LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 7 Posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4899 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!
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
Mikec From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 247 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4883 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 United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1760 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4873 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 United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4835 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 Russia, joined Mar 2005, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4824 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