ASU2003

I'm sorry that I have to make this quick, my laptop battery is almost dead.

I am looking to get either a Canon 100-400mm L (f/4.5-5.6)lens or a 300mm L (f/4) prime lens (and a 1.4x/2x extender when I need to zoom in closer). Does anybody have any thoughts as to which option is better?

THe prime lens has better IQ and f numbers, but the 100-400 has the ability to frame shots better. Although it may just be a skill to focus a 300 mm 20 ft away on a very tiny part of the image.

Thanks

fiatguy85

It would probably be helpful to know what you plan to use it for. Each could have it's advantages, depending on that.

Amano

There's only about a stop in max aperture, and the extender is only going to make it worse (granted you'll have massive reach). I use Nikon, so I'm not caught up on Canon lenses, but barring any HUGE differences in lens quality (which I'm assuming there isn't since they're both L lenses) I bet that you wouldn't notice any difference in IQ between the two.

I'd go for the zoom for the versatility. Also make sure you have a tripod or at least a monopod....

forseti-6

Tough to say without knowing what you'd be shooting.

Keep in mind, for the 100-400, if you use an extender you lose autofocus. For the 300 f/4, you'll lose AF with the 2x extender, but still have it with the 1.4 extender.

Obviously the zoom gives you more flexibility, and while I've never used either lens, you're probably correct in saying that the 300 f/4 has better IQ.

I personally wouldn't go with the 100-400, because it has a push-pull zoom, and to me that's way awkward and is essentially a dust vacuum.

Focusing shouldn't be an issue. That's what you have AF. If you're shooting at far away subjects, you'll be focusing towards infinity anyways, which doesn't make too much of a difference on focusing.

I'd be able to give you better advice if you let me know what your target subjects are.

__________________
"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

ASU2003

Thanks for the advice so far. I'll explain a little further now that I have some time.

I have used my little point & shoot as a camera until now. And it has 1x-10x zoom (28-280mm equivalent they say) And I would say 10% of my pictures are at this 10x range. For 5% of the pictures, I would like to get zoomed in even more, and 5% are in the 5x zoom - 9x zoom range. It is those pictures in that closer range that worry me about not having the zoom lens.

What I am taking pictures of... I am planning to keep this lens for 10-20+ years, so a wide range of things. The things I have taken pictures of before are sports from the bleachers, football (day and under lights, and I can't always move around to get in the right location), baseball, beach volleyball, hockey, bike races, Indy 500, olympics, golf, space shuttle launches, zoo animals, animals in the wild, birds around the lake, air shows, and possibly macro. The main issue is that I'm not sure 300mm will be enough for some of these events, 420mm (with 1.4x) would take a few seconds to put on or off. 70% of the time it won't be an issue, but there are plenty of times where I want to frame something that is moving fast. If an airplane is flying towards you, an indy car is going around a corner and your seat means that the corner is too close to get the full car in the shot, a bike rider is going from 500m to 3m away from you (I may use a close up lens in that case and lose the far shot). And then again, it might be my lack of photographic technique or vision that is the issue.

The thing is, I am looking for the sharpest pictures at the pixel level. I have to take lots of pictures to get ones that come out right where the fast moving object is sharp and in focus (and framed correctly).

And I am planning to get a full frame camera, so it's not going to be quite as zoomed in as if I had a smaller cropped sensor. I might be able to borrow a 500mm lens to do some test shots to see if I like having one focal length. Though I risk getting spoiled after seeing what it can do, and I can't justify buying a $5000+ lens now, I barely can justify buying a $2500 camera & $2500 for two lens.

This article is why I am having problem picking a lens.
Forgotten 400
The prime lens at 400mm in that review could be digitally enlarged to the equivalent of 600mm or 800mm before the blurriness equaled that on the 100-400mm zoom (at 400mm) at 100% (*I'm not sure if the test on that website was flawed, using a unfocused lens, focused someplace else, a 'bad' copy of the 100-400, or if it is a real result.). I run into this problem with my small camera, where there is so much noise that anything over 50% zoom looks blurry and noisy. My thoughts are that the 300mm at f/4 would be better in lower/worse lighting conditions, but would also have sharp pixels that I could digitally enlarge/crop a picture to the 400-600mm range if I couldn't get close enough. I am using a 21MP sensor for a reason . That article said that using the 300mm with the 1.4 extender would reduce the quality (probably to around the 100-400 level), but I would like to take or see a few test pictures for myself to really know if it would impact things a lot.

It appears that other people have had this dilemma before. It also doesn't help that you never know what Canon is going to come out with in the next few months. So, if they came out with a 400mm f/4 for $1500, well I would have to re-evaluate everything again.

forseti-6

ASU2003,

Well it seems for you application the zoom would be the answer. I shoot a lot of sports and use all primes for the super telephoto lengths, however, I also use two bodies (sometimes three) because I need the flexibility.

You are right in that using the 300/4 you might loose the wider focal lengths of the zoom. Personally if flexibility trumps image quality, I'd go with the zoom.

Canon does make a 400/5.6 that goes for around $1000. I've never used it, but it's fairly light and has excellent image quality. I wouldn't count on Canon ever making a 400/4 for less than $4000 - they'd lose too much money on their current 400/4. Also when you're talking about a lens like that, it's going to be massive and very heavy. I have a 400/2.8 and that thing isn't even hand holdable for more than a few seconds - you're shooting it with a monopod ALL THE TIME.

In terms of tele-extenders - try not to use them. I shoot for a paper here in NYC and even though I have a 2x extender in my bag all the time, I almost never want to use it unless I have no other choice. I use a 70-200 a lot and it's fairly sharp. You put that tele-extender on it, and it looks like you're using a $40 kit lens. The image quality drops THAT much.

Hope that helps out a little.

__________________
"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

Hektore

Is this the only decision you're making/what else is going to be in your kit? Anything?

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

genuinegirly

The lens ASU chose looks amazing - he showed it off tonight at our little meetup. I'd love to see some of the photos he has taken with it!

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy