I'm looking at investing in a tele lens around 300-400mm. I personally just haven't found my 70-200 all that useful for my trips to zoo's and on nature trails, always running out of gas on the needed focal length.
The two zooms are certainly appealing, being that they are zooms and have more flexibility for those occasions where the subject moves closer/further to the camera. From my reading, the 70-300L is much (?) sharper than the 100-400 and also sounds like it has a much quicker AF. On the other hand, the 100-400 has the extra reach. However, there seems to be some consensus on the web that the 100-400mm is pretty soft at 400mm wide open. Of course you could stop it down, but that would required a lot of light and/or a camera that handle high ISO better than my current camera.
The odd one out is the 300mm prime, which by all accounts is superbly sharp and quick, and has great AF. Only downside is no zoom, so I'd be zooming with my feet which is not always possible.
Anyway, long preamble -- just wanted to ask for those here at DPC who have one of the above lenses, what made you ultimately pick that lens, since the others would've invariably been in the same discussion. Would you change your mind if you could do it again?
i wanted a longer reach and couldnt justify the outlay on a big canon so i got a sigma 50-500 for £400 works great for what i want and with a 1.4x (no auto focus on my 5d mkii) gets a bit extra reach
heres a pic from today with it handheld at 500mm, no edits just aperture import and upload to flickr
The 100-400mm *may* be softer at 400 than at 300, but at 300 it's arguably better than the new lens, and anything over 300 is icing on the cake, eh? I've personally never noticed a difference, in the times I've used it. I recommend it highly...
I second looking at the Bigma. It is a bit softer than the 100-400, but having gotten used to the rotating zoom of the Sigma, I just cant stand that push pull zoom on the Canon which I can't seem to get right while keeping the camera to my eye. Plus while the 400 to 500mm range matters a great deal, it is amazing how often that 50-100mm comes into play.
I sold my 300 and bought a 100-400. I'm happy with that decision.
You don't miss the constant f/4?
I found the constant focal length to be much more limiting. I used it mainly when shooting the Oregon Ducks. 300mm is no good when De'Anthony Thomas goes from being 50 yards away to 5 yards away in 4 seconds. ;)
Now, I am shooting with a 5D2 so I can jack the ISO to 3200 without too much degradation which does make up some for being at 5.6 on the long end.
My choice is the 100-400. I have used a friend's Bigma and it is slower to focus and not as good in low light as my Canon. In excellent light however, the Sigma takes excellent images. I like the idea of a prime and I may get one one of these days but I do enjoy the versatility the zoom offers. I handhold 99% of the time.
I have owned the 300mm f4 and the 100-400, to be honest I prefer the versatility of the 100-400, the 300 f4 is a quality prime and give exceptional results but is limited to just 300mm, the 100-400 produces good images and has a good range, nice Zoo lens, but if I am totally honest I would say you would get very similar results if you put a nice 2X Canon mmii or 3 on the end of your 70-200 then you have even more range
That, and the fact that the 2x extender comes with a 2-stop reduction, which would've rendered the lens all but useless.
A 70-200 I am sure is f2.8, so with a 2X it makes it a 400mm f5.6, the same as the 100-400. but if you've sold it then its already too late.
I used a 70-200L combo with a 2x and had great results then you put the 2X in your pocket and you have a 70-200 f2.8. Hardly 'useless'
ive got 1.4x use it with my 50-500 and af doesnt work but can manually focus fairly well in view finder or bang on if using live view of pre determined target.
