100-400is vs 300/4 with 1.4x Which is sharper?

[marknagel]

I just ordered a 70-200/2.8 is and 1.4 extender. I'm tossing around

the idea of getting either the 100-400 or 300/4. I'd like something

in the 400mm range. I've searched and found a little on this, but

between only these two lenses (100-400mm and 300/4 with 1.4

extender) which is sharper at 400mm/420mm? Anyone with comparison

samples?

 

Mark

[mark u]

I don't think your search was very effective:

 

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&client=pub-1734703147688622&cof=FORID%3A1%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo.net%2Fgraphics%2Fanimated_photonet_logo.gif%3BGL%3A1%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%230066cc%3BVLC%3A%23336633%3BALC%3A%230066cc%3BGALT%3A%230066CC%3BGFNT%3A%23666666%3BGIMP%3A%23666666%3BDIV%3A%23999999%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BAH%3Acenter%3B&domains=www.photo.net&q=100-400+is++300++1.4x++sharper&btnG=Search

[marknagel]

Yeh I did that search and read about 15-20 articles and none had anything very helpful. Lots of mentions, but then they always got side tracked with other lens considerations or lens features. There weren't any posts I read directly comparing these two setup like this for sharpness. A lot of "prime vs zoom, push pull vs twist, 300/4 excellent w/1.4x, 100-400 excellent, but only a couple who had both and no real mention of which was better. (OK I found a couple, but they said the exact opposite)

 

Next time I post I will write a paragrgh or two discussing my search findings and maybe a link to what I searched. Maybe I'll do a short hand summary of my findings and index it. I posted: "I've searched and found a little on this" so I wouldn't get the guy who has to tell me to search, or how to search. I know how and did search. I read for over an hour on these lenses. I'm asking a specific question, not comparing zooms types, focal length flexibility, weight, etc. Why can't people just skip over posts/questions they don't have answers to, not interested in or are sick of answering?

 

Sorry, back to the topic,

A while ago I saw a post with sample shots of a stuffed rooster, but I looked all over for it and can't find it again. I think it was the 100-400, but can't remeber if it was the 400/5.6 or the 300/4 + 1.4x.

 

m

[mark_chappell]

I tend to agree with my namesake Mark U: there is a lot of very useful information in

those threads which you don't seem interested in. You will find many opinions on these

optics, based on various considerations. You are looking just at sharpness, but even with

that seemingly simple 'goal' I'm not sure any firm conclusion is

possible because (a) from what I've read, results will be very similar on average and (b)

because of sample

variation, you have no way of being sure that you'll get the same results as somebody else

did in an equivalent test.

 

Both the 300 + 1.4X and the 100-400 apparently give very good results at ~400 (if you

get good samples). I'd make your

decision on cost (300/4 wins, since you'll have the 1.4X already), size (300 is a bit

smaller), speed (300/4 wins at 300 mm; no difference at ~400 mm),

handling (? tastes vary), closest focus (300 wins on distance per se, but maximum

magnification is pretty similar), or versatility (100-400 wins by a mile).

 

Any difference in optical quality is likely to be sufficiently small that your technique and

vision will be

much, MUCH more important. And to repeat: small enough that sample variance could

be a very important consideration -- test your new lens (especially a 100-400) before you

accept it.

[phyrpowr]

Not sure where my samples are, I'm not so good at filing stuff, will try to find them, but I've been shooting baby eagles growing for the past seven years (no, not the same ones) and this year I went to the 100-400, after two-three years with the 300/4 IS plus 1.4 TC.

 

I'm calling it a tie, MAYBE the 100-400 a hair shaper at 400

 

might try to post, but I'm pretty lazy, let me see if I can find some apples to compare to apples, you can email me and I can send some back easier probably

[robin_sibson1]

I have the 100~400, and Isaac S. has the 300/4IS and a 1.4x Extender. I would endorse Mark C.'s very balanced comments, and I expect Isaac would too. Unless you get a poor example, both these lenses are very capable at 400/420mm, probably 300x1.4 is a little sharper, but if you really want to stretch it you may well find that 300x2 is not as sharp as 100~400x1.4. If ultimate sharpness is your aim, buy a 400/5.6 and a solid tripod, or a 400/2.8 and an even more solid tripod.

[phyrpowr]

my error, the 300+1.4 was the hair sharper, but the wind was blowing the day I shot the 100-400. Not really much diff is the final verdict.

[marknagel]

I have weighed out all the other factors, price, weight, IS vs non IS, speed vs zoom, Canon vs 3rd party, its between these two. With my 70-200/2.8is I'm fine with the upto 200mm and probably 300mm. I'm more interested in 400mm and somethimes at 300mm with IS. I wanted to keep it to sharpness to keep the thread from going in every direction like the others I read. IS is a must for me, otherwise I would get the 400/5.6. Canon is a must for me too. Its between these two, and I'm looking for the sharper of the two. Maybe its a coin toss, thats a perfectly acceptable answer, then I'd probably get the 100-400, but if the 300mm w/1.4 is sharper, thats what I'd get.

Thanks,

 

Mark

 

Mark

[jim_mueller2]

The Canon 300/4 IS + EF 1.4X TC is sharper than the EF 100-400 Zoom. There's an review of this lens and a chart comparing the two directly at: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm

 

The Canon 300/4 IS + EF 1.4X TC is clearly sharper than the EF 100-400 Zoom.

[ilkka]

Since you already have a 70-200, which is 100-280 with the 1.4, I would not get another long zoom just to get to 400. These long zooms are usually at their worst in the long end. And do you always need the 400? The 300 is surely sharper, and a stop faster, at 300 than the zoom.

 

What would I do? I have a 70-200 and 1.4 as well, and I really would get a fixed 400 or 500 instead of a 300, or then maybe a 2x extender though I don't like them much.

[mark_chappell]

<I>The Canon 300/4 IS + EF 1.4X TC is clearly sharper than the EF 100-400 Zoom.</i><P>

 

Well, maybe THAT particular sample was, but there are divergent opinions, possibly

(probably?) based on sample variation. If Mark N is really interested in sharpness only, then

he should skip both of these and get either (a) 400 f2.8 IS or (b) 300 f2.8 IS + 1.4X. I don't

think there's much argument that both of the f2.8 lenses are stunningly good optical

performers.<P>

 

Of course, they are a teeny bit bigger and more expensive than the 300/4 or 100-400.

[jim_mueller2]

:::there are divergent opinions::::

 

Yes there are. I opted for the 300/4 IS and the 1.4X. I've been using that lens & TC combination for birding and am intimately familiar with it. IMHO it's the best option in that price range. There are many that would disagree.

 

 

:::either (a) 400 f2.8 IS or (b) 300 f2.8 IS + 1.4X:::

 

The 400/2.8 is a BIG heavy lens. For birding, the 500/4IS is the lens of choice. But who has that kind of discretionary cash or wants that kind of debt on their credit cards?

[mark_chappell]

<I>For birding, the 500/4IS is the lens of choice. But who has that kind of discretionary cash

or wants that kind of debt on their credit cards?</i><P>

 

For better or worse, that would be me -- I've had a 500 IS for several years. It's worth the

outlay. Or so I tell myself. Repeatedly.

[andy10]

I found that the 100-400 IS is a bit sharper at the 400mm range.. However having owned lenses which covered focal lengths upto 280mm (using 200mm+1.4x) it didnt make any sense to overlap that range.. I got a dedicated 400mm lens...

 

if you are planning to get either of these lenses for birding, I would think that something longer than 400mm would be needed.. try looking for 500mm or something like Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 zoom..

[jim_larson1]

Honestly. . . .this is not a sharpness issue.

 

The 300/4L-IS is cheaper. It is a prime. It is F4.

 

The 100-400/5.6L-IS is more expensive. It is a zoom. It is a push pull.

 

What do you need? What do you you want? Sharpness is almost a secondary issue.

[bobatkins]

The 300/4L + 1.4x TC is sharper than the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS at 400mm. At least that's what my tests showed based on a sample of one of each lens.

<p>

See <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/100-400.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/100-400.html</a>

[mike_smith2]

Depends on

 

A - what digital body you use

 

or

 

B - what type of film you use.

 

 

For 95% of bodies and film you are unlikely to see any difference.

 

Graduate to a 1Ds mk1 or 1Ds mkII and you probably will see a difference in resolving power.

 

Ditto shooting ISO 50 film under controlled mirror lock conditions.

 

A lot of people are put off the zoom on the basis it will "Suck dust into the lens" by virtue of its design. Never had this problem myself, but there again I do not shoot in extreme dusty conditions.

[yakim_peled1]

As you are well covered till 280mm, a 100-400 zoom seems to much of an overlap. Of the two mentioned I'd take the 300/4 IS. BTW, I have it and like it a lot.

 

However, if I (emphasis on I) was so well covered till 280mm and wanted a longer lens, I would not be looking at the 400mm range but go to 500mm with either the 500/4.5 (Lighter and cheaper) or 500/4 (faster and have IS). The faster aperture of the 500/4 is particularly important if you plan to use it with the 1.4X TC because you will still have AF.

 

HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[marknagel]

I don't bird watch, just wanted a longer lens. The 400/2.8 and 500mm are not an option, can't justify that coin. Looking in the under $1500. Sound like the 300/4 is the one.

Thanks,

 

m