LHSebi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4625 times:
I am considering upgrading my equipment (lens) very soon. However, I am sort of torn. What do you guys suggest? Should I go for the 300 f4 with 1.4/2x converters, or for the 100-400? I have heard many good things about the 300, and obviously primes will give you better quality. I do plan on buying the 70-200 f2.8 in addition to these in the near future, so would it be smarter to go for the 300 now? Any advice is appreciated!
Mikec From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4609 times:
If you are talking about your main lens, I'd go for the one with the most flexibility - the 100-400. Having a 300mm prime as your main long range lens is a bit restrictive in my opinion. Excellent as a secondary lens to compliment a telephoto, but I wouldn't have a prime as my main long range lens personally.
If it were my money, I'd buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS first (it's not THAT much more than either of the two you mention), along with a TC (maybe the 2x to give you 140-400mm with it on, and retain AF). Then you have a nice versatile, high quality telephoto. You can then later compliment it with the 300mm f4L prime and then possibly get the 1.4x if funds allow
Jderden777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4599 times:
just got my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4x and absolutely love the combination...the quality is just amazing plus the versatility of the 2.8 is unmatched...i chose this setup over the 100-400 and am more than happy with it...i'm thinking i may even pick up a 2x sometime in the near future to give me a little bit more range, depending on if funds allow...
Tin67 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4561 times:
This is quite a common question and given that you intend to buy a 70-200 f2.8 in the near future, the answer in my mind is easy.
Buy the 300mm f4
When I bought my first L-Series lens I was limited on funds, so for me at the time it was any easy decision to go for the 100-400. I was still using film so was delighted with the results, although I never liked the push/pull zoom.
I found when moving to digital that the 100-400 was a little soft at the long end and when the budget permitted I changed to a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 300mm prime. Firstly the Sigma 300 f2.8, but then to the 300 f4 IS.
I find that my most used lens now is the 300 and more often than not I have a 1.4x extender combo. The results are better at this range that the 100-400 of that there is no doubt. When combined with a 70-200 f2.8 it's a far better option.
The 100-400 is the best alrounder and great value if you're limited to one lens. If not the 300 + 70-200 is the way to go, complimented by a 1.4x extender.
Flight55 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4550 times:
I also think, that 2,8/70-200IS and 1,4 - the best variant.
Unfortunately 4/300IS it is worse than 4/300, and to buy lens 300mm without IS probably does not cost.
100-400IS for such price - not a masterpiece.
Extender 2.0 (this general opinion of professionals) can be applied only when there is no other variants. www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check.php