Best Lens combo - 300mm with 1.4x or 100-400mm?

[popeshawnpaul]

There are basically no local shops except Glazers in Seattle.  I heard Ritz/Cameras West went bankrupt this week.

[Grizzle]

Given the summary of all advice...especially regarding the 100-400 and the need to get a late model, I can't see myself trying to find a used one.  I must have read ~250 reviews on the 100-400 from fredmiranda, and seems clear that a lot of the older lenses would benefit from a $200 calibration at Canon.  Plus this lens seems to have a dogged reputation for clarity variations between lenses leading people to do multiple returns until they find a "sharp" copy.  

Obviously its a personal decision, but as a novice I'd rather pay the $1450 with shipping included then try to wheel and deal to save $300 on a lens of unknown provenance, no warranty, and little chance to return it based on it being "soft".

[Grizzle]

Shawn thanks especially to you for all the responses and educational material you've put up on the site.   

Your recommendation of the 300 F/4 with the 1.4x seems bang on as the best dollar value in the 400mm range.   For stalking up on wildlife that you know you'll be shooting at max zoom, it seems like a no brainer over the 100-400.  In addition to the benefits we've already stated (clarity, longer reach), it's physically shorter (feels much shorter), lighter (feels much lighter), smaller in diameter, and simpler.  Feels svelte in hand by comparison.

That said the 100-400 is not without its charms.  Running around Seattle center today the lens gave this novice many more shot opportunities (kid on the run, finding targets then zooming in on them, etc) than the 300 prime.  The 50D did a great job for me in full auto P&S mode with the 100-400, AF was always fast at all ranges.  For some reason the camera got lost several times with the 300/1.4x and would hunt around (totally user error I'm sure).  Being new to telephoto the weight and size of the lens was a shock.

So for a novice summary - for the telephoto hunting game with a camera @ the $1000-$1500 range, the 300/1.4x is the superior combo.   If you can get a good copy, the 100-400 shines like the family hunting dog does 10mo of the year he isnt hunting, just being your versatile all around good buddy.

[Grizzle]

For this novice unaccustomed to telephoto lenses, the difference in size between these lenses felt significant.  Its surprising to see these pictures and realize that the 300 has the same (300 in pic #1, or 420mm in pic #2) or superior focal length despite its smaller size.

[popeshawnpaul]

I always hate the idea of buying a lens and you know you will be using it with a 1.4x most of the time.  I'm a big believer in just buying the focal length of the lens you need.  However, Canon just doesn't have a good 400mm option with IS that is affordable.  You made a very good observation about the 300 with the 1.4x...it will hunt.  Focus gets slow at f5.6 and adding a teleconverter to a lens always slows down the autofocus.  If I had the 300 f4, I would try and use it without the 1.4x as much as possible.  I also think your reasoning about buying a new lens is spot on unless you know and trust your source.  Great thread.

P.S. - I think a few guys in the know would really chime in with a recommendation for the 400mm f5.6.  With the high ISO capability of the cameras these days, f5.6 isn't that slow for outdoor wildlife photography.  That lens is really sharp as well.  If you are ok with using a tripod/monopod and shooting high ISO and have good technique in holding a lens stable, this could be the lens for you.  Certainly, it is sharper than the 300 f4 with the 1.4x.  I personally can't live without IS or choose not to so I take this lens out of the equation. 

[Grizzle]

Additional observations for the record.

The built in sunshade on the 300 is more convenient then the removable salad bowl shade on the 100-400.  Frankly I doubt I would even ever bring the 100-400 shade with me when hiking.

The 300 has a macro function that's really easy to use and pretty cool.   I couldnt get the 100-400 to do it (focus on a flower 3' away) at any focal length.

The IS and AF is considerably more audible on the 300 in comparison to the 100-400

The tensioning ring for the zoom on the 100-400 is sort of a hassle in my opinion.   I suppose you'd build up a technique were it would be come second nature to snug it up each time you're finished shooting and want to let it hang.  If you don't snug it, the zoom creep/slide/slam down to the maximum 400 length.  I couldnt find a tension setting where the zoom would not creep down and yet still be smooth enough to use the zoom comfortably.

I'm 90% sure I'll buy the 300. 

[e55komp]

i dont know seems pretty sharp to me. 400mm f5.6

[huntnphool]

Welcome e55, you should have posted up a sharp rearend pic of your car rather than a hippo My wife drives the E series as well, not a 55 but its the "Sport" at least.

[popeshawnpaul]

I have had a couple conversations with a few pros about this lens.  They swear there are sharp copies that rival the 400mm f5.6.  I am in the process of getting a hold of one of these to try out.  They have looked at my sample images from many different versions of this lens and tell me it is very common for older versions.  I'll let you know if I ever find a sharp one... 

[Ricochet]

Or you could come over to the dark side....
I like my cheap zoom 80-400 VR Nikon and although it too is soft at 400, as long as I don't max it out in low light situations, it does OK.  I especially like the flexability of using the zoom to frame my shot.  I couldn't afford a variety of lenses, so went with the most versatile one I could afford.  
I spent a couple days chasing this bull around, took pics from 80mm to 360 and never had to change a lens.  Zooms do have advantages at times.

[huntnphool]

that is a nice bull, what do you guess for a gross on that guy?

[whacker1]

Wow - very impressive bull and pic.  That Bull appears to be in the 360 range if I were guessing.  It looks like great length, width is a little hard to tell based on the pic, and mass is decent.