Wildlife Lens - 300mm f/4 IS

TCimages · Oct 6, 2007

The 100-400 is not soft at 400mm. However, I have heard of soft copies. I would go with at least 400mm and even with that you'll find times where you'll be wanting more for what your photographing. The 100-400 does need light at 400mm tho. So it takes Paractice. It can be handheld with IS at shutter speeds over 180. So long as if you have a rather slow moving subject.

If you throw the teleconverter on the 300, you'll have the same lighting issues. Keep in mind also that when subjects end up really close (usually great opportunities) you can still get the shot with a zoom.

I've found where you place yourself relative to where the sun will come up or set is critical for shooting wildlife. Most of my shots are @ 400 mm and cropped

Here is a 400 mm shot @ 100 sec:

and one more 400mm @ 200 sec:

I have many more examples if you're interested

Alex_B · Oct 7, 2007

TCimages said:
The 100-400 is not soft at 400mm. However, I have heard of soft copies.

Well, I think this is not a strong disagreement here, what you call soft or not always depends on your personal definition. Every lens is soft to some extent when you pixel-peep. But with good lenses you would not see any softness at the resolution you gave as example images. My claim was simply aiming at the fact that sharpness of a zoom lens is not uniform through the whole zoom range, and that the 100-400 is better at 300 in that respect than at 400.

I did not say, that IQ at 400 was really bad or anything.

Oh, and keep in mind that all my comments refer to use with 35mm sensors and film. I have no personal experience with crop sensors.

Alex_B · Oct 7, 2007

nice images by the way, TCimages

TCimages · Oct 7, 2007

Alex_B said:
Well, I think this is not a strong disagreement here, what you call soft or not always depends on your personal definition. Every lens is soft to some extent when you pixel-peep. But with good lenses you would not see any softness at the resolution you gave as example images. My claim was simply aiming at the fact that sharpness of a zoom lens is not uniform through the whole zoom range, and that the 100-400 is better at 300 in that respect than at 400.

I did not say, that IQ at 400 was really bad or anything.

Oh, and keep in mind that all my comments refer to use with 35mm sensors and film. I have no personal experience with crop sensors.

lol, we tend to bump heads. I agree that IQ is subjective. Thank you for the comments on the pics.

Have you used the 100-400? I don't see a difference in IQ throughout the entire zoom. Now this lens definetly has sweetspot around f8.

Keagle · Oct 7, 2007

TCImages - again, your images inspire

I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm now, rather than the prime. Do you find the hood works well?

Alex_B · Oct 7, 2007

TCimages said:
lol, we tend to bump heads. I agree that IQ is subjective. Thank you for the comments on the pics.

Have you used the 100-400? I don't see a difference in IQ throughout the entire zoom. Now this lens definetly has sweetspot around f8.

I do not own it, but my best photography friend got one. So we do have chances to play around with both my 300mm f/4 and her 100-400, both on full frame only though. Even tried the TC 1.4 with the 100-400 which was not really working well, as you would expect.

I agree at f/8, the 300mm f/4, the 300mm f/4 with a Kenko TC1.4pro and the 100-400 at 400 are all very sharp (probably better than many sensors out there would realise

). Wide open you do see some difference though.

Keagle · Oct 7, 2007

I was tempted to get the 300mm prime and save for a 70-200mm f/4, but I'm not sure. As usual eh?

Alex_B · Oct 7, 2007

since we are posting images

...

taken with the 300mm f/4 L

1: at f/4.5 (do not ask me why it is 4.5

) ... this shows about 1/9th of the whole frame if i remember right, so it is a severe crop:

2: f/5 .. no crop

Alex_B · Oct 7, 2007

Keagle said:
I was tempted to get the 300mm prime and save for a 70-200mm f/4, but I'm not sure. As usual eh?

poor you, being dragged from one side to the other by us ... never finding peace

Actually, both solutions will be good in a way I guess.

usayit · Oct 7, 2007

Both lenses are good (prime always being better IQ versus flexibility of zoom). Pixel peeping at this point is just wasting your time and brain cycles. they will both serve you well.

What it comes down to is what do you need more a prime (300 f4L) or zoom (100-400mm). I wouldn't get all worked up over IQ until you have figured out for yourself the zoom versus prime question.

My thoughts.. as before...
* You mentioned using the 70-210mm
* You mentioned being annoyed by the fact that your 70-210mm is giving you problems
* You mentioned that you wanted a longer focal length.

therefore..

I believe you will best served by the 100-400mm. Or some equivalent from Sigma.

I also wouldn't recommend using the Canon x1.4 with the 100-400mm unless you are using a 1 series body. Again... what is essentially being discussed here is prime versus zoom.

usayit · Oct 7, 2007

oh yeh.. in case you haven't found these yet

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Keagle · Oct 7, 2007

I went out today for a walk around the canal. I used my Sigma - and the zoom is definately a benefit. I'm going to save for the 100-400mm methinks. Thank you everyone for your very, very, helpful replies. Perhaps in the future I'll get a 500mm prime if required!

Regards,
Keagle

TCimages · Oct 9, 2007

Keagle said:
I went out today for a walk around the canal. I used my Sigma - and the zoom is definately a benefit. I'm going to save for the 100-400mm methinks. Thank you everyone for your very, very, helpful replies. Perhaps in the future I'll get a 500mm prime if required!

Regards,
Keagle

I meant to ask you, Can you rent these lenses? This is often a great way to make a decision on a big purchase.

Keagle · Oct 9, 2007

Not around where I live, as I've had a look. Unfortunately Calumet Photo's website is rather confusing, and I can't find anywhere to rent. I've been tempted to get the 300mm f/4 and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or the Canon 70-200mm L f/4. My other option, is of course the 100-400mm. If I could rent these lenses cheaply it would be awesome, and with Calumet you have to put down the lens' RRP anyway, as a deposit incase the lens is damaged. I'd rather buy it and then sell it again if I was gonna do that

I'm going to ask around and see if anyone has them, so I can try them out. I was toying with the idea to get the 70-200m f/4 alone, or the IS version, and have money to spend on accessories or the like. Though christmas is coming up...so perhaps the accessories can wait!

Many thanks for your reply.

TCimages · Oct 9, 2007

Keagle said:
Not around where I live, as I've had a look. Unfortunately Calumet Photo's website is rather confusing, and I can't find anywhere to rent. I've been tempted to get the 300mm f/4 and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or the Canon 70-200mm L f/4. My other option, is of course the 100-400mm. If I could rent these lenses cheaply it would be awesome, and with Calumet you have to put down the lens' RRP anyway, as a deposit incase the lens is damaged. I'd rather buy it and then sell it again if I was gonna do that I'm going to ask around and see if anyone has them, so I can try them out. I was toying with the idea to get the 70-200m f/4 alone, or the IS version, and have money to spend on accessories or the like. Though christmas is coming up...so perhaps the accessories can wait!

Many thanks for your reply.

darn, thats too bad. Will this work....
http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Canon