Changing the Canon 100-400 to the Canon 300 4.0
Mar 10, 2014 13:35:31 #
I would like to swap my 100-400 for the Canon 300 4.0. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether this would be an upgrade in sharpness, especially with the 1.4 extender. I've never been happy with the zoom though. I know, it's a great lens and I should learn to use it yadda yadda, but I don't think it's a good fit for me personally, nothing against the lens. The 300 2.8 isn't really a possibility right now unless I can do a serious snow job on myself - probably not. On the other hand it would be my only long lens for years, possibly forever. I can't see EVER forking out the $$$ for an 800mm. And I'm happy with my camera body as well (7D). Birding photography almost exclusively. Thanks in advance for comments. :)
Mar 10, 2014 14:01:59 #
FWIW, I've had 3 of the 300F4 lenses (two with IS, one without) and sold all of them. I found them to have very poor contrast and slow to focus (particularly wit the 1.4TC attached).
I've not used your zoom so have not opinion on the comparison.
On a whim, I bought the Sigma 150-500 and it is dramatically better than the 300F4. It does not get reviewed that well but perhaps I got a particularly good copy (lucky me).
I also have the 70-200F2.8Lis mmii. It is one of my best lenses and works well with either the 1.4 or 2x TCs
I've not used your zoom so have not opinion on the comparison.
On a whim, I bought the Sigma 150-500 and it is dramatically better than the 300F4. It does not get reviewed that well but perhaps I got a particularly good copy (lucky me).
I also have the 70-200F2.8Lis mmii. It is one of my best lenses and works well with either the 1.4 or 2x TCs
Mar 10, 2014 15:06:12 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
aerides wrote:
I would like to swap my 100-400 for the Canon 300 ... (show quote)
FWIW, KEH has the Canon 300 f/2.8L IS, the older one, for under $4k (link). I don't know if that's something that works for you.
Mar 10, 2014 15:19:01 #
mikemilton wrote:
FWIW, I've had 3 of the 300F4 lenses (two with IS,... (show quote)
Thanks for that help. I'll reconsider the 70-200 - I've heard very good things about it from others as well. Amazing you went through all of those 300 F4s. You must've been really determined to find a good one (and still didn't!).
Mar 10, 2014 15:19:48 #
amehta wrote:
FWIW, KEH has the Canon 300 f/2.8L IS, the older one, for under $4k (link). I don't know if that's something that works for you.
Awesome! Thanks for the reference.
Mar 10, 2014 15:41:41 #
mikemilton wrote:
FWIW, I've had 3 of the 300F4 lenses (two with IS,... (show quote)
Wow this is the first time I ever heard anyone complain about the Canon 300 f4! Slow focusing and bad contrast?!?
Not a chance! That 300 is one of the sharpest and fasted focusing lens in it's class and price range out there. If you didn't get good results from three different copies of that lens you were doing something wrong.
It's also the first time I ever heard anyone say they thought the Sigma 150-500 was even marginally better then the Canon 300 forget about "dramatically" better.
That's not even technically possible.
I still have a Canon 300 f4 non IS I bought 15 years ago and that lens still kicks ass.
I currently use a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4 every day for bird and other wildlife action and the focus is lightning fast (even with the extender) and the IQ is excellent.
Now I agree that the 70-200 is a terrific lens, I have one of those also, but I am more then a little shocked and bewildered over your assessment of the 300.
Feel free to check out the images on my wildlife photo blog, virtually all photos were taken with the 300 and 1.4 combo on a 7D.
Mar 11, 2014 08:12:59 #
aerides wrote:
I would like to swap my 100-400 for the Canon 300 ... (show quote)
Here's a comparison from DxO.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF300mmf-4L-IS-USM-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM___263_0_598_0
Mar 11, 2014 08:35:41 #
amehta wrote:
FWIW, KEH has the Canon 300 f/2.8L IS, the older one, for under $4k (link). I don't know if that's something that works for you.
This is without a doubt the best lens Canon has ever made!
Mar 11, 2014 08:45:01 #
I will agree with Swamp 100%. Four yrs ago I picked up the 100-400. I used it for one day and took it back, and went with the 300m f4 instead. the best camera career move I've made. Tack sharp and a joy to use. Birding, sports and yes with the 1.4x. Of the seven lenses I own, this is the one I can't imagine not having. Yes I also carry the 70-200 2.8 and I do use it more only because of the range that it allows. Back to the 300 f4, I can hand hold it. Mine does have I.S. I sometimes use a mono pod with it but I am fine without. Fast, clean, I can't say enough good about it. It would be nice to have a 300 2.8 but the weight and price prevent that from happening. To be honest if the light is such that I can't use the f4 I just change to the 70-200 2.8., and just move myself a tad closer. If the light is so bad that I can't get the shot, I quit shooting that subject and move on to something else.
Mar 11, 2014 09:00:56 #
Wow! That's the first negative comment about image quality that I've ever heard with regards to Canon telephoto prime lenses. I don't mean to discount your experience Mike but the big Sigma zooms, as nice as they are, can't hold a candle to the Canon Primes.
Mar 11, 2014 11:39:02 #
Great comments for the 300 F4. Another contender would be the 400 5.6, comparable in speed to the 300 with a 1.4 extender. The 300 seems to be the more popular lens. Price-wise, weight-wise very similar. Loss in close-focusing with the 400, but I like that it's a simpler lens. No IS though. My 100-400 has IS, haven't noticed it helping. I wonder if I would miss it.
Mar 11, 2014 18:17:07 #
I've got both thw 70-200mm 2.8 ii and the 100-400mm. I find the long lens not as sharp as the 2.8 @400mm (hand held). What's up with that? The 400 lets me get a lot closer to my subject, but at the cost of sharp images, I don't know. You can only do so much in LR.
Mar 11, 2014 19:02:49 #
gemlenz wrote:
I've got both thw 70-200mm 2.8 ii and the 100-400mm. I find the long lens not as sharp as the 2.8 @400mm (hand held). What's up with that? The 400 lets me get a lot closer to my subject, but at the cost of sharp images, I don't know. You can only do so much in LR.
Something is not adding up here. How did you get to the "2.8@ 400mm?" You had been discussing the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 100-4--. There is no 400mm @ 2.8 in the bunch. Did I miss something? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Mar 11, 2014 20:25:57 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Thanks jerryc41. It looks like the equivalency of these two lenses carried through the test comparisons.
Mar 11, 2014 20:33:31 #
davidrb wrote:
This is without a doubt the best lens Canon has ever made!
The Canon 300 2.8 is the best TELEPHOTO lens that ANYBODY has ever made ! I bought the original one ( no IS) for $2400 on ebay 3 years ago with Canon 2XII. It is HEAVY. I use a monopod or bodypod. The 300F4 W/1.4X is as good or better than most 100-400's ! If it is not, then it was not used properly or damaged. The new Tamron 150-600 is hard to beat up to 500mm ! .........
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.