EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?

Hi Everyone,


I'm debating between these two lenses for nature photography, some wildlife, and perhaps a bird or two although that last is not my main interest. I've got excellent primes at the lower end of the 100-400 zoom range (EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM and EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LII USM).


I'm being somewhat opportunistic here, since I currently have the opportunity to pick up a used but in like-new conditionEF 100-400mm for a fair bit less than the cost of a newEF 300mm f/4L. However, I'm not in a huge rush here, so if I miss that opportunity, I'll survive. [;)] But I'll still have this decision to make...


Thoughts and input will be appreciated!


Thanks,


--John

I have the 300 F4 (non IS) and have used the 100-400 many times as the studio owns one. The 100-400 is a nifty lens, but its a pain to use with a 1.4 converter. I personally cant stand push pull zooms, and have on occasion mistaken the dampening ring for the focus ring.

I have a very old EF300 F/4.0 LUSM without the stabilizer. I consider it a favorite becuase of its light weight and sharpness. It is a very, very useful for daylight sports.


I have only used the 100-400 once andit justwasn't fast enough or easy enough to use. I'm sure if i owned one, I'd learn to use the funky push-pull zoom, but it was akward for me.


I do see two or three100-400's on the sidelines at high school games, so it can certainly be used for sports, even at night.

I own the 300 f/4 IS, and love it. Absolutely no complaints about it. If you already have the 100-200mm range covered and don't shoot too much bird the 300 will give you a sharper, lighter, faster, closer-focusing and less expensive package than a 100-400. IMO it's the better lens for any situation. I picked it over the 100-400 and 400 f5.6 prime, and I suggest you to do the same. Feel free to ask any questions about my experience with it. Due to financial considerations it's currently my only lens, and I use it a lot. I couldn't feel better about my purchase of the 300.





brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I currently have the opportunity to pick up a used but in like-new conditionEF 100-400mm for a fair bit less than the cost of a newEF 300mm f/4L.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

You can get a 100-400 in like-new condition for more than 21% less than a new one. Jump on it. If you do not like it you can sell it for a profit and then buy the 300.


Mark

We had a similar thread a while back:


Which lens? 100-400mm L IS or 300mm f4 L IS?


I think the 100-400 is better if you will take advantage of zoom and/or plan to use 400mm frequently.


I think the 300mm is better if you don't need zoom and/or don't plan to use it with 1.4X most of the time.


Generally, I think most people are better suited with the 100-400.

Hi there,


Well, the 200mm f/2.8 L is compatible with the 1.4x extender (according to Bryan's review), which would give you an almost 300m f/4. So, why don't you also consider the 400m 5.6 L? Yes, it doesn't have IS which can be a deal breaker... But if you're going to be shooting a lot at 400m, the prime should provide better IQ than the 100-400 or the 300 f4 + extender.


Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony Printezis

Hi there,


Well, the 200mm f/2.8 L is compatible with the 1.4x extender (according to Bryan's review), which would give you an almost 300m f/4. So, why don't you also consider the 400m 5.6 L? Yes, it doesn't have IS which can be a deal breaker... But if you're going to be shooting a lot at 400m, the prime should provide better IQ than the 100-400 or the 300 f4 + extender.

---

John said he's looking for a wildlife lens, plus a bird or two. The 400 prime is a BIF (bird in flight, for those who don't know) lens. It is often too long, too slow or limited by its 11' close focus. For bird only, it may be the best of the three, but for general wildlife, John would be better off with the 100-400 or 300. The 400 prime does have slightly better IQ than the 300 + 1.4 TC, but the IQ of that combination is still very good. And remember, the 420mm lens that will result WILL have IS. I could even argue that since he isn't shooting birds too much, he doesn't need 400mm. I shoot bird with my 300 and it does just fine.


Well, that's my opinion [:D]


brendan

John...I'm w/Mark (Clemmb), buy the 100-400, use it for a month and if you don't like it, sell itfor the same price or more.


I have the 100-400 and it's on my camera 80% of the time. I use it for landscapes to BIFs, but be warned; it frustrates me in low light (read overcast New England winter days) and it's bokeh is barely tolerable in a busy wooded bird shot.


But w/that said I can't complain, it's IQ is very good (obviously not upto a prime), and it's versatility can't be beat. As far as the push/pull zoom; I prefer it over the twist zooms....it's much faster.And don't be influenced by statements concerning dust...it's hogwash...in 2 years of ownership, I don't notice any dust spots in my pix, and if I did, that's what PS is for...right?


I said keep it for a month John, for there is a learning curve w/this lens.


Good luck


Bill

John,


if I were you I'd pick the 100-400 over the 300mm. I doubt that for your needs the 300mm is a big advantage over your 200mm. I had the 70-200 and a lot of times 200mm is really too short for wildlife. I doubt that 300mm would give me a big advantage in those shots. The option to go from 100-400 in a sec looks pretty great to me. Also with nature photography I assume you mean: long walks or hikes trough nature and shooting whatever ends up in front of you? Not sitting still waiting for subjects to enter your frame[:P]


In that case the versatility of the zoom is a feature you'll like a lot. You've got a very nice base with the 100 and 200mm. And I assume you've also got something like a 17-55 to do the wideangled shots? A 100-400 would complete your collection I think.


300mm will give you better IQ perhaps, but I don't know about that and I guess the 100-400 gives you good quality as well [:D]


Good luck!


Jan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Also with nature photography I assume you mean: long walks or hikes trough nature and shooting whatever ends up in front of you? Not sitting still waiting for subjects to enter your frame.

---

Yes...not planning on setting up a bird feeder in the garden with a tripod on the deck...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

And I assume you've also got something like a 17-55 to do the wideangled shots?

---

Yes, I have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and for times when that's not wide enough, also the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

A 100-400 would complete your collection I think.

---

Complete my collection (of lenses)? I had no idea that was even possible! [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

A 100-400 would complete your collection I think.


300mm will give you better IQ perhaps, but I don't know about that and I guess the 100-400 gives you good quality as well

---

At f/4.0, the 300 is as sharp as the 100-400 is at f/5.6 at 400mm. If using for treks, the 300mm is lighter and I think its closefocusing ability is invaluable. It also gives far better bokeh and autofocuses faster. If you have a 200mm prime and don't need the 400mm focal length because you don't shoot a ton of birds, Why not go for the 300mm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I had the 70-200 and a lot of times 200mm is really too short for wildlife.

---

Or you weren't close enough. You can get close with your feet instead of big glass. [pi]


John, both are nice lenses. I don't think you can go wrong either way. My vote is for the 300 f/4.


brendan

Haha John no I stated it wrong...I meant: add to your already nice collection [A] Your still missing a lot of important lenses in my opinion. No photographer can do without at least owning one 500-1200mm prime [:P]


Back to reality: Yup Brendan I wasn't close enough. But as I stated and John admitted: he's not going to sit still and wait for a picture. In a lot of circumstances you simply can't get closer! For instance if you spot a bird of prey, you must be really carefull to come within 10m/300ft with it. When you have had a 70-200 like me, even at 200mm you have to crop A LOT to gain a nice picture. It's not called wildlife for no reason.


And the statement that a 400mm lens is a bird in flight lens? I don't really get that. I guess it's for birders only. I've seen some amazing shots from Nate with his 500mm and those were not in flight.


Also the closefocussing of the 300mm prime is only 30cm less than the 100-400. And in those cases he could better switch to his macro anyway.


So in my opinion I stay with the big advantage of the zoom vs the prime for these types of photography. I'm convinced that the 300mm is a great lens but just for the fact that I've never seen a journalist shooting with a prime, doesn't mean he couldn't...it's just not working for that type of photography where you need to be versatile and you don't really get a second chance most of the time.


Maybe if your doubt stays John, try to rent them both. Or just try out the 100-400 in mint condition that you saw. If you like it...go for it!


Good luck mate.


Jan

Well, sigh. I had decided on the 100-400mm, for the flexibility of the zoom - wandering around with my 200mm prime has convinced me that a zoom will be more useful for me. But sadly, the guy who listed it for $1100 changed his mind and decided to keep it (fortunately before I drove the 40 miles to pick it up!).


Thanks all for your input!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

And the statement that a 400mm lens is a bird in flight lens? I don't really get that. I guess it's for birders only.

---

That's because it's light, slow and doesn't have IS. In many situations, there's just not enough light to use it effectively. But for BIF, it's perfect. The 500 f/4 is longer (so better for birds), has IS, and can let in twice as much light. That's the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

So in my opinion I stay with the big advantage of the zoom vs the prime for these types of photography.

---

Hah! I was thinking the exact opposite. Oh well, that's basically a matter of personal preference.


Cheers


brendan

Thanks Brendan that explains the BIF lensquestion I had [:P]


Yeah it's probably a personal preference, but in't it always?


I dislike primes while hiking etc, especially long primes (200mm+), for the fact that if you don't like your composition you have to step back/forward a lot to seriously change your composition which isn't always possible because of obstructions or just shortage of time.





John, I'm sorry to hear that your deal didn't work out. Have you someway made up your mind concerning lens choice?


Jan

Hi Jan,


Yes, I've pretty much settled on the 100-400mm, mainly for the reason you just stated - the difficulty of 'sneaker-zoom' with a telephoto lens. Even though I'm something of an aperture junkie, after spending some time with my EF 200mm f/2.8L, I've decided to trade a bit of speed for the flexibility of the zoom. Most of my shots with the 200mm prime have been at f/5 or higher with room to spare on shutter speed, except for portraits of my daughter at f/2.8 for the thin DOF, but I'll still have the prime for that sort of thing.


I'm not in a huge rush - I don't expect to start hiking and shooting with the lens until May or so, so I've got a couple of months to watch for a bargain on a used lens (or change my mind??). If nothing comes up, I'll just buy a new one. Spending well over $1K on a lens, I'd probably be more comfortable with a warranty in any case.


--John

Yea I guess the max aperture of f5.6 will challenge you at darker days, but I think the flexibility will compensate for that. And you've got like the best portrait lens for the money you can buy! The 200mm f2.8L is the best secret lens canon has I think [:D]


Well good luck with your search for a good bargain. Love to see some shots later this year!


Jan

Hi John,





This lens is very sharp and it is good enough to shoot a hovering bee. Please see here:





http://www.flickr.com/photos/5471665/4315036281/

oops..sorry, I meant the 300 f/4 IS.... [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

So in my opinion I stay with the big advantage of the zoom vs the prime for these types of photography.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Hah! I was thinking the exact opposite. Oh well, that's basically a matter of personal preference.

---

From what I've seen in my shooting thus far, primes are ideal when you are going out to shoot one type of subject. If I'm going to take close-up portraits of my daughter, I grab my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. If I'm going to shoot flowers, I put myEF 100mm f/2.8<span>LMacro IS USM on the camera and I'm good to go. If my goal was to shoot birds, I'd go with your (Brendan's)suggestion of the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM as the best lens for that purpose in my current budget. But, when I just 'go out to shoot whatever' I find the flexibility of a zoom lens to be necessary. It's true that by adding the 300mm f/4L to my 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and 200mm f/2.8L, I'd have a set of primes covering 3/4 of the range of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, and with much faster apertures - but I'd have to carry all three lenses and swap them frequently. In walking around with my 200mm f/2.8, I've felt the need to go both longer and shorter to get the desired composition, in situations where geography or time prevented me from using my feet for that purpose.


However, a little bit of doubt remains since I've never had a lens as slow as f/5.6. Then again, a 400mm f/2.8 is way outside my price range, and comparing the 100-400mm @ 400mm f/5.6 with the 400mm f/5.6 prime, having IS is a worthwhile trade for a bit of sharpness.


So, will the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM be my next lens? Very likely. But it's entirely possible that I'll end up also owning the 300mm f/4L (and the 135mm f/2L, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and the 35mm f/1.4L, and the...well, you get the idea!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

However, a little bit of doubt remains since I've never had a lens as slow as f/5.6....So, will the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM be my next lens? Very likely. But it's entirely possible that I'll end up alsoowningthe 300mm f/4L...

---

ARGH! I hate when my own words bite me in the butt. Why do I look at Craigslist??A used but in excellent condition EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens for $725. Being sold by a dentist (I mean, they are generally meticulous and they clean things for a living - the lens was pretty well taken care of, right?) - he wants to get closer, so he's moving to a 500mm f/4L IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

ARGH! I hate when my own words bite me in the butt. Why do I look at Craigslist??A used but in excellent condition EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens for $725. Being sold by a dentist (I mean, they are generally meticulous and they clean things for a living - the lens was pretty well taken care of, right?) - he wants to get closer, so he's moving to a 500mm f/4L IS.

---

$725?!?!?! I already own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS but for $725 I think I'd have to consider adding theEF 300mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS to my collection :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

ARGH! I hate when my own words bite me in the butt. Why do I look at Craigslist??A used but in excellent condition EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens for $725. Being sold by a dentist (I mean, they are generally meticulous and they clean things for a living - the lens was pretty well taken care of, right?) - he wants to get closer, so he's moving to a 500mm f/4L IS.

---

$725?!?!?! I already own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L IS but for $725 I think I'd have to consider adding theEF 300mm f/4<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L IS to my collection :-)

---

That's ridiculous. I paid $1280 for mine [:S]

Yeah. Pretty much too good a deal to pass up, and I don't see a problem with having both the 300mm f/4L prime and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom in my kit (but I wouldn't carry them both on the same outing).


Now, in the Craigslist version of 2/3 of a Bermuda triangle, there's an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L listed nearby, and the seller will take $1200 for it. The seller is very candid, states he dropped the lens a little less than a year ago, and sent it to Canon for refurbishment,including a new front element, new IS, new main barrel, and new focusing ring.


I can afford both lenses, but does anyone have experience with or thoughts on buying a lens than was dropped and repaired? My initial inclination would be no - despite a factory refurbishment, I'd be worried about hidden damage that might show up sooner or later...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Yeah. Pretty much too good a deal to pass up, and I don't see a problem with having both the 300mm f/4L prime and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom in my kit (but I wouldn't carry them both on the same outing).


Now, in the Craigslist version of 2/3 of a Bermuda triangle, there's an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L listed nearby, and the seller will take $1200 for it. The seller is very candid, states he dropped the lens a little less than a year ago, and sent it to Canon for refurbishment,including a new front element, new IS, new main barrel, and new focusing ring.


I can afford both lenses, but does anyone have experience with or thoughts on buying a lens than was dropped and repaired? My initial inclination would be no - despite a factory refurbishment, I'd be worried about hidden damage that might show up sooner than expected...

---

Well, I'd say buying both lenses is a waste, but that's just my opinion.


I would avoid lenses that have been dropped. If you're spending $1k on a lens make sure you don't get a dud. Play it safe.


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Well, I'd say buying both lenses is a waste, but that's just my opinion.


I would avoid lenses that have been dropped. If you're spending $1k on a lens make sure you don't get a dud. Play it safe.

---

I think keeping both lenses may be a waste, yes. I've seen the 300mm f/4L IS come up on Craigslist at $900-1000 and disappear within a day or two. So, I think I'd have no trouble selling it down the road with no loss, same with the 200mm f/2.8L that I also picked up for ~40% less than a new copy.


I'm definitely leaning against the dropped and refurbed lens, though. If I do decide I prefer the prime, that would be harder to sell, too, since I'l be up front about the issue.


Thanks for all your input, Brendan!