300mm for 100-400

[gobbiner]

First of all i only want to take photos of wildlife and nature ie Birds/Deer/Flowers/butterflies/dragonflies etc etc, ive been thinking of replacing my 100-400 with the Canon EF 300mm f/4 USM L IS, but i have this niggling doubt that i may be restricting myself too much what do you guys think good or bad move, im keeping my 100mm i love it thank you...Ray

[Muscat]

Re: 300mm for 100-400

I don't have the 100-400 which I am told is a very good lens but if you want to take photos of wildlife you may miss the extra length of the zoom if you go for the fixed 300mm. Having said that the IQ on the prime would be better than the zoom. If you go for the prime yuo may also want to consider adding a 1.4x converter to give you some extra reach and still be at the f5.6 you have on the 100-400

[gobbiner]

Re: 300mm for 100-400

you may miss the extra length of the zoom if you go for the fixed 300mm.

Thats what im afraid of it needs a lot of thought, though i must say my 100-400 is very sharp

[SamFisher]

Re: 300mm for 100-400

I have both lenses and find the IQ and versatility of the 100-400L make it a great lens - especially on the 5D2.
The 300 f4 + 1.4 extender is my weapon of choice when shooting wildlife with my 1D3.
I see that you are shooting with a 40D. If you take a look at my Red Squirrell images in Flickr or my website you'll see what to expect IQ wise with the 300 f4 on a 40D.
Most of my latest seabird images are taken with the 300 f4 + 1.4 extender.
Personally, I think the 300 f4 just pips the 100-400 for IQ but I don't think theres much in it.

Mike

[colin C]

Re: 300mm for 100-400

I loved my 100 - 400mm. Very sharp, very convenient and very easy to use.

However, if you are going to specialise, then you need the kit for the job. That means primes and the 300mm is most peoples starting point for wildlife and sport. Add a 1.4x and you can cover most situations.

Colin