Decision time. EF300 F/4 L IS or EF100-400 4.5-5.6 IS?

I'm new to the SLR world and am having a great time researching the lenses that

will best suit my needs. At this time my primary interests are landscape and

wildlife. I just purchased the Rebel XT and the EF 17-40mm f/4 L but am trying

to decide between fixed (300) or zoom (100-400) for field wildlife (as opposed

to zoo shots). Some shots will be taken from bus, boat, etc. but the majority

will be on the hike so I'm opting for IS rather than tripod. Having no field

experience except with p/s cameras I'm trying to envision scenarios where the

300 would be too much lense and would be happier with the more flexible 100-400.

I plan to carry a 1.4 extender for longer needs. I'd love to hear from some of

you seasoned vets out there on the pros or cons of these lenses applied to my

interests.

 

Also, if I go with the 100-400, is the 24-105 F/4 L IS an ideal lense to round

out the kit? What would you choose with the 300 to fill in the gap? Thanks for

your help.

I would go with the 300. Many people rave about the 100-400's image quality, but those people obviously don't own primes in this range. The 300mm f/4 IS, the 400mm f/4 DO IS, and even the 400mm f/5.6 have better image quality. The zoom is a flexible lens, but a bit soft at the long end. Also, it's too slow. To round out the kit, I would suggest the 70-200mm lens. Any of the varieties is fast enough, and very sharp. The best is the f/2.8 IS version, but it costs $500 more than the 300 IS. To fill the gap between 40 and 70mm, I would go with a 50mm f/1.4. The 50mm f/1.8 is almost as sharp and cheaper, at the cost of worse color and contrast, slower autofocus, cheap build quality, and a poorer manual focus ring. Hope this helps.

That 300 lens is one of the finest lenses I've ever owned.

 

Extremely sharp.<div></div>

I enjoy my 300/f4+1.4X. However for hiking I would suggest to serious consider the new 70-300 IS. Very good image quality and light weight.

For hiking? It's a no-brainer: get the 70-200 2.8L-IS and 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. It will give you the most flexibility for the weight. Performance at 200+2x (400/5.6 equiv)is no worse than the 100-400 @ 400, and the AF is actually faster! That and the 17-40 and you're all set. In fact for hiking I'd even consider the 18-55 "kit" lens. Yeah it's a piece of crap construction-wise, but it's light and surprisingly good optically.

I agree with some of what has been said, and disagree with probably more of it. For whatever it is worth, I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 100-400 and 300 f/2.8L IS (not the f/4 version). With this said, I totally disagree with the statement that the 70-200 + 2x is as good optically as the 100-400, and I really can't believe the statement about the focus speed being faster? This is totally the opposite of anything that I have seen. If you search, you will find tests on the Internet that would agree with my findings. I have never seen anything showing the 70-200 + 2x to be comparable to the 100-400. With this said, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is probably my favorite zoom, and I believe it is absolutely fantastic. I just don't like to overinflate what it is truly capable of doing. It does work fairly well with the 1.4TC, but you now have a max focal length of 280mm.

 

Regarding whether to go with the 300 f/4L IS or the 100-400, this is really a decision on what is important to you. The 300 f/4L IS is optically superior to the zoom, but that shouldn't come as a surprise. The problem that I think that you will have with wildlife is enough focal length. I finally ended up with a 500 f/4L IS, and I will use it with TCs. The 300 will leave you wanting more FL, so you will end up using TCs to compensate. This is where I would make your decision between the 400 f/5.6L and the 100-400 within this size & price range. The 400 prime is optically better, and it is lighter. The prime will work better with TCs as well. The zoom is flexible, and it is a decent performer (actually fairly good). With this said, the zoom won't match the prime for sharpness/contrast. If you think that you will really be doing wildlife, I don't think you will find that you need a shorter FL very often, so the prime might be the best.

 

I love the 100-400 for the quick flexibility for things like air shows or even quick trips to the zoo. They all have their advantages.

 

Regarding the 24-105, it is supposed to be a decent performer although I haven't personally used one. The concern that I would have is that you would have a fairly slow kit. Most people end up shooting in lower light situations frequently. If you do get this, I would look at adding a fast prime or two. You can even pick up the 50 f/1.8 for under $100 which will help quite a bit.

 

Good luck with your decision.

