100-400 or 300/4 + 1.4 TC

[tim_kong]

I am trying to get a tele that can provide me with focal length from

300 - 400 and I am thus comparing the above mentioned 2 lenses. I

already have 17 - 200mm covered. My application for this lense is

primarily shooting water sports event like skiing, wake boarding and

wind surfing. I will be shooting from the shore and my subject will

be somewhere from 150 - 200 yards away. I know that the zoom will

give me the flexibility but I would prefer sharp pictures above all.

I read thru some of the tread that the zoom is a good performer and

I would never go wrong getting it but I wanted to know how sharp are

the pictures compared to the prime + TC. I may also want to do some

nature photography, mainly birds, so this lense must be able to

cater for that too. BTW, I am using a 20D so the 1.6 multiplying

factor can give me some extra reach. Any advise is most welcome and

thank you all.

[micheleberti]

I had the same dilemma some time ago... finally I went for the 300/4 IS + 1.4tc. I am very very happy about my decision :-)

[mark u]

One thread on the identical subject got deleted within the past few hours for ignoring forum guidelines about searching for previous answers. Don't be surprised if that happens to this one too. There are LOTS of previous threads that cover this issue, and nothing new to be learned.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

If memory serves the one that was deleted was identical, too, to another string up to &

including that it was to be used for wildlife photography. I went thru those old strings

recently and concensus seems to be in favor of the 300mm. Based on that info I opted for

the 300mm myself and bought one last week (with the tc1.4II & tc2xII). Good luck with your

photography.

[bennyboy]

Would the 400 f/5.6 not give better results considering it's focusing speed? I hear many people state that it is THE lens to own in this focal length for shooting moving targets.

[mark_chappell]

<I> I will be shooting from the shore and my subject will be somewhere from 150 - 200

yards away.</i><P>

 

At those distances, even a fairly weak AF system on a slow lens will be sufficient. It's when

you are dealing with something at close range and moving fast that AF gets seriously

challenged. But are you sure that 400 mm will be enough at 200 yards? At that distance,

a person may be rather small in the image, even with a 20D.<P>

 

Given the advantages of stabilization, I guess I'd go for the 100-400 or the 300/4+1.4, as

Tim says. The zoom is more versatile, the 300 is sharper and faster (at 300) and focuses

closer (handy if you ever get into butterflies, flowers, lizards, etc.)

[dcheung]

wouldn't the 400 2.8 OWN the 400 5.6?

how can u claim 400 5.6 is THE LENS TO OWN?

[mark_chappell]

<I>wouldn't the 400 2.8 OWN the 400 5.6? how can u claim 400 5.6 is THE LENS TO OWN?

</i><P>

 

Ever tried to hand-hold the 400/2.8 to shoot (say), birds flying overhead? Most people would

find that operation a lot easier with the <B>much</b> more compact and lightweight

400/5.6. I do this kind of photography with a 500/4, which is considerably lighter than a

400/2.8, and although it works, it gets painful quickly.

[bennyboy]

The 400 5.6 is also closer to the price bracket he was looking at I think.

[tim_kong]

Thanks guys for all your input. The reason I ask about the comparison was because I was offered a used but mint condition 300/4 IS for about $850. In fact I was considering the 100-400 prior to this offer for its versatility. I was just not sure if the 300/4 + TC is sharper than the 100-400 at 400 since it is known that TC degrades the quality of the image. BTW Micheal, I am not so sure if 400mm is long enough for the type of shooting I wanted to do since have not used a 400mm lense before. I just thought that at 640mm, I think I might be able to capture images close enough from 150 yards away. Like I say, I have no experience with this focal length but this is about the max length I can afford right now.

[tim_kong]

Sorry I meant Mark Chappell and not Michael.

[mark_chappell]

<I> I was just not sure if the 300/4 + TC is sharper than the 100-400 at 400 since it is

known that TC degrades the quality of the image.</i><P>

 

As my namesake Mark U says, there have been gazillions of threads on this very topic,

both in this forum and in the Nature Photography fourm. For most people in most

situations, I doubt if the difference (if any) will be of much consequence.<P>

 

To check out whether 400 mm will be enough, use your 200 mm and take a picture at the

ranges you're thinking about. Then crop it down by 50% in each dimension and see if that

crop (to 25% of the original area) has the composition you want.

[tim_kong]

Thanks Mark for the advise on how to determine if 400mm is sufficient. I will just do that over the weekend. Thanks again.

[peter_houtmeyers]

The sharpness at 150-200 yard will be bad no matter what lens u use. Even with a 600/4 L IS you can not get good sharpness at these distances. Instead i would advise you to get as close to the action as possible with a 300/4 L IS without the tc. This will be the best way to get sharpness. This lens has IS and is light enough to use handheld.

[mark_chappell]

<I>The sharpness at 150-200 yard will be bad no matter what lens u use. Even with a 600/4

L IS you can not get good sharpness at these distances.</i><P>

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but in my experience, this claim is simply false, at

least in terms of optical quality. There are possible problems with atmospheric haze or

particulates over long distances, but this isn't a limitation of the lens, and the problem is

solved by shooting on a clear day.