EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II vs EF 300mm f/4L IS + Ext. 1.4x III

BondTrader wrote:

Thanks for a good summary. I just bought a Canon 7D Mark 2 so that's my body although I still have my 60D. My favorite things to shoot are wildlife and botanical type things (I travel to Costa Rica a lot). Although I shoot a lot of birds I am not a "bird" photographer per se. Here is a link to one of my SmugMug pages that provides a good sampling of the things I like to shoot.

http://bogino.smugmug.com/Travel/Paradise-Peak/47781251_WT9CXw#!i=3906025070&k=5fVWFSD

Some really nice images there BondTrader, thanks for sharing!

I'm not a pro so can only express my feelings & opinions but I think you'd do well with the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Using the crop sensored bodies you'll have a narrower field-of-view than on full-frame, as you may already know, but looking at your photos they're quite closely cropped so i don't think it's an issue. I use my 300 on a 650D/T4i and i haven't found it too much of a issue if you are keeping to the long ranges. But because it can focus around about 1.5metres away you can focus on subject relatively close, which is nice.

Because you travel a lot the 300 would be lighter - but not "light" as such - but compared to the 100-400. Prime lenses are nice a simple to use and you won't think about zooming all the time as can happen, you'd probably use the 100-400 on the long end the most anyway!

The f/4 aperture is better in low light and to isolate your subject better from the background. The image quality is really good - it maybe an older lens but it's still an "L"!

You won't lose the lens hood on the 300 as it's always attached (but u can retract it) which is really neat.

And you'll save some money too for your journeys and if you really didn't like the lens i think you'd not lose too much if you decide it's not for you and sell it on. I'm probably looking at the new 100-400mm coz i'm getting full of GAS again...

Good luck whatever you decide!