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

A year or so ago i wanted a telephoto lens for my EOS 650D, i looked at a number of lens [virtually] around the 300 to 400mm focal length range. I was very interested in the old EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS (mk1) lens but i didn't like the push-pull zoom function, the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM was a good length - but no IS which i thought was essential for hand-held tele shoots! Thus i disregarded that lens.

So I settled on the EF300mm f/4L IS USM and a 1.4x III extender to increase the FL to 420mm at f/5.6, so a bit longer than the EF400mm at the same aperture but if i don't need that much tele i can just keep it at 300mil @ f/4. I must say I really like the images from the ol' clunky EF 300mm f/4L Expensive though (as they all are!)...

Now, recently, Canon released a new 100-400 lens, the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM which looks really good - to have the option to zoom out to 100mil would be useful for sure. So although i'm not in the market for a new tele lens right now i'm still curious as to which lens in your opinions' gives nicer images at their longest length - the EF100-400L II zoom @ 400mm f/5.6 or the EF 300mm IS L with 1.4 extender, so 420mm @ f/5.6? This is a subjective question of course.

Daniel L wrote:

Nicer image? Hmmm. Well, i don't have answer that but in term of technicality - Color, contrast, sharpness, focus speed and image stabilizer....etc The new 100-400 II put a whooping on a bare 300 F4 IS. Forget the 1.4x II, there's no comparison.

SnappyChappie wrote:

A year or so ago i wanted a telephoto lens for my EOS 650D, i looked at a number of lens [virtually] around the 300 to 400mm focal length range. I was very interested in the old EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS (mk1) lens but i didn't like the push-pull zoom function, the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM was a good length - but no IS which i thought was essential for hand-held tele shoots! Thus i disregarded that lens.

So I settled on the EF300mm f/4L IS USM and a 1.4x III extender to increase the FL to 420mm at f/5.6, so a bit longer than the EF400mm at the same aperture but if i don't need that much tele i can just keep it at 300mil @ f/4. I must say I really like the images from the ol' clunky EF 300mm f/4L Expensive though (as they all are!)...

Now, recently, Canon released a new 100-400 lens, the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM which looks really good - to have the option to zoom out to 100mil would be useful for sure. So although i'm not in the market for a new tele lens right now i'm still curious as to which lens in your opinions' gives nicer images at their longest length - the EF100-400L II zoom @ 400mm f/5.6 or the EF 300mm IS L with 1.4 extender, so 420mm @ f/5.6? This is a subjective question of course.

So is this one of those rare cases when a zoom lens has better IQ than a Prime?    I must say i am quite interested in this lens even more now...

Yeah that's a good point as the AF is very clunky on the 300 f/4 that's for sure! And also having a lens that can already reach into the 400mm range without having to add the extender is of course much desired and to be able to zoom out is very welcome on an APS-C DSLR. Having f/4 has been nice though but as often the case i've found with lenses practicality of usage overcomes the need in technical ability. Weight & bulk always seem to be a issue though...

Thanks for your contribution guys.

Another advantage of the new 100-400 is for macro. it's magnification is great.

H2ODoctor wrote:

Another advantage of the new 100-400 is for macro. it's magnification is great.

I must say the EF 300 f/4 has not been too bad in this aspect and for it's focal length it has quite a close focussing distance - though of course i wouldn't mind better

I'm sort of in the same predicament myself. I'm going to view a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM which is less than 2 years old and available for $850 locally.  Then I start thinking about adding a 1.4 extender to that.  The new version of the 100-400mm sets me back about $2K.  The 3rd option is a version 1 of the 100-400mm of which there seem to be plenty available in excellent condition and fairly new ( 3 or 4 years) at around $800.  I am thoroughly confused now and if any thoughts on those options would love to hear.

BondTrader wrote:

I'm sort of in the same predicament myself. I'm going to view a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM which is less than 2 years old and available for $850 locally. Then I start thinking about adding a 1.4 extender to that. The new version of the 100-400mm sets me back about $2K. The 3rd option is a version 1 of the 100-400mm of which there seem to be plenty available in excellent condition and fairly new ( 3 or 4 years) at around $800. I am thoroughly confused now and if any thoughts on those options would love to hear.

IMHO if you can afford the 100-400 II version then go for that, but it is so much money! If you get the 300mm f/4L at some point you will most likely feel the need for the 1.4 extender. But the 300 might be all you need for your purposes and it does give really nice images even though the the new 100-400 may technically surpass it. I'm guessing the price of the 100-400 will decrease a little, maybe in a year's time, so you may have saved more money in that time and could sell the 300 if you feel it's a bit impractical not having the flexibilty of the zoom (hopefully Canon won't bring out a new 300mm in the mean time...).

Originally i wanted the first version of the 100-400 but didn't like the push-pull zoom and it was a bit dated and slightly more expensive, but not much more at the time. I'm happy with the 300 f/4 though, it's just if i'm going to lug a big lens around with me i'd like it to be as flexible as possible. But yeah 2 Grand is a lot of cash. When i got my 300mm it was £1000 and it was hard to justify, but managable at the time - if it were a £2000 lens I just wouldn't be able to do it without it being my job, i just don't have the disposable income. The real kicker was the 1.4x III as now it's about £200 cheaper than when i got it as it was relatively new. Thinking about it now the cash i spend on these two items is very close to the cost of a new 100-400... :-/

At least i can use the 1.4 extender on the 100-400 if i have the money to get one.

Sorry if i've just confused you more, it's never an easy decision! Is there a specific purpose you hope to use the tele lens for? What body will you attach the lens to?

SnappyChappie wrote:

BondTrader wrote:

I'm sort of in the same predicament myself. I'm going to view a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM which is less than 2 years old and available for $850 locally. Then I start thinking about adding a 1.4 extender to that. The new version of the 100-400mm sets me back about $2K. The 3rd option is a version 1 of the 100-400mm of which there seem to be plenty available in excellent condition and fairly new ( 3 or 4 years) at around $800. I am thoroughly confused now and if any thoughts on those options would love to hear.

IMHO if you can afford the 100-400 II version then go for that, but it is so much money! If you get the 300mm f/4L at some point you will most likely feel the need for the 1.4 extender. But the 300 might be all you need for your purposes and it does give really nice images even though the the new 100-400 may technically surpass it. I'm guessing the price of the 100-400 will decrease a little, maybe in a year's time, so you may have saved more money in that time and could sell the 300 if you feel it's a bit impractical not having the flexibilty of the zoom (hopefully Canon won't bring out a new 300mm in the mean time...).

Originally i wanted the first version of the 100-400 but didn't like the push-pull zoom and it was a bit dated and slightly more expensive, but not much more at the time. I'm happy with the 300 f/4 though, it's just if i'm going to lug a big lens around with me i'd like it to be as flexible as possible. But yeah 2 Grand is a lot of cash. When i got my 300mm it was £1000 and it was hard to justify, but managable at the time - if it were a £2000 lens I just wouldn't be able to do it without it being my job, i just don't have the disposable income. The real kicker was the 1.4x III as now it's about £200 cheaper than when i got it as it was relatively new. Thinking about it now the cash i spend on these two items is very close to the cost of a new 100-400... :-/

At least i can use the 1.4 extender on the 100-400 if i have the money to get one.

Sorry if i've just confused you more, it's never an easy decision! Is there a specific purpose you hope to use the tele lens for? What body will you attach the lens to?

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

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!

dhogaza wrote:

SnappyChappie wrote:

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.

The "L" designation simply means it covers full-frame, has UD or fluorite elements, or (relevant to wide-angle lenses) aspherical ground-glass elements.

It says nothing about the quality of the design itself, and in the case of the 300/4, it's old, and lens design has really moved qualitatively forward in the last decade or so.

Much to my surprise as an old-time photographer.

Thanks for clearing that up, most think that it just means Luxury or "super-duper".

Yeah the 300 f/4 is old that's why i do wonder if they're going to update it soon as they have with other lenses of late, but i still think it handles itself well and gives a good strong punch for an old timer, even if it clunks a bit