<I>For hiking? It's a no-brainer: get the 70-200 2.8L-IS and 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. It

will give you the most flexibility for the weight.</i><P>

 

A quick glance at the specs will reveal that the 70-200 IS is <B>heavier</B> than the

100-400 (3.6 vs 3 pounds), and that's <I>without</i> the added weight of the 1.4X and

2X -- and you gain only 30 mm on the range offered by the 100-400. I agree with what

Brian said in essentially all respects. If you want to do wildlife only, get the 400/5.6 or

the 300/4 IS + 1.4X (or even better if you can stomach the cost and weight, the 500/4). If

you want a flexible lens suitable for wildlife AND for other subjects requiring shorter focal

lengths, the 100-400 is quite good.<P>

 

A quick search through the Nature and EOS forums will reveal MANY threads covering your

question about the 100-400. One of the most recent can be found <A HREF="http://

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00Gb8O&tag=200605200205">here</a>.

What Brian and Mark said. Just a few further comments.

 

The 70~200x2 gets you to 400 just like the 100~400 on its own (apart from the fact that nominal and actual focal lengths may differ slightly). You only get a bit extra with the 300x1.4, and it is scarcely noticeable in practice.

 

The other merit of the 100~400 is flexibility in response to unexpected wildlife opportunities. That may or may not matter to you. It does to me, and I find the 20D+100~400 a pretty near ideal 'safari' combination. If you go for primes, you will probably find the extra options and the IS of the 300IS?x1.4 combination preferable to the 400/5.6.

 

But don't expect to use the 100~400 with the Extender 1.4x on a 1.6-factor camera. You have IS, but no AF and it is a real pain to set up, and the results are often disappointing. I used to use that combination on a 1V, where it worked sort of OK, but on my next trip (Namaqualand in August/September) I will probably only take the Extender if I decide to take my 135/2 for some serious low-light capability.

 

The 24~105 is a very fine lens, not just 'decent', and yes, it combines well with the 100~400 when you are using them both and goes long enough on a 1.6-factor camera to be really versatile on its own. An advantage of using it on 1.6-factor rather than FF is that the significant vignetting it produces on FF cuts in hardly at all on the smaller frame. The short end is a bit long to make it a one-lens solution. It will combine well enough with your 17~40, but I now use it with the 10~22 in preference.

I am enjoying my 300/4L IS - XT/350D combo quite a bit. I do not find this lens to be either too large or too heavy - it is already based on compromise if you compare it to the 300/2.8L IS lens, so any more compromise, and you are down to the consumer stuff (been there, done that). And you do not even feel that the XT is attached to it... I carry the combo holding on to the lens from the tripod collar plate (which could have been made more ergonomic) for hours without a problem - that way I am ready to shoot any moment.

 

The downside of the combo is the body - the XT's focusing (read tracking) capacity is lousy, and accuracy is a bit of gamble (anywhere within DOF...) I had the chance to try out tracking with a 'serious' birder's 1DII, and it is phenomenal; there is just no comparison. That body however, is big and heavy for me (never mind that I cannot afford it...)

 

the x1.4 teleconverter will be my next purchase - giving me the equivalent of 672mm perspective (with IS). I do not think I want anything longer that since that kind of focal length requires full time tripod support if you want to get the most of your equipment.

 

Cheers.

here is my first cardinal with the XT - 300/4L IS combo (handheld, f/5.6, 1/125 sec, ISO 400, fill-in flash)<div></div>

Allen,

 

Just went the 300 f/4 + 1.4x extender to complement the 70-200 f/4 that I already owned thanks to the great folks on these boards. Couldn't be happier with my choice.

 

Apparently the 100-400 is a little short of the 400 mm, and won't give as good results with the TC, plus it's much heavier than the prime.

 

Ignacio

If a monopod is an option I'd recommend a 85/1.8 + 200/2.8 + 400/5.6 set. Light, fast and optically excellent.

 

I also had the 300/4 IS and 1.4X Mk II. Sharpness was excellent but flare resistance was not. I needed a bit of composition tweaking to avoid that. Also, AF speed with the TC was too slow for many applications and it hunted quite a lot.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

A word about the 100-400 IS. Try one before buying. Push-Pull design is not to everyone's taste.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I have the 100-400 and I find it very usefull, but when I use it It's always at the 400mm (whom are very sharp anyway) I also use it with an 1.4x. I look at the 300mm f4 at a store yesterday, I find it maybe a little more sharp than the 100-400, but nothing to die for !

I also have the 24-105 l is usm, it's a great combo with the 100-400 on a 5d, with a rebelxt you should have something wider !

I'm another in the 300 f/4 IS (+1.4X on occasion) happy campers. I love this lens! And surprisingly I do not find the fixed focal length a limitation. Though I bought it mainly for birds and other fauna, I've used it also for flowers and sports. I've hiked with it too, even up to 8 miles.

 

I can't speak to the 100-400 except to say I've seen another use it and I was amazed at how long the barrel extends to!

 

For me the decision was between the 300 f/4 IS and the 400 f/5.6. I chose the 300 because I already had the 1.4X to give me effectively a 420 f/5.6, and it gave me IS.

 

Stacy Egan