300/4L, 300/4L IS or 100-400L IS?

[ken_riley1]

Could anyone who has used these lenses comment on the pluses and

minuses of each? Did you find the versatility of the zoom offset the

slower speed and lower sharpness? If you could pick one, which would

you pick?

[craven_weir]

For absolute sharpness, the 300mm f/4L wins out, a full 20% sharper than the IS version according to photodo.com.

[paul_kerfoot]

Ken

 

I own the 100-400L IS but neither of the primes. The image stabilization is definitely worthwile no matter which lens you choose. I have been able to shoot down to 1/125 second at 400mm handheld and get sharp images (Fuji NPH, Provia 400F). I doubt the 100-400 will be quite as sharp as either prime but it is very good to excellent, expecially stopped down a bit. The 100-400 lens plus my EOS-5 weigh in at about 5lb 6oz. The versatility to cover such a broad focal range handheld,at this weight, should not be underestimated. You get pictures you couldn't normally take. I'm beginning to think the 100-400L may make me invisible. Be aware the lens does zoom using a push-pull, not a twist, movement. I don't even give this a thought anymore. I would close by adding that foot zooming with a prime 300mm is non-trivial.

 

Paul

[bobatkins]

I've used all 3 lenses. Optically they are pretty much as you would expect. The 300/4L is the sharpest, but the 300/4L IS isn't far behind. You can see the difference on a resolution test chart, but it's hard to see on "real world" shots. I think the photodo numbers on the IS are probably a bit low. Perhaps they got a below average sample? Of course there's no doubt that the IS lens is sharper when hand held at speeds below 1/350 or so, plus it focuses significantly closer than the non-IS lens. The zoom is very convenient, much more so then swapping TCs on and off, but I think you maybe lose another notch in sharpness, plus a stop at 300. It's still pretty good though!

<p>

Which is best depends on how you shoot, what you shoot and how much money you have to spend. There's no one answer good for everyone.

<p>

BTW if you're looking for a used 300/4 (IS or non-IS) prime I may have one or know of one for sale. Email me at <a href="mailto: bobatkins@hotmail.com">bobatkins@hotmail.com</a>

[peter_phan]

I agree with Paul. I have the 100-400 IS and I definitely get shots that would be utterly blurred had it not been for IS. And I think it makes *me* invisible, too. You move into position, take a hand-held >250mm shot, then move on. I have a ton of fun with it at weddings, where you can keep your distance and take true candid shots of the participants. It really depends on what kind of shooting you do, but for me, after using IS, it's tough to go back to not using it. IS gives you lots of freedom, the 100-400 zoom gives you even more freedom. I personally value the freedom that the zoom gives me over the slightly sharper picture the primes give.

 

If I had either of the 300mm primes, I'd probably be yearning for the 100-400. But I have the 100-400, and I don't yearn for the 300 primes.

[knut_sverre_horn]

Although I'm a Nikon user, let me say this: There's no use in having the sharpest lens if you don't use a tripod all (or most of) the time. It's safe to say that most people (including professional press photographers) don't come close to realizing the full potential of their lenses. So, if you're not a tripod freak, get the IS version.

[garth_mcelroy]

I have been using the 100-400 for about a month now and I find it very versatile. For me the versatility out weighs the f/5.6 at 400mm. The IS is great if you cant use a tripod (on a boat or kyak). I have found my lense to be very sharp, and I have no complaints. This is also a great lense to buy if you are on a budget and need to be covered from 100-400mm. Now if I can only find a nice used 600mm IS.........

[alan_yeo1]

Having used the IS zoom lens, I would say go for the 100~400. The versatility alone is enough to warrant its purchase. Like Bob said, you will not notice any loss in sharpness in "real world" situations - unless the zoom lens is a lemon.

[bill_green2]

I guess it depends ... one lens is a 100-400 zoom the other is a 300 or 400 prime (yes, I'm a master of the obvious). If you need to cover the 100-400 range get the zoom. If you are buying the zoom to use as a relatively inexpensive 400 IS then I think you are better off with the extra speed of the 300. With the zoom you get 100/4.5, a 200/4.5, a 300/5.6 (useless) and a 400/5.6. The prime gives you a 300/4 when speed is important and a 420/5.6 with a converter when speed is second to reach. I will probably sell/trade my 100-400 for a 300/4 because the extra stop of the 300/4 is more important for me than the versatility of the zoom.

 

If you are into nature/landscape photography, one body along with the 17-35 and 100-400, a flash and film could be your entire kit for a trip.

[jeff_nadler2]

I've never had a published photo until obtaining the 100-400. In just 5 months I now have 3 so don't be so concerned with sharpness vs. the versatility of IS and zoom.

[clivecc]

I own the 300mm F4 IS and have rented the 100-400 several times as well as having played with a 300mm F4 non-IS. I also own the 300mm 2.8 IS.....to cut a long story short if you have the money get the F2.8 IS!!!!

 

Otherwise back to your question it depends a bit on what other lenses you own. On the merits I would definitely go for the 300mm F4 IS over the non-IS if you go the prime route. The closer focus distance and IS more than make up any slight (and this is almost non-existent) difference in optics to the non-IS. In the real world the features of the IS far out weigh the non-IS.

 

Between the prime and zoom......F4 vs. F5.6 shooting wide open is noticeable in backround blur etc. By how much only you can be the judge; but that depends on your shooting style. Optically I rate the 300mm F4 IS with a 1.4 TC about the same as the bare 100-400mm. You can get closer to your subject (higher magnification) with the 300mm IS + 1.4 TC so that wins for me. Also you will have better optics with the bare 300mm IS than the 100-400mm when you need it.

 

A lot depends on what you shoot the most. Do you need the zoom, or is it just a "nice to have" thing? Do you shoot wide open a lot...then the 300mm is better (and the 300mm F2.8 IS is even better). You have to ask yourself and then decide. They're both great lenses.

[marcus_erne]

I am not a Canon shooter but I recently aquired another OEM 300mm f/4 with the matched 1.4x and 2x TC's.

Having used a Tokina 80-400mm zoom before (sharp up to 300mm), I must say it depends on what you want to photograph.

As someone said there is a time for both, the zoom and the prime. The prime will give the best speed and optical performance and the zoom gives the versatility at a slight optical quality loss.

For somebody who doesn't want to publish this may be marginal. I for myself enjoyed both, the zoom AND the prime on my recent African safaris, but I had 2 bodies available.

[rick_phung2]

I had the 300/4L IS before replacing it with the 100-400L IS and have been very happy with the decision. The prime is slightly sharper (very slight). However, the convenience of the zoom was more important to me. BTW, I tend to shoot in situations where a tripod is not feasible. There are times when I think the prime could have produced a better shot, but was I willing to haul along the TC's and change the lens there and then? Nope. All the more reason for going with the zoom.

 

Which ever you choose, I highly recommend going with IS. You may seldom use it but when you need it (on a rocking boat deck, in a 'mobile' environment, etc.) you will greatly appreciate the flexibility it gives you.

 

As for the Photodo numbers, I take them as suggestive guidelines.

I find it hard to believe that a prime (300/4L IS, score=3.4) would actually rate lower than a zoom (100-400L IS, score=3.6). Even the 28-135 IS, which is non-L and a zoom, scored a 3.5. But that is all a numbers game...