100-400 L IS v 300 f4 L IS

[^^Gord^^]

With the dark nights here rather than trying to get creative and shoot something indoors I'm sat here wondering what I should save up for next

I'd seriously love the 300 f2.8 L IS but it's a big chunk of cash especially for the limited use it would get but the 300 F4 L IS is more obtainable but would f4 be a noticable improvement over the f5.6 I currently get from my 100-400 L IS?

I wouldn't replace the 100-400 L IS as I really like the lens and fine the zoom very useful but there are times especially shooting military aircraft where I want to be using 1/600 to 1/800s but are forced to ISO 800 or higher due to the low light. Of course the f2.8 would be perfect but would f4 suffice?

Comments; or even better photo examples?

 

[SDK^]

F4 is a full stop quicker than F5.6 so you could get your shutter speed but using ISO400 with the 300mm.
Personally I would stick with the 100-400 and save your money - ISO800 is fine.

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

agreed. the 300 F2.8 is one of my dream lenses and I will eventually be saving for it. Since you clearly have something large towards that I would advise that you put that towards the 300mm F2.8.
Afterall, you are one third of a way towards the 2.8.

 

[^^Gord^^]

Thanks for the replies guys. It's given me some things to think about. I'm also going to wait to see if Canon launches anymore cashback deals for 2007 before making any plans.

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

Thanks for the replies guys. It's given me some things to think about. I'm also going to wait to see if Canon launches anymore cashback deals for 2007 before making any plans.

I assume you know about the £105 back on the 300 F4 IS.
Also, If your very serious about photography would you be willing to sign upto a Higher purchase option on the 300 F2.8 IS?

I cant see the 2.8 becoming a feature of the cashback options since they have no problem shifting them at current retail.

 

[^^Gord^^]

I assume you know about the £105 back on the 300 F4 IS.
Also, If your very serious about photography would you be willing to sign upto a Higher purchase option on the 300 F2.8 IS?

I cant see the 2.8 becoming a feature of the cashback options since they have no problem shifting them at current retail.

Yes, the £105 off the 300 f4 IS was very tempting but the car needs a new set of tyres so going to have to miss that one. Hopefully Canon will do the cashback vouchers again for 2007 and include the 300 f4 IS again.

I'm not serious enough about my photography to go the HP route for a 300 f2.8 IS. I enjoy my photography a lot but the car and mortgage both are vying for my cash. I could see myself getting a 300 f4 IS though, the difference between my current 100-400 maybe small but it could make the difference between getting the shot or not.

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

For me its far too small. Yes you have an entire stop's difference but the real speed and light advantage comes from the 2.8's. You will get fantastic prime quality from the 300 which is a bonus when it comes to cropping in if needs be but for the price and the presence of the 100 - 400 L IS I would really give this serious thought.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

The 300mm F2.8 is rated as one of the best lenses that Canon make, so if you have the dosh, and don't mind that substantial weight, go for it.

Have to say that I took the compromise option and went for the substantially cheaper 400mm F5.6. A great lens, massively lighter and cheaper, but hopelessly slow in comparison.

 

[Darryn]

I agree with pretty much everyone else in here, wait for the 300f2.8... if you get anoything else you will only think down the line that you settled for 2nd best...

I sold my 100-400 and replaced it with a 70-200f2.8is, 300f2.8IS and 1.4x TC... I considered quite a few other lenses but decided it was better to wait and get, what I considered, the best... that way I know that I wont feel the need to replace them any time soon. BTW... The 300f2.8IS can be had for as little as £2550.

 

[^^Gord^^]

Thanks guys. I may well rent a 300 f4 IS just to have a play, would give me some experience of a 300 prime as well but you are all right the 300 f2.8 is the one I should be aiming for. Right, off to buy some lottery tickets!

 

[King_Boru]

Would you not consider a non stabilized lens? The Sigma 100-300 f4 is sharp if not sharper than the 300 f4 by Canon. (waits for abuse). Have a look at the photozone.de reviews site for proof if need be. A good bit of practice will compensate for IS i believe.

Just my opinion, sure to be flamed for it.

King.

 

[Buttkicker]

add my 2p
I have/had all 3 of the lenses mentioned above... and all are good Lenses
the 100-400 is a nice sharp lens but autofocus is 'dog slow' and its 95% useless with converters, on the plus side it has a great focal range
also the push pull zoom was not to my liking

the 300F4 autofocus is faster, and the copy I had seemed sharper plus it worked pretty good using the 1.4x converter, also its a real lightweight for carrying, and hand held shots

the 400mmF5.6 is the sharpest of the 3 and autofocus is lightning fast, with no hunting like the other 2 do a lot
Mine is hooked upto a 1.4x converter on a 1 series camera, and works like a charm (in good light) using the center autofocus point

would I buy the 100-400 again (NO)

would I buy the 300f4 again (possibly)

the 400mm is my lens of choice for my aviation photography, and if it went belly up,
I would buy one again in a heartbeat (its that good) and for good light conditions there are not many Canon fit lenses that can beat it
its up near the top of the Canon foodchain in the primes line up