Lens choice for 20d - 300mm F4 L IS or 100-400mm IS?

[arimus]

I'm trying to decide on my next lens purchase and I'm stuck chosing

between the 100-400mm or 300mm f4 IS - the difference in price is not

as important as image quality. Primary use will be for wildlife/bird

photography.

 

I'm leaning towards the 100-400 for the extra 100mm + zoom capability.

 

Any views on the relative merits of each lens in terms of image quality?

[mark u]

There's a ton of views if you bothered to search for questions about either lens.

[grant g]

Neither. I was in the market for a bird/wildlife lens for under $2000. I chose the 400/5.6. I have no regrets so far. I just wanted the best IQ until I could afford a supertele like the 500/4.

 

Doing a search helped me decide, but one of the most compelling articles was on the birdsasart site.

[smile_my_friends]

I have the 100-400mm but I never find myself using the zoom when I'm taking bird shots

, I often times regret not having the 400mmL instead. Someday I will own the 500mm f/4L is and my life will be complete :) haha j/k

 

Most people like the primes more

[grant g]

To answer your question...

I suppose I should have also said that between the two, I would pick the 300/4IS, as I was deciding between that and the 400/5.6. The 100-400IS was not an option.

[mark_chappell]

Richard: you say the <B><I>primary</i></b> use will be wildlife and bird photography. I

tend to agree with a couple of the previous posters that for just birds, a prime would be more

useful. However, for many of us there's more to photography than birds even if (like me) one

is nuts about bird images. I don't use my 100-400 much for birds but I find it immensely

useful for landscapes.

[mcgarity]

The 300mm f4L IS alone is not long enough for most wildlife. But if you pair it up with the EF 1.4X teleconverter you can get some respectable reach and maintain excellent image quality. About 70% of the photos I take are with this combination so I freely admit to a bias in favor of it.

 

Personally I have never used the EF 100-400mm but from all I have read its soft wide open at the long end. True or not I don't know. But I can state that I shoot wide open with the 300mm + TC all the time and its more than sharp enough.

[jojo_ma]

For WL I'd say the 100-400IS; for birding the 400f5.6. Also, using a crop body doesn't hurt either. If you are mostly birding, then the 400 prime's AF speed is going to be best. For more stationary WL/zoo shots, get the zoom. It came down to these two for me, and after much deliberation, the zoom won out. Given normal, good working copies of each they are VERY close vis-a-vis IQ. See this at my site: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/teletest

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Primary use will be for wildlife/bird photography. </i> </p>

<p> My recommendation to this would be the 400/5.6 + monopod. See <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml</a>, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a> and <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq.html">http://www.birdsasart.com/faq.html</a>. <b></b> </p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[arimus]

Yakim, just looking at the links you've mentioned and I'm wondering if given I tend to go walking in the Brecon Beacons alot lugging a tripod etc around is a pain whether the 300mm IS + 1.4 if needed would be a good compromise? (Also I've not got the steadiest hands in the world).

[yakim_peled1]

Yes, the 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC will be a great compromise. In fact, I had that combo and can say it's indeed great. However, the 400/5.6 is the best. Now it's up to you to choose what fits your needs best.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[anthony29uk2001]

I would say 300 f4 L IS which is a superb lens and also a 1.4 extender which will turn the 300mm into a 670 mm with the 1.6 digital factor !i use this combo myself i would sooner have this set up than a zoom.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you hate lugging a tripod, budget for a monopod. I hate lugging a tripod, and I find a monopod plus an IS lens (usually my 300/4, with or without 1.4x, but I've also used it with my 28-135) works very nicely, and is much less annoying to carry, set up, and tear down. My tripod now comes out only if I need something that IS plus a monopod simply cannot do, such as 1/6s at 300mm or holding the camera up without any human assistance.</p>

 

<p>Either lens plus pretty much any compatible body is likely to be within the load capacity of even a fairly basic monopod, so you needn't spend hundreds of dollars on a high-end monopod.</p>

[micheleberti]

I'd go for the 300 f/4 IS

[arimus]

Looks like it will probably be the 300mm IS.

 

As to the monopod - I've already got a decent one which tends to go where ever my camera goes :).

 

 

(Not been around much as my laptop decided to die and my backup machine trashed itself)