The time has come - 100-400L or 300 F4 L IS?

Raider

Raider

Raider

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,576
Location
Leamington Spa / Oxford
Ok after drooling and pondering over these lenses for a couple of months, I have to make a decision. I've just been paid, and i'm off to Cornwall again next week so I hope to be putting whichever lens I buy to good use.

My current kit bag is:

350D
Sigma 10-20mm
Canon 50mm F1.8
Canon 17-40mm F4 L
Canon 70-200mm F4 L
Canon 1.4x TC

Even with the TC, last time I was snapping photos I found the 280mm length a bit short. So i'm looking for something more. The choice comes down to these two I think, and here are the pros and cons for each:

1) Sell the 70-200F4 L and 1.4TC, buy the 100-400L
+ Net cost around £300
+ Good zoom range
+ Single telephoto lens for my kit bag
+ Could add something to fill the 50-100mm gap, such as 85mm F1.8 for £250.
- Not as sharp at 300mm as the F4, not as sharp as the 70-200mm in 70-200mm

2) Add the 300mm F4 L IS
+ Super sharp images at 300mm, plus super sharp from 70-200mm.
+ F4 rather than F5.6 at 300mm
+ 420mm F5.6 if required (using TC)
- Net cost around £675
- Two telephotos in kit bag, heavier!

I really am totally torn. The idea of a single lens solution sounds good, and if the image quality of the 100-400L is close to the 70-200 F4 then i'd be willing to sacrifice the F4 ability of the 300mm F4 L. Plus as I said I could always complement the 100-400L with a 85mm F1.8 if I needed a nice sharp lens for low range telephoto.

Opinions? :(
 
To me I would say add the 300mm F4 IS (100 - 400 is 5.6 at longer lengths)
Your not gonna beat prime quality. With the 1.4x your getting further than the 100 - 400 anyway. plus you still have your play between 70 & 200. Any distance between 200 and 300 needed can be achieved with the 70 - 200 + 1.4x

I would do it that way anyway.
 
300mm F4 IS, an amazing lens, and one i'd love to add to my bag :)

I would definatly NOT sell the 70-200 and get a 100-400!
 
The idea of selling the 70-200mm F4 does indeed make me cry :(

I'm just wondering about being in a situation where I need 200-400mm, and I'll keep having to swap between the 70-200 and the 300mm. But that would probably be rare.

Equally i'll probably be in a situation with the 100-400L where I'll be wishing I had F4 at 300mm :p
 
It's a tough decision to make, I suppose it depends on the type of subjects will you be photographing with the new lens? If it's mainly wildlife then go for the 300mm Prime, or, if you intended on using it for Motorsport or as a general telephoto lens go for the 100-400.

I have a 100-400L and whilst I have taken some great quality photos ultimately I want to sell it and get a 70-200L F2.8 IS and a 300mm F2.8. Would I swap it for a 300mm F4 – probably not.
 
Last edited:
Either would be cool, so long as you donate the TC to me!!!!!!!!

Im dying to get my hands on one, just cant justify the daft cost :'(

Andy
 
I don't see how another lens is going to help your photography. Just practice with what you already have. Surely the 1.4TC has enough zoom, and with the crop on your 350D, it equates to something like 450mm anyway.
 
I've been pondering exactly the same choice and i too have been leaning towards the 300 :)

To add to what had been said before the 300 can also be a reasonable stand in macro lens when paired with extension tubes or a 500D :)
 
Gah, opinions are indeed divided as I feared :(

My guess is that the 100-400L at 400mm, will be slightly sharper than the 300mm with the 1.4x TC.

I'm trying to rack my brains as to what possible situation i'll need the lens for, but the one thing that I keep coming back to is the slight annoyance at adding and removing the 1.4x TC. Hence I'm tempted to go for the 100-400L then get something like the 85mm F1.8, or maybe even the 200mm F2.8 if I need a sharp prime.
 
Do TC's reduce sharpness? I would have thought that all they did was slow the lens down a stop or two. In which case I would have certainly thought that 300mm prime + TC is sharper than 100-400 any day of the week?
 
growse said:
Do TC's reduce sharpness? I would have thought that all they did was slow the lens down a stop or two. In which case I would have certainly thought that 300mm prime + TC is sharper than 100-400 any day of the week?
Click to expand...

TC's do reduce sharpness. A 2x TC reduces quality even more. A 70-200L F2.8 with a 2x TC is much lower quality than a 100-400L.

400-chair-8.jpg
---
200-chair-8.jpg


--------------100-400L IS @ F8 ----------------------- 70-200mm 2xTC @ F8
 
Last edited:
Interesting, I'm considering either a 100-400L or a 70-200 F4L and was swaying towards the 70-200 because I could use a TC. But if a TC significantly reduces sharpness, I'm now leaning back towards a 100-400. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
I had EXACTLY this dilemma a short while ago.

I had the choice between getting a 100-400L or getting the 70-200 F/4L and waiting a bit and getting the 300 F/4L.

Having used a 100-400L extensively alongside my 70-200L, I am glad I went with the 70-200. I thought I would miss the extra 200mm of the 100-400 but I dont - I missed the 70mm "width" missing from the 100-400 instead!

As soon as some UK stock comes in (Canon are having some issues it would seem) I am going to go and see what a 300mm F/4 IS is like to hand-hold. If it is acceptable to me, I will buy one. If it is too unbalanced or whatever I might have to reconsider. I can happily hold the 100-400L for a long time with no significant bother though.

In terms of IQ, Prime glass will almost always be better than a zoom. The only real problem is the lack of flexibility if you like taking a more creative shot...
 
:p
DRZ said:
I had EXACTLY this dilemma a short while ago.

I had the choice between getting a 100-400L or getting the 70-200 F/4L and waiting a bit and getting the 300 F/4L.

Having used a 100-400L extensively alongside my 70-200L, I am glad I went with the 70-200. I thought I would miss the extra 200mm of the 100-400 but I dont - I missed the 70mm "width" missing from the 100-400 instead!

As soon as some UK stock comes in (Canon are having some issues it would seem) I am going to go and see what a 300mm F/4 IS is like to hand-hold. If it is acceptable to me, I will buy one. If it is too unbalanced or whatever I might have to reconsider. I can happily hold the 100-400L for a long time with no significant bother though.

In terms of IQ, Prime glass will almost always be better than a zoom. The only real problem is the lack of flexibility if you like taking a more creative shot...
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused, do you have the 100-400L or the 70-200 F4?? I thought you had both.

And if you do, are you still going to get the 300mm F4 and keep all 3?
 
I have the 70-200 F/4L and am giving the 300 F/4 IS some serious consideration.

I have had extended use of a 100-400L on multiple occasions thanks to cykey. Its a fantastic lens, its just that I am not really sure that once I got the 300 F/4 it would be the right lens for me. It is also ridiculously expensive unless you import it :p
 
Fstop11 said:
Thats exactly why I will never buy a 2x converter
Click to expand...
A 2x extender works okay on the Prime Telephotos - 300mm F2.8, 500 & 600 F4 so they are not a complete waste of time.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
A 2x extender works ok the Prime Telephotos - 300mm F2.8, 500 & 600 F4 so they are not a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
I was actually going to edit that in but I just couldnt be bothered. I would have a 2x on a tele prime if I really needed the length. As one day I want to own the 300 2.8 IS

I would happily use a 1.4x though.

Given motorsport is crawling to a stop for me now I tend not to use the lengths much around this time of the year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom