Originally Posted by Jordan
I'd agree with the first part - because it's skinner and a bit lighter, the 300mm does feel lighter in the hands than the 100-400mm, especially when you first pick them up, or when the 100-400 is pushed out to 400mm. But, at the end of a day of shooting, I didn't feel any difference between them.
What other IS lenses have you used? I must say, the IS on theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM completely blows away the IS on either the 300mm f/4L or the 100-400mm, in terms of stabilization and 'feel'. Personally, I really hated the clunk every time the IS on the 300mm f/4 started up. I didn't notice any difference in the relative performance of the IS systems on the 300mm f/4L and the 100-400mm (except that at 400mm f/5.6, 2 stops of stabilization means a faster shutter speed is needed than on a 300mm at f/4). They are the same IS design - the lenses were released one year apart.
<div></div>Originally Posted by jcrowe87
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
These are the reasons I absolutely prefer the 100-400mm to the 300mm f/4 - more versatility, more reach, and better IQ at 400mm (compared to the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x, not to the 400mm prime, obviously). IQ is usually worse with a TC than with a native lens, although it really seems to me that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 280mm f/4 rivals the 300mm f/4L!
Derrick - one thing you might want to consider prior to making an investment is renting one or more of these lenses you're considering right now. Minimally, bring your camera to a brick-and-mortar store and try them out!




Reply With Quote