Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2015 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stal...

  
 
rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


I really did try to search this but did not find much as maybe my parameters were weak. I purchased from a great FMer what has to be one of the nicest 300 f2.8 non IS lens left on the planet. It could pass for a lightly used year old lens. I have decided I enjoy trying to shoot small birds in trees and some ducks and geese in flight. The only time I usually get to shoot is very early morning so I don't often have perfect light. I am shooting a 7dII. More reach would be very helpful. IS would be helpful for the birds in trees. But the f2.8 is helpful to get shutter speed up.
If this was your two choices, what would you choose?
1. 7dII + 100-400II
2. 7dII + 300f2.8 + 1.4 extender

Your thought are appreciated!!
Greg



Mar 21, 2015 at 06:08 AM
danski0224
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


The 300 + 1.4x beats the 400 for maximum aperture. Looks like you lose around a stop with the 100-400II.

It also beats the 100-400vII for total mm's. It has been noted here and there that the 100-400 isn't quite 400.

The 300 2.8 non IS focus by wire is probably closer to the 300 2.8vII in optical performance than the 100-400 v II is.

There are several professional photographers here that eschew IS.

If I already owned the 300 non-IS and the 1.4x, then I would rent the 100-400VII to see if it was any better. It may indeed work better in some ways with the 7DII, due to lens and camera software optimization, but the f/2.8 lens will get the better focus points.

Check your camera owners manual for lens groups and focus points.



Mar 21, 2015 at 06:34 AM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


Given that you are FL limited and will need as fast an aperture as you can get, the 300/TC combo would be a better way to go IMO. BUT, you have given us no idea as to how stable you are at hand holding. If you're not very steady then IS could be a bigger win then pure reach and speed.

Agree with renting the zoom and seeing for yourself.



Mar 21, 2015 at 06:59 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


Well, you already have the 300/2.8L so I'd start with that. Based on your profile, you don't have an Extender yet, and so I suggest that you get the EF 1.4x Extender Mk II or Mk III, not Mk I. Also, it sounds like you could use a monopod.

The 300/2.8L + 1.4x provides slightly more reach than the 'bare' 100-400L IS II (420mm vs. 400mm), which is good, but offset by the lack of IS that you mentioned, plus it's a lot heavier (almost exactly twice the weight of the 100-400L IS II), but that's not a problem with a monopod. Also, since the 300/2.8L is twice as fast as the 100-400L IS II, you can use a 2x Extender and get to 600mm at f/5.6 for better focusing, as opposed to 640mm at f/8 with a 1.4x Extender on the zoom.



Mar 21, 2015 at 07:06 AM
dalite
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


Just pretend you have a 600mm lens and carry a tripod and gimbal head.


Mar 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM
8612i
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


I tried a 100-400ll and while very nice, I opted for the 300 2.8.



Mar 21, 2015 at 09:00 PM
rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


8612i wrote:
I tried a 100-400ll and while very nice, I opted for the 300 2.8.


Interesting read for me and thank you all. I guess a 1.4 vs II or III is on my list :-)
Have a great weekend!
Greg



Mar 21, 2015 at 11:15 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


I haven't used my 300/2.8 IS more than once or twice in ten years. Now with the 100-400 II, there is no use at all. I understand that some people do sports or other work where max aperture is needed though. If anything I'd look towards the 400 DO II as it is a 400 mm with very high IQ and with a 1.4x it is a very good 560mm at substantially less size/weight than the large teles.

EBH



Mar 21, 2015 at 11:41 PM
rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


I just grabbed a very nice looking 1.4 vs II. We will give that a shot.
Thanks for the advice!
Greg



Mar 22, 2015 at 11:22 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


rxgolf wrote:
I really did try to search this but did not find much as maybe my parameters were weak. I purchased from a great FMer what has to be one of the nicest 300 f2.8 non IS lens left on the planet. It could pass for a lightly used year old lens. I have decided I enjoy trying to shoot small birds in trees and some ducks and geese in flight. The only time I usually get to shoot is very early morning so I don't often have perfect light. I am shooting a 7dII. More reach would be very helpful.
...Show more

This is one of the classic lens conundrums. To start out, you can be assured that both options are capable of producing excellent quality photographs, so it isn't a question of one being "good" and the other being "poor."

The most critical differences here are not optical. They are functional.

For example, if you value flexibility of being able to work between 100mm and 400mm, the zoom wins. If you only need to shoot long and only at 300mm and 300mm plus the 1.4 TC, then the zoom might win. If you need f/2.8, the zoom doesn't have it. If IS is valuable to you, the prime doesn't have it. The TC gives you some flexibility with the prime, but you have to remove the lens and fit or un-fit the TC when you change focal length. The zoom makes the range of focal lengths available immediately. If it matters to you, the zoom packs smaller than the prime.

A good way to think of this is to take supposed image quality out of the equation. Imagine that IQ is exactly the same on the two lenses. (It isn't literally identical, but both are very, very good.) Now how would you choose?

Dan



Mar 22, 2015 at 11:33 AM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


I have a 300 f/2.8 non-IS I bought new back in 1993. Still one of the sharpest lenses I own, and it performs well for shooting action with a 1.4X. I was shooting baseball with this combo earlier this week and the results were terrific.

I would definitely utilize a monopod with this bad boy, however, or you are going to be suffering from camera shake as your arms get tired.

The 300 f/2.8 + 1.4X will give you about 420mm of reach at f/4. The 100-400 II looks like a great lens plus it has IS, but that loss of a stop would make it a non-starter for me.



Mar 22, 2015 at 12:44 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


rxgolf wrote:
I really did try to search this but did not find much as maybe my parameters were weak. I purchased from a great FMer what has to be one of the nicest 300 f2.8 non IS lens left on the planet. It could pass for a lightly used year old lens. I have decided I enjoy trying to shoot small birds in trees and some ducks and geese in flight. The only time I usually get to shoot is very early morning so I don't often have perfect light. I am shooting a 7dII. More reach would be very helpful.
...Show more
gdanmitchell wrote:
This is one of the classic lens conundrums. To start out, you can be assured that both options are capable of producing excellent quality photographs, so it isn't a question of one being "good" and the other being "poor."

The most critical differences here are not optical. They are functional.

For example, if you value flexibility of being able to work between 100mm and 400mm, the zoom wins. If you only need to shoot long and only at 300mm and 300mm plus the 1.4 TC, then the zoom might win. If you need f/2.8, the zoom doesn't have it. If
...Show more

Exactly. In decades past the IQ difference between zooms and primes was greater than it is today. But a missed shot from being too tight is still a missed shot. A prime lens of shorter focal length will miss less of those shots, but cropping more than a small amount quickly negates the advantage of the prime. With fine lenses like the 100-400 IS II, 200-400/4 w/1.4x TC, and 400/4 DO II, the choices are more complicated, but it is great to have those choices!

EBH



Mar 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM
Roland W
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


For birds in trees like you mentioned, and for hand held shooting, image stabilization can be very helpful. Even for some birds in flight shots it is helpful. I suggest if you are not yet doings so you use a gimbal head or at a minimum a monopod with your non IS 300 and a Canon 1.4 extender, and see if that works for you. Also, if you are always needing reach, a zoom is not to helpful, but for more general shooting, or when you get close enough, a zoom is priceless, as mentioned above.

I know that cost is always an issue, but for me I have both a big lens and also the new 100-400 II IS. If I need to walk a ways, I am very happy to shoot the 100-400 on either a 7D2 or a full frame. But if the light is low, or if the walk is not too far, it is the Canon 200-400 IS on a gimbal head.



Mar 22, 2015 at 01:17 PM
rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


As you each make points that seem to me accurate and logical this decision remains difficult. While there is no wrong or bad choice there are strengths and weakness with each. Having both seems like the best idea :-)). This will make no sense but when I tried a monopod I really seemed to have much more abrupt small movement than when hand holding?? I never shoot landscape without a tripod so maybe I need to accept this with long lenses and invest in a proper head for my Gitzo?
At the end of the day the main point is what was elegantly stated here. Either lens is very capable!!
Thank you all,
Greg



Mar 22, 2015 at 06:07 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


I shoot the 100-400 or similar lenses handheld sometimes, but otherwise on a tripod. I'm not a big fan of monopods for wildlife, though having the MH-01 helps with the heavier lenses to take the weight off. A 300/2.8 needs at least a Sidekick or similar to work well on a tripod.

EBH



Mar 22, 2015 at 06:17 PM
mmurph
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


Greg,

I have some physical limitations (bad disks in my neck), so I shoot on a tripod with gimbal 100% of the time for wildlife. (I use a tripod with a regular ball head with the 70-200 2.8 II for events.)

Others here will have their own favorites. I am very happy with the Nest Carbon Fiber gimbal for $327 shipped:

http://www.cameracottage.com/equipment

The fit and finish isn't stunning, like some of the $600 gimbals. But it is fairly light weight, and an absolute pleasure to use.

I am still trying to decide between a Canon 100-400 II and the Sigma 150-600, either Sport or Contemporary. As my season in Florida is almost over (back to Michigan April 15), I will probably wait a while to decide. Especially with taxes due in a few weeks.

Cheers! Have fun.



Mar 22, 2015 at 08:15 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


When it comes to 300 f/2.8 non-IS, I feel its days are largely numbered due to the following factors:
* The lens is really heavy by today's long lens standards.
* It has no IS
* IQ is good but not quite as good as 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, let alone 300 f/2.8 IS MkII. I also feel 100-400 MkII is sharper than 300 f/2.8 non-IS.
* Servicing problem.

Therefore, unless you shoot some sports (action) where a fast telephoto is really needed, I'd go for 100-400 MkII instead.



Mar 22, 2015 at 08:38 PM
anolis23
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


You also have to remember that the IS gives you 4 stops on the 100-400 ii, that is quite impressive. Also I wonder if the autofocus of a 300 2.8 with 1.4 tele will be as fast as the 100-400 ii (I doubt it, but I don't have the 300 2.8 combo) based on my experience with tele converters... The close focus distance of the 100-400 ii is also great, even if you mostly shoot far subjects, its still good to have the option just in case your subject gets really close to you.


Mar 23, 2015 at 09:53 AM
rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


mmurph wrote:
Greg,

I have some physical limitations (bad disks in my neck), so I shoot on a tripod with gimbal 100% of the time for wildlife. (I use a tripod with a regular ball head with the 70-200 2.8 II for events.)

Others here will have their own favorites. I am very happy with the Nest Carbon Fiber gimbal for $327 shipped:

http://www.cameracottage.com/equipment

The fit and finish isn't stunning, like some of the $600 gimbals. But it is fairly light weight, and an absolute pleasure to use.

I am still trying to decide between a Canon 100-400 II and the Sigma 150-600, either Sport or
...Show more

Sorry about the back :-(
I will take a look at the Nest gimbal. Thank you!
Greg



Mar 24, 2015 at 09:52 PM
rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Help please--100-400II vs 300f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 on 7dII for creek stalking


PetKal wrote:
When it comes to 300 f/2.8 non-IS, I feel its days are largely numbered due to the following factors:
* The lens is really heavy by today's long lens standards.
* It has no IS
* IQ is good but not quite as good as 300 f/2.8 IS MkI, let alone 300 f/2.8 IS MkII. I also feel 100-400 MkII is sharper than 300 f/2.8 non-IS.
* Servicing problem.

Therefore, unless you shoot some sports (action) where a fast telephoto is really needed, I'd go for 100-400 MkII instead.


Your results here speak for themself!!!!!!
I will consider your points very seriously!
Thank you,
Greg



Mar 24, 2015 at 09:53 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.