canon 300/4 IS vs 100-400 IS

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I am considering buying the canon 300/4 IS or 100-400 IS. My only concern right now is optical quality with the use of canon teleconverters (I know the 300 will be better at 300 than the zoom). I would be using both the 1.4X and 2x with the 300/4 IS, or just the 1.4X with the 100-400. Auto focus is not an issue as I will be using the EOS 3. If anyone has had the oppourtunity to compare these combinations, i would greatly appreciate it. Of primary interest is the sharpness off the 300/4 @ 600/8 (2x tc) vs the 100-400 @ 560/8 (1.4x tc). Bigger glass is just not an option right now. Thank you in advance.

-- L. Owens (elementempire_2001@yahoo.com), May 10, 2001

Answers

see info on these lenses at www.birdsasart.com Shoot Nikon myself.

-- mark haflich (jhaflich@erols.com), May 11, 2001.

In the examples I looked at, the 300 was sharper than the zoom at 300mm (no suprise)and the 300+1.4x was sharper than the zoom at 400mm. As I recall neither the 300+2x or zoom + 1.4x was particularly sharp but I couldn't say which was least unsharp!

If you don't need IS, I'd recommend a used 300/4L + Canon TCs as the best and most cost effective route to longer lenses. If you intend to shoot a lot with the 2x (or the 1.4x with the zoom), don't expect razor sharp images. Decent - yes, acceptable - probably, razor sharp - no.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), May 11, 2001.


Bob you say the 300+1.4x is sharper then the zoom at 400. Is it noticably sharper? How would you compare the 100-400 at 400 (or 300) to the 100-300L

-- a t k (atk@arctic.org), May 16, 2001.

I have the 300F4L IS and a 1.4X TC (mk I), while my father has a 100- 400L IS and a 1.4X TC (mk II). The results from both of these combos are very good, and higher quality than any consumer grade zoom (obviously). They have stood comparison to the Canon 100-300 USM (not L) and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, and are considerably better. Apparently the new 2x TC (mk II) is an improvement over the previous one (there's no optical difference between the two series of 1.4X TCs), so I should imagine the 300f4L + 2x mkII should give good results. I need to replace my EOS 5 with a 3 (or a 1V, but pigs might fly) before I buy a 2x TC. My vote would go with the 300f4L IS (not that I'm biased...it's the same choice I made between the two lenses, and I'm happy with the decision I made), since optical quality is your priority. I point out that if you're hand-holding, the handling of the 300mm is rather better, because the lens is well balanced, whereas (esp. at the 400mm end) the 100-400 is very front-heavy, which is a strain on your arms, and quickly tiring. This is made slightly worse by the additional length (although the 1.4x isn't very long).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), July 08, 2001.

Hi

I own the 300 f4IS and use it with the 2x converter on my EOS 3 all the time. I am quite happy with the results and have made several sharp 8x10's with it. It focused very quickly on the EOS 3 at an F8 maximum f stop. The 300f4 IS alone is an amazing lens, incredibly sharp and fast.

-- Marc (mroper@island.net), March 20, 2002.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