Canon 100-400 or 300 with Rebel?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Wayne, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. Wayne

    Wayne Guest

    I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
    with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
    lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

    Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you
    comment on the decision process?

    --Wayne
     
    Wayne, Aug 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cockpit Colin, Aug 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne

    Brian Baird Guest

    The 100-400 is a push-pull zoom, so that can be awkward. The 300 is
    fixed, but you can always throw a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on it without
    too much trouble.

    Better yet, he should buy both and send the one he doesn't like to me.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Wayne

    Frank ess Guest

    Depending on your current arsenal, you might add in the Forgotten 400:
    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

    The comparison to 100-400 frames are telling.
     
    Frank ess, Aug 22, 2005
    #4
  5. The 100-400 is a nice lens but it's pricey and it's a big and heavy beast.
    I like mine (here is a sample:
    http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1057.jpg)

    A better buy for some folks is the 75-300 IS (here is a sample:
    http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg)

    I tried some tripod tests with both of the above at 300 mm and the 100-400
    is sharper, but not so much as to justify the huge difference in cost. The
    100-400 also focuses faster; but again, given the cost, size and weight,
    many could be better off with the 75-300.

    If cost, size and weight are not issues, definitely go with the 100-400.
     
    Charles Schuler, Aug 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Wayne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    What kind of subjects do you have in mind? If you're shooting something
    like wildlife, where your longest lens is never quite long enough, then
    you might wish for the ability to go to 400mm rather than 300mm. That's
    one thing to keep in mind (I can't comment on the lenses themselves, so
    I'll leave that part to others).
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Wayne

    Wayne Guest

    I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I can't
    always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty good job (x1.6),
    but I would like to go out a little farther with 300 or 400 (x1.6).
    Thanks
    --Wayne
     
    Wayne, Aug 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Wayne

    Frank ess Guest

    The _Birds As Art_ man calls the 400 4.6L best for birds in flight.
     
    Frank ess, Aug 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Wayne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    I'd go for the zoom, definitely, between the two, then. I just recently
    started trying wildlife, and my longest lens is 300mm (x1.5 for Nikon), and
    I definitely found that I wanted longer. 300mm seems really long until you
    start pointing it at animals. :)
    That, too. Tripods aren't optimal for wildlife anyway; I think a monopod
    is a bit better as you have more freedom of movement. (I use a ball head
    on my monopod, though, which makes it less restrictive.)
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Wayne

    Frank ess Guest

    5.6

    sheesh
     
    Frank ess, Aug 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Wayne

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It tells me that this particular sample is defective, unfocused, or poor
    tripod technique was used. My 100-400 @400 is way sharper than that, at
    f/5.6.
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 23, 2005
    #11
  12. Wayne

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The 100-400 is a lot sharper than it appears to be; first of all, IS
    doesn't preserve tack-sharpness 2 to 3 stops; maybe only one stop. it
    is the low-frequency jitter that the IS works best on; not the
    high-frequency jitter, so lots of people are using the 100-400 at
    un-hand-holdable shutter speeds for tack-sharpness. I would put the
    100-400 (my copy, anyway) at having about 2.5x the angular resolution at
    400mm than the 75-300 has at 300mm. If you can get enough light for
    fast shutter speeds, or use flash, the 100-400 is still good with a 2x
    TC.
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 23, 2005
    #12


  13. Wayne,

    These were all taken with a DRebel (300D) and the 100-400 L IS lens.
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/100400

    I personally love the lens. It is heavy and the push pull zoom takes some
    getting used to but the results are treat IMHO.

    As to why I bought the zoom over a prime? Well look at the focal length
    numbers on the pics in that gallery and I think that will be clear. I
    wanted the flexibility of range that you can't get with a prime lens and I
    didn't have enough $ to buy multiple lenses or the desire to constantly
    switch lenses.

    HTH
     
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Aug 23, 2005
    #13
  14. Wayne

    Wayne Guest

    Rob--
    Thanks for referring me to the site. That shows very well the versatility
    and results from the lens. So far I'm leaning toward the 100-400 because it
    encompasses the 300 and looks favorably sharp.
    --Wayne
     
    Wayne, Aug 23, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.