Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
300 F4 + 1.4x Vs 100-400 @400  
User currently offlineHarryImp From UK - England, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Hi all,
I was wondering if people could help me.
I was looking into new lenses and was wondering, which is sharper/better AF, out of the 300 f4 with a 1.4x Teleconvertor, or the 100-400 at 400mm?

Thanks
Harry

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6727 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

I presume you want the 300f4 rather than just going for the 400f5.6? (herein another debate)

Some users here say the 300+1.4 is sharper than the 100-400 @ 400, but the 400f5.6 will be sharper than the 300+1.4. The only downside is no IS. I expect that any differences may be obvious if you did large prints, but you'd otherwise need a magnifying glass to see any difference.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ZbZv



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineHarryImp From UK - England, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3252 times:

Many thanks. I am really very interested in the 400 f/5.6 too, but I go to air bases a lot, and I think that being stuck at 400 all the time, may just be a little long, so the 300 with converter is more flexible?

What about the Autofocus?

Many thanks
Harry


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6727 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3240 times:

I've no experience so I can only go on what I've read.

From what I read the AF is slowed by the IS, but with the shutter speeds you're likely to be using you're unlikely to use IS.

For your purposes the most flexible will be the 100-400 rather than taking the t/c on and off, but the AF on the 300 alone will be faster than on the 100-400. Now, how many fractions of a second difference probably isn't a readily available number.

You may have to hire them and try them out before committing to one or the other.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

I did a very careful comparison of this before selling my 100-400. The 300 with the 1.4 was certainly as good, arguably a little sharper. And that was with a Mk.1 convertor. Presumably with a mk 2 or 3 convertor it will be better.

AF is slowed down by the convertor a bit, BUT the 300 on its own focuses better than the 100-400, so I'd say there's not much in it when you attach the convertor.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10023 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3210 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 4):
Presumably with a mk 2 or 3 convertor it will be better.

I have the 300 F4 IS and 1.4x Mk3. The 300 on its own is great - very sharp. I'm not sure I'll actually be using it with the 1.4 ever. Seems that sharpness takes too large a hit - might be able to use the 300 alone and crop, and still end up with a better photo.

But to be fair, I haven't played around with the combo a whole lot yet, and it could simply be that I haven't learned to shoot well with it.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineHarryImp From UK - England, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 3142 times:

Thanks, its a tricky one, as I need one lens that can cover between 300 and 400 with good sharpness, for less than £1000. So basically, 300 sometimes too short, 400 sometimes too long, and the 100-400 lacks quality!!

Harry


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10023 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HarryImp (Reply 6):
and the 100-400 lacks quality!!

Why would you say that? Tons of airplane photographers use the 100-400....

Consider also that you'll have to be swapping the 1.4 in and out. That gets to be a bit of an annoyance after awhile, if you have to do it frequently.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineHarryImp From UK - England, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3139 times:

Compared to a prime, it does lack quality does it not?

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 28-300 Is USM Vs. 100-400 Is USM posted Wed Sep 28 2005 19:16:27 by Stefan
300 F4+1.4 Vs 100-400 posted Wed Mar 30 2005 23:56:34 by LHSebi
Canon Converter 1,4x With 100-400 L Is F/5,6 posted Tue Aug 15 2006 19:35:56 by Coninpa
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
300mm 2.8 Is Vs 100-400 Is posted Sun Mar 14 2004 23:05:29 by Planedoctor
Canon 70-200 Vs 100-400 L Lens posted Sun Oct 13 2002 23:35:28 by Fly-K
Can't Decide - 100-400 L Or Sigma 100-300 F4 EX? posted Sat Nov 28 2009 07:07:30 by JakTrax
Contrail Shots With The 100-400 + 1.4x? posted Wed Dec 5 2007 10:00:35 by Deaphen
Canon 100-400 Or 300 L Or 400 L? posted Sat May 13 2006 00:37:44 by LHRSIMON
Sigma 80-400 VS Canon 100-400 posted Tue Sep 13 2005 22:03:56 by Mrk25