If you had the choice.. Canon 100-400mm or 300mm F4?

Raider · 31 May 2006 at 20:59

Having contacted a few sellers I thought I was alarmingly close to buying a Canon 100-400mm L IS.

Then on FM I read that a lot of people rate the 300mm F4 L IS above the 100-400mm F4-5.6 L IS. Now obviously the 300mm F4 is going to be better at 300mm than the zoom lens, but is the superior quality worth it at the expense of losing the zoom range?

For a few extra £s I can get the 300mm F4 + 1.4x convertor so I could have some flexibility if I really wanted to do some long range stuff.
But if the quality is pretty close then I'd be tempted to go for the all-in-one product.

But then again having F4 300mm rather than F5.6 300mm is pretty handy..
Arrrggg.. any opinions? Ta

Raider · 31 May 2006 at 21:05

The 300mm F4 does have IS yeah.

The push-pull thing does sound a bit strange.. is it that odd to use? :confused:

I'm a bit worried about having nothing in my bag between 50mm and 300mm. Guess I'd need to get something not too pricey to plug the gap.

Raider · 31 May 2006 at 21:08

SDK^ said:
What will you be using the lens to photograph ?

Well a mixture of things. But mainly wildlife and other outdoor stuff that I might be shooting whilst out walking etc..

I don't do anything like motorsport or airshows, but generic medium range useage would be good.

Raider · 31 May 2006 at 21:12

SDK^ said:
If it's mainly wildlife then go for the 300mm F4 IS and 1.4x extender

In what situation would you recommend the 100-400mm then? Just thinking of my current Sigma 75-300mm when I'm out an about, I either use it in the 75-100mm range for portrait stuff, or 300mm for distant stuff.

So maybe a 100mm prime would supplement the 300mm nicely.