Canon 300mm f/4 L lens with x1.4 teleconverter at 420mm Vs. Canon 100-400mm

[romangolubenko]

Please advise....shell I get better image quality if I use Canon 300mm f/4 L lens with x1.4 teleconverter wich gives me 420mm instead of using Canon 100-400mm L lens at 400mm.

My main interest is wildlife. Would love to get some closeups of eagles in Alaska if possible.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I used the EF 300 4L USM and 1.4X Extender for many years and IQ is excellent. AF is still fast and it handles well for panning. Image degradation due to the use of the Extender is minimal--very close to nekid prime level--and in fact was better than my old Sigma 400 5.6 APO. I don't have a 100-400 zoom so I can't say which is better but I'm guessing the difference comes down to spitting hairs.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>This one comes up a lot. (Note to self: Write about this at my blog and then leave links... :-)</p>

<p>The question, in the end, is not just about image quality, though that can be one issue. Let me try a bit of a summary:</p>

<p>The 300mm prime can produce a very slightly higher resolution than the 100-400 zoom at 300mm. However, the 100-400 can also produce quite excellent quality at this focal length. If your primary need is to shoot at 300mm, then the prime could be a better choice on some counts.</p>

<p>The prime plus 1.4x TC can produce pretty good results at 420mm and allow you to get a longer focal length from the 300mm prime at the expense of a) slightly less resolution, b) maximum aperture of f/5.6 instead of f/4, c) some inconvenience/time involved in adding/removing the TC. My understanding is that the resolution of the 300mm + 1.4x TC option is close to that of the 100-400 zoom.</p>

<p>The 100-400 zoom covers, obviously, a wider range of shooting needs. If you think that you'll find yourself needing to respond quickly to the need to shoot at focal lengths between 100mm and 400mm, the zoom lets you do that. Image quality is excellent throughout the range. I doubt that you would notice any difference at all in a print made from shots at 300mm with the zoom and the prime or if you compared the zoom at 400mm and the prime/TC at 420mm. (Pixel-peepers could, under ideal conditions, perhaps differentiate between the lenses at 300mm by comparing side-by-side at 100%.)</p>

<p>For my part, I don't think that the decision between these options is really about "sharpness." You can get excellent, sharp photographs from any of them. It is more about how you shoot and what you shoot. Think that through first.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Edit: I'm probably with Puppy Face on the "splitting hairs" issue. I chose the 100-400 for my own use based on what/how I shoot and I'm very happy with it. Sounds like he is very happy with the 300+TC option as well. I think this supports the idea that it is less about IQ and more about functional stuff.)</p>

[romangolubenko]

<p>Thank you Puppy Face. What about x2 Canon converter with 300mm f/4 L lens. Is it same good as x1.4 Converter? Any experience maybe?</p>

[romangolubenko]

<p>Thank you <a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=3989561">G Dan Mitchell</a>! Situation with x1.4 is clearer now for me.<br>

And what do you think about image quality of x2 converter with 300mm f/4 L Canon lens..</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I have example shots at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review2.html</p>

<p>With a 1.4x, it's pretty much a tie. With a 2x on the 300/4 and a 1.4x on the 100-400, the 100-400 has a slight edge wide open (f8), but of course it's shorter (560 vs 600). Stopped down a stop both lenses improve and are pretty much equal.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>Unless you're using a camera in the 1D series, you'll lose AF with the 2x TC, so you'll have to focus manually, and you'll be restricted to fairly bright light, with a maximum aperture of f/8. Image quality will also degrade substantially more than with the 1.4x.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>As the differences in optical quality appear to be minuscule, personally, I would choose the zoom for its flexibility no doubt. It will allow you to get the framing just right and save you the hassle of popping on that extender.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>And what do you think about image quality of x2 converter with 300mm f/4 L Canon lens.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 2X TC is only designed to work with the f/4 lens on 1-series bodies. Other bodies need a minimum of f/5.6 to AF. You'll be at f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC and you would be at a maximum aperture of f/8 with the 2X TC.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I've got both, the image quality is pretty good for both. <br />100-400 <br /><a title="Red kite - milvus milvus by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4347125832_632006f073.jpg" alt="Red kite - milvus milvus" width="333" height="500" /></a><br /><br />300/4+1.4x<br /><a title="Red Kite - Milvus milvus by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4373114689_62569d04f7.jpg" alt="Red Kite - Milvus milvus" width="333" height="500" /></a><br />These will be similar crops.<br />Hope this helps.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I would avoid the 2x as it degrades image quality a lot and slows AF considerably. The 1.4x is pretty good but as Bob says I suspect it brings the IQ and AF speed down to about the same as the 100-400. I am a big fan of the 300 f4 as without a TC the IQ is very good and the AF very fast. I replaced my 300 f2.8 with it as I got tired of carrying such a big lens around. I am not personally a big fan of the 100-400 but it comes down to personal style. I do not like the 100-400 for it's 1 touch zoom and focusing and low (for L series) image quality. However, it is much more versatile than the 300 f4 - if you do not have a 70-200 then the 100-400 is probably the way to go.</p><div></div>

[romangolubenko]

<p>Thank you guys for helpful and presize information. I got even much more information than I expected. <br>

Thank you Bob, your 100-300 Lens Review simply wonderful.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I have a 100~400 and my son has a 300/4IS, and we have both 1.4× and 2× II Extenders. We have done some comparative tests, and on the basis of these here are a couple of further comments – based, of course, on single copies whose performance may not be representative.</p>

<p>At the centre, the 300/4IS+1.4× performs well, but towards the edges of the frame the Extender introduces significant lateral CA (even across a 1.6-factor frame). DPP knows how to correct this, but even after it has done so, edge performance is less good than that of the 100~400 at 400mm.</p>

<p>The f/5.6 limitation does not apply to contrast-detect AF in Live View. If you are working on a tripod and your subject is static, then this provides a slow but highly accurate method of focusing that works at f/8 and even f/11, so you can focus the 100~400+1.4× at 560mm like this. Results can be reasonably acceptable if you stop down a couple of stops from full aperture, and with a high-ISO-capable body and good light, this is a practical proposition.</p>

<p>‘Ordinary’, that is, phase-detect, AF with the 300/4IS+1.4× is slower than with the 100~400 at 400mm, giving an advantage to the 100~400 with subjects that are not static.</p>

<p>The 100~400 appears to be a bit short of 400mm at the long end, so the 420mm of the 300/4IS+1.4× is noticeably longer.</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>To add to Dad's comments above...</p>

<p>The 300 F4 + 2X is a non-starter in my book. I've tried and tried and tried again, since way back when with my EOS 3 (which was able to AF with that combo). I have never had a single shot out of it that I would consider acceptable. </p>

<p>The digital picture website's lens test charts suggest that the 300 F4 + 1.4X is better than the 100-400 @ 400, but my own experience is that the differences aren't big. The major issue is CA. AF speed is ok, but not blazing. </p>

<p>However, it is very rare that I'm tempted by the 100-400. At 300mm the prime is not only more significantly better optically than the zoom, but one stop faster and with better AF performance. I have the 70-200 F4 so the shorter end of the 100-400 is of little interest. The real killer blow<em> in my opinion</em> is the handling - the 300 has a much better weight balance, especially compared to when the 100-400 is set to 300-400mm. </p>

<p>None of these lenses exist in a vacuum though (regardless of the comparisons that may be made re the 100-400's dust-collection capabilities). What lenses will you be using it with? The 300 F4L IS quite naturally partners the 70-200 F4L lenses (plus a wider lens of course), while the 100-400 and 24-105 make a nice, wide-range combo. For travelling I can see the 24-105/100-400 combo making a great two-lens kit while I am carrying around the 24-105, 70-200, 300 and 1.4X to get the same coverage. </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I maybe partial to the 100-400 because I have owned it for a few years, and don't have any experience with the 300.</p>

<p>I shoot both the EOS3 and 50D.</p>

<p>I have made a few ventures of attempts to shoot Bald Eagles here in the Midwest. I was surprised at how much I used the zoom at focal lengths less than the 400 when the Eagles would swoop close and trying to capture "inflight" shots.</p>

<p>I expect the zoom would be a benefit in Alaska where I understand you will be reasonably close to the Eagles.</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>"The 300 F4 + 2X is a non-starter in my book. I've tried and tried and tried again, since way back when with my EOS 3 (which was able to AF with that combo). I have never had a single shot out of it that I would consider acceptable." I had exactly the same experience with that combination. If you can give up close focus and IS, the 400mm 5.6 is sharp at 5.6 and retains sharpness with the 1.4x, or at least my copy does. Even with the 1.4x on the 300, I stop down to f/8 or f/11 if at all possible.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>At 300mm the prime is not only more significantly better optically than the zoom</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Oh dear... </em>Wishful thinking at its worst.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/505740">Here's</a> one of your Bewick's swans taken with your "significantly better optically" 300mm f/4: <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/0136b7a1.jpg">here</a> and <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/muteswan1af.jpg">here</a> are Mute swans of mine - <em>at 400mm</em> - with my 100-400mm.</p>

<p><a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/horse1f.jpg">Dobbin here</a> is at 310mm, and <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/mandarin_fav_1.jpg">this Mandarin drake</a> is at 200mm.</p>

<p>And just for a laugh, <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/lapwing1f-1.jpg">this</a> is <em>560mm</em> - the 100-400mm + taped 1.4x Kenko TC on a 30D.</p>

<p>They're all handheld - and you'll notice a <em>versatility </em>subtext here too.</p>

<p>The 300mm f/4 significantly better optically than the 100-400mm? Seriously - not a snowball's chance in Hell...</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Keith - without wishing to get into a film vs digital debate you are comparing a (not very well scanned) consumer 400 ISO film image that is less than 600 pixels wide to a DSLR image. I have experience of both lenses - while I have never owned the 100-400 I do own the 300 f4IS. At 300mm there is a noticible IQ difference - this is not to say that the 100-400 is bad - just that the 300 f4 is better.<br>

Try this link as it is impartial and draw your own conclusions - it should not surprise you that a prime (stopped down 1 stop) beats a 4x zoom wide open. The real question is does this matter. stopped down (especially in the center such as on an APS-C sensor) you will not see much difference.<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2</p>