:

I tried out the 300mm non-IS and it was totally knockout! - the
cheapest I've seen the IS for in the UK is £999 which isn't much
more than a used one.

it becomes a 600mm with a 2X of course and I doubt that even then
the quality would be less than my 75-300IS, I thought that it would
probably be worth hanging on to the 75-300IS for the range and
compactness for less critical moments but to be honest I couldn't
envisage myself using it again after owning the 300F4IS , I'd just
carry a tripod and the 80-200L f2.8 ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Click to expand...

--
http://www.lashier.com

S Clark · May 9, 2003

I had the same quandary over these two lenses. I also have the 28-135 which is my general lens and the 75-300 which isnt good at 300IS. I havent tried the 100-400 but certainly see some fine shots coming from it.

I decided on the prime 300 as it doesnt have that push pull to deal with, is very fast focusing and has a minimum focus distance of around 5 feet which is great for closeups. A very sharp lens. I notice no loss with a 1/4 Canon converter. I also have a 2x Quantary converter and it works quite well if I can hold the camera steady enough.
--
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/sasc

Adam-T · May 10, 2003

bdnc said:
I have found that I notice that the 1.4 TC is degrading the image
more with the 300 than 70-200. I do not have a 2x, so I don't know
how that would be..

That's interesting to note, I also forgot about the 2 stops with the 2X too, it would make the lens F8 - using a 1.4X would give me a 420mm (675mm effective) F5.6 lens with IS ought to be enough anyway..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Adam-T · May 10, 2003

Isaac Sibson said:
Oh, and tracking Red Kites when they swoop for food like this is
almost impossible with an EOS 3 or 1V, let alone anything slower...

You did real well to get that!!! .. I HATE ASA400 film and never use it, it's like ISO1600 on the 10D , just for real emergencies, that would have been a blur with 100F no doubt..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

bdnc · May 10, 2003

BH grey prices vs. what I saw when buying used (I didn't check used values again, so there could be fluctuation) and % of new price lost...

300/f4 IS - 1129 - 700 =429 = 38% price drop
100-400 IS Best case - 1299 - 900 = 399 = 30% price drop
100-400 IS more likely case - 1299 -1000 =299 = 23% price drop

Don Lashier said:
Member said:

So on the used market, in the US, it looks like the 300 retains
less of its original value. This works well for buyers!

Click to expand...

How's that? 100-400 new is $1389 (street), 300 f4 IS is $1149, so
I'd expect about a $200 diff used.

DL

bdnc said:

So on the used market, in the US, it looks like the 300 retains
less of its original value. This works well for buyers!

I have found that I notice that the 1.4 TC is degrading the image
more with the 300 than 70-200. I do not have a 2x, so I don't know
how that would be..

Adam-T said:

I tried out the 300mm non-IS and it was totally knockout! - the
cheapest I've seen the IS for in the UK is £999 which isn't much
more than a used one.

it becomes a 600mm with a 2X of course and I doubt that even then
the quality would be less than my 75-300IS, I thought that it would
probably be worth hanging on to the 75-300IS for the range and
compactness for less critical moments but to be honest I couldn't
envisage myself using it again after owning the 300F4IS , I'd just
carry a tripod and the 80-200L f2.8 ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.lashier.com

Maurice Joubert59901 · May 10, 2003

I was very happy with my 300 IS but did not used it a lot.

I bought 6 months ago a 100-400 I find far more convenient since it's a zoom.

As the final quality is equivalent (IMHO) I had no reasons to keep the 300

David Lawson · May 10, 2003

Steve Haehnichen said:
Jeff Pritchard said:

Hi Bob,
I bought the 35-350L and absolutely hated the push pull zoom design
(same as 100-400).

Click to expand...

Not to mention the 100-400 piston action sucks in dust like no
other lens. If you're a stickler for clean innards, well...

I'm hoping the next "little L" lens is a twist-zoom 200-400 IS,
probably f/5.6, sub $1k.

ignay · May 10, 2003

Go do yourself a favour and get the 100-400IS.

I did (after few months of consulating our experts here), and I'm glad. Sure, there is the 300/4 + TC option but when you're out on the field or travelling, etc. are you in a position to:

1) Change lens in the middle of crowded streets?

2) Move back and forth to adjust your compisition? And related to this, since you take wildlife, sometimes if you move around the animal will be distracted.

For those reasons, I went for the 100-400IS once and for all. Yes, big bucks. Together with the 28-135, I think it's the best travel combo.

Long range primes are good if you're in a spot where the distance between you and the subject doesn't change much.

Old Bob said:
--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

--
---------------------------------------
God Bless
Ignay

~~Equipment list in profile~~

george8 · May 10, 2003

the 400 of course the IS will save you when you are under a tree just before sunset and now the deer start to move. no tripod yipee, just like a 400 2.8 with a better price.

Old Bob said:
--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

John Harrison82293 · May 10, 2003

george8 said:
Old Bob said:

--
Old Bob sheesh,I cant decide which way to go.This is just a hobby
but I take it a bit serious.I shoot mostly
scenics,wildlife..Starting to get into,I cant spell it
LOL..Buildings etc...Like those fantastic shots Adam-T has of some
cathedral..My kit,sig 15-30,canon 28-135,70-200f4 and 75-300IS.I
need the IS, not all that steady in my hands.I will trade in the
70-200 and maybe the 75-300IS but I hate to on the latter,my copy
is VERY good..Anyone shot both the 100-400L and a 300f4??I also
have a tc1.4..Bob

Click to expand...

arrrgh,100-400 or 300f4?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Don Lashier

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts