...but, the 100-400mm achieves 400mm f/5.6 with better IQ than the 300mm + 1.4x TC, and provides the ability to go shorter if necessary.
Had a great example of that in a nature preserve last week, when a fawn popped her head out of the brush about 8 feet from the path - I had just shot some birds at 400mm, and if I'd had the 300+1.4 on the camera, I'd have gotten great picture.....of the fawn's left eye and part of her ear. She stayed there for all of 5 seconds, then was gone. A quick zoom out to 100mm, though, and I got a great animal portrait in that fleeting moment.
I think Bryan sums it up rather nicely in his review of the 300mm prime - "...if you can live with 300mm f/5.6, the 100-400 L adds the great versatility of a wide focal length zoom range that includes 400mm. If 400mm is your goal, the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo."
I'd also point out that 'most of you' aren't really most - the 100-400mm is a far more popular lens. Roger of LensRentals.com states that the 100-400 is their second most popular lens (behind only the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).
Originally Posted by bburns223
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Check on Amazon.com: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS costs $1610, and300mm f/4L IS is $1269 - a difference of $340. If you want 420mm from your prime and add in the 1.4x Extender II at $310, well, now you're talking about only a $30 difference.
<div>That makes the decision a bit more difficult, I think. The 70-200mm f/4L is a very nice lens, and will have more uses than just wildlife. I suspect you'll find the 200mm long end of that lens to be to close to the 300mm prime, especially if you do add the TC for a 98-280mm zoom. So if you're getting a great deal there, I'd go with option #2. You may find you really enjoy shooting birds in flight, and keep using the 400mm f/5.6L for that even after you get a long supertele down the line.</div>
Reply With Quote