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

[Raider]

Gah I don't think i'll ever be able to decide. If I had enough spare money I'd buy both and sell the one I didn't want, but then I'd probably end up keeping both

 

[Matt]

Gah I don't think i'll ever be able to decide. If I had enough spare money I'd buy both and sell the one I didn't want, but then I'd probably end up keeping both

Personally i'd say the decision is quite a simple one and would go with the 70-200 and 300. However, this does depend on whether you think you could get on with a prime, and the way that it forces you to be a little more creative in the way you get your shots.

Have you asked the question on any other forums? (Fredmiranda for example?).

 

[Raider]

The prime is tempting me now, mainly because of the ability to have F4 at 300mm. F4 / F5.6 could mean the difference between 1/250s and 1/500s, which is quite a difference for something fast moving.

I'd have super sharp 70-200mm F4, super sharp 300mm, and a very nice 420mm F5.6 if required.
Do you think the 300mm + 1.4xTC will be about equal to the 100-400L at 400mm? I know the TC would lose a bit of quality, but considering the prime is sharper to start with..

Matt: Yes i'm currently talking about this on the Canon Digital Photography Forums, maybe i'll try FM as well. Need as many opinions as possible really!

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

300mm for me. I've read that it's the absolute dogs nuts, as against the 100-400, that's meant to be slightly worse than the 70-200 with a 1.4x tele on it.

 

[Raider]

Just seen this thread on the Canon forum:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54098

Comparison of the 300mm with and without the 1.4x TC. Results with the TC look very impressive. Slight loss of sharpness / contrast, but still impressive. Another point for the 300mm argument

 

[Matt]

The only real advantage of the 100-400 is it's versatility, the 300 wins everything else. If you can adapt to using a prime, then it's the only choice

 

[Raider]

Well today I went from definate 300mm, to most-likely the 100-400L, then back to probably 300mm...

Gah if I didn't have the spare cash I wouldn't have this problem

 

[philio16]

Well today I went from definate 300mm, to most-likely the 100-400L, then back to probably 300mm...

Gah if I didn't have the spare cash I wouldn't have this problem

*cough*
*holds out hands*

 

[nomore]

Well today I went from definate 300mm, to most-likely the 100-400L, then back to probably 300mm...

Gah if I didn't have the spare cash I wouldn't have this problem

Have you considered the Sigma 50-500mm lens?

 

[SDK^]

Have you considered the Sigma 50-500mm lens?

No IS and a 6.3 aperture at 500mm means very good light is going to be essential.
I really don't think this lens can be considered as an alternative to the 100-400 and 300mm Prime.

 

[nomore]

No IS and a 6.3 aperture at 500mm means very good light is going to be essential.
I really don't think this lens can be considered as an alternative to the 100-400 and 300mm Prime.

I was just thinking that it could be an option because Raider seems to want a longer zoom, and the Sigma is supposed to be a very good lens with a huge range.

 

[saddler]

First off try http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html and http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ for reviews and opinions on a range of suitable lenses.

If you want zoom capability consider
Canon 100-400L IS (top zoom lens but too pricy imho)
Sigma 100-300 F4 (I have this and love it, sharp even with 1.4x, can post samples if you want)
Sigma 80-400 OS (If only this had HSM as well)
Sigma 120-300 F2.8 (A few people on here have this and i've not heard any complaints!)

If you want prime consider
Canon 300 F4 IS (one of Canons best)
Canon 400 F5.6 (Very popular wildlife lens)

Some things to consider
-All of these lenses are big and heavy could that be a problem? They have differing ergonomics so trying them out in stores is a good idea. (It dont matter how sharp it is if you cant actually hold/operate the thing!)
-Do you mostly use tripods/monopods if so IS/OS isnt really necessary but if you shoot in situations where you cant use support the IS/OS will be very useful.
-Will you be shooting sports, aviation, wildlife, indoors/outdoors? If you shoot one more an all else, then check out dedicated forum sites on these areas as they will have more users with first hand experience of that subject.
-All the above lenses will give impressive results so ou wont be dissapointed whatever you get

 

[Raider]

Not interested in any of the Sigma offerings really.

It really is down to the 100-400L, or the 300mm F4.... still 50/50 atm so keep those opinions coming