p.1 #1 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
I was hoping someone who has used both of these lenses for close-up shots can tell me how they fair with and without extension tubes. I am thinking of adding one or the other to go with my 400 f/5.6, and am interested in their none wildlife abilities.
p.s. I know it will be tempting to many to debate the relative worth of these lenses, but I have already read all those threads.
p.1 #4 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
Whenever I go out to shoot macro, the 100 2.8 is on my camera. But since I am looking to add something to my wildlife gear, I was wondering about the extra abilities of these 2 lenses. I have seen some cool shots by Trench with the 300 f/4 and was very impressed. Plus, when I am in macro mode, I would be nice to have something in the back to capture the larger critters - butterflies and dragons - that may be out of reach of the 100.
p.1 #5 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
I have used both and find the 300 f/4L IS to work the best for this kind of shooting. For flowers with a 1.4x TC it allows you to isolate the flower with good bokeh and still be used for any birds or wildlife you may encounter in the field.
I find it to work much better for this type of subject than a dedicated macro lens because of th IS and better DOF. The IS is great for HH shots vs a tripod for the macro in most cases.
p.1 #8 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
I have the 100-400 that I use for birds, but as I’m out looking for birds to shoot, I sometimes come across other stuff worth shooting. Here are some of the things I have captured with this lens and the DRebel(300D). I have been thinking about getting an extension tube to carry with me because it can be a pain to have a minimum 6’ focus.
p.1 #11 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
Great images!
I love shooting close-ups with long lenses, and use and have used 560 and especially 400mm lenses for that purpose for a long time.
If I use the 100-400 for close-ups, it's with a 500D achromat close-up lens. The optical performance is a lot better with close-up lenses than with extension tubes for most internal focus lenses, and in particular zooms. Teleconverters (1.4x, at least) also work reasonably well. The problem is that the lens corrections are based on a specific rear lens group to sensor/film distance with IF lenses, in contrast to conventional lenses where the corrections are reasonably OK over a range of lens to sensor distance (because that's how they focus). This applies to IF macro lenses as well; if you want higher magnifications with the 100/2.8 or 180/3.5 go with achromatic close-up lenses or TC's.
p.1 #14 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
I am a closeup "lover", and own both lenses. The 100-400L was one of the first three lenses I bought, and I use it extensively as a light all-purpose telephoto. I bought the 300/4 IS specifically for use in photographing large, easily-spooked insects such as damselflies and dragons. The 300/4 IS is much superior for that purpose, but the 100-400L will do, and is awesomely flexible for other purposes. For insect photography, I'll shoot the 100-400L on a 1.6 crop body rather than my 1Ds if I have the option.
For me, the 100-400L gives good image quality as long as used alone. I've never been happy with the results from a 500D, and definitely not with the results with a teleconverter. It does fairly well with extension tubes, and if I have them they are my preferred route if more magnification is needed.
The 300/4 isn't as flexible, but is completely awesome for dragon and damsel photography. The 300/4 does great mixed with anything--Teleconverters, 500D, I have even used it with the closeup adapter designed for the 50mm macro lens! Here are some shots with the 300/4:
p.1 #16 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
I was hoping that "close-up" ability would help me decide between the two lenses, and now it seems my decision is even harder since each appears to work extremely well. I guess have two good choices is never a bad thing.
p.1 #19 · Close-up capabilities of 100-400 and 300 F/4
I owned a 100-400, sold it and bought a 300 f:4. The difference in IQ was plainly visible, even to the untrained eye on simple, unprocessed shots of postcard format. In particular the 300's ability to record fine detail and subtle 3D shapes when shooting flowers. Now I am not generalizing, there may be finer copies of the 100-400 out there than mine was.
I also use the 300 with a 1.4TC, which works fine, but not with extension tubes
The lighter weight of the 300 also makes it a much more pleasant lens to shoot IMHO than the 100-400
