100-400 vs 300 2.8+1.4 tc?

[prncfarquad]

OK I know they are apples/oranges but I wanted to get some opinions.

The main genre I shoot is sports but when I go to the hunting lease my camera is what I shoot not a gun.

Right now I have the 100-400L and have not used it much because of its lack of ability to handle low light. My son has a ton of evening/night games plus last year no wildlife came out until dusk. During the day with good light this lens is great. not so much later unless you bump the ISO way up.

So if you had the choice of a 100-400 vs. a 300 2.8 +- 1.4 tc wich would you prefer? I know the 300 is a great sports lens but what about wildlife with and without the tc?

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Jim Victory]

The 300 f/2.8l + 1.4x TC puts you at 420mm and f/4. The 100-400 @400mm is at f/5.6.

Your going to get more light with the 300 + TC than the 100-400 and the 300@f/4 is still very sharp. If you stopped it down to f/5.6 it will be sharper than the 100-400 wide open.

In addition you have the option of adding a 2x TC and getting to 600mm @ f/5.6. If you stop it down to f/7.1 you will have a very sharp 600mm lens.

Here is the 300 + 2x TC @ f/5.6:



Here is the 300 + 1.4x @ f/4:

[prncfarquad]

Excellent Jim! Thank you for the examples.

[PEC]

My cameras AF faster when i had the 300 2.8 versus the 100-400L... Really no contest in sharpness, not a fair comparison... 300 2.8's have historically, across brands been one of the sharpest prime out there. That said, there are situations (safari's in Africa) where the dust makes it bothersome to change lenses where the 100-400 is much more practical.

Best IQ = 300 2.8 (even with TC 1.4)
Easiest to use on an outing to the zoo = 100-400

Another option might be the 120-300 Sigma 2.8 I haven't had it but have seen nice sharp pictures (I think there is a bit more sample variation, but a good copy is good :))

[ptrd]

OT: Nice pics of Ft worth Zoo Jim :)

[ldelacruz]

Patrick,
I agree with the others on the 300 & TC's. Plus it will be more versatile for what you will use it for.

[crbeveri]

I agree with what the others are saying and I base this on personal experience. I used a 100-400 to shoot a pro soccer game and it was just 2 slow imo. I now own a 300 2.8 and will never replace it I feel. I have tried both the 100-400 and 300 f/4 and have to say even with the 1.4x the 300 2.8 blows them away imo. The 100-400 is a very nice lens but in low light it is just to slow. If you can find a good used 300 2.8 for 3-4k you got yourself a deal.

[PEC]

Jim great shots!

One other thought - I used to shoot with a 300 2.8 and while it was incrediable, I found that I often would not hike alot with it for my wildlife shooting - too heavy with all the other 2.8 glass also required me to go to the very large backpacks to carry it. I ended up selling it to fund my d700 and 300/4 ;)

The 300/4 is almost as sharp open wide albeit 1 stop slower... the d700 allows me to use the higher ISO to keep my shutter speed where I need it.

Personal preference :)

[wapiti]

IMO, this is a "no brainer". The 3002.8 /TC1.4.

[CtrlAltDel]

Bummed...not liking what im reading here............just bought a 100-400L

[prncfarquad]

Thanks to all who have commented. I think I knew the answer in my head was just wanting confirmation before I moved some equipment to make room for the purchase.

Wayne, don't get down on the purchase. I just felt for my specific needs it wasn't cutting it. I have seen some wonderful photography by others and have captured some great images with this lens. Check out the 100-400 sample thread. You will notice though that there are no baseball or football shots under lights in there though

[Siv]

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

Bummed...not liking what im reading here............just bought a 100-400L

Remember that they are comparing the $1.5k 100-400 with a $4.5k 300/2.8 (i.e. a lens that is at least 3x the price).

[Jim Victory]

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

Bummed...not liking what im reading here............just bought a 100-400L

Don't be the 100-400 is an outstanding lens and very versatile. I own one and wouldn't sell it for anything. I have gotten some good shots with it when I didn't want to haul my 500 or 600 around.

Here is 3 examples with the last one at ISO 6400 on a 7D.

[prncfarquad]

Originally Posted by Jim Victory

Don't be the 100-400 is an outstanding lens and very versatile. I own one and wouldn't sell it for anything. I have gotten some good shots with it when I didn't want to haul my 500 or 600 around.

I was hoping you would chime in Jim. Your images are always top notch!

This is what I was talking about Wayne. I am just considering the change to help with my low light images and focus speed for my sports.