Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2016 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

johnlg
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

Hi all,

I have a (very) old 300mm f/4L non-IS lens - it's pretty sharp but I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading to the IS version, or even the 100-400 II?

I've been offered £260 for my lens - sounds good value given it was bought circa 1998!

The purpose of the lens will be a mix of wildlife and every now and then for motor sport. The largest focal length I have outside of this is the 135 f/2 but I don't really feel as though I'm missing much by not having anything between that and 300. 400mm would be nice.

Will be on a 5DSR

Cheers!

Apr 28, 2016 at 03:58 AM

technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

johnlg wrote:
Hi all,

I have a (very) old 300mm f/4L non-IS lens - it's pretty sharp but I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading to the IS version, or even the 100-400 II?

I've been offered £260 for my lens - sounds good value given it was bought circa 1998!

The purpose of the lens will be a mix of wildlife and every now and then for motor sport. The largest focal length I have outside of this is the 135 f/2 but I don't really feel as though I'm missing much by not having anything between that and 300. 400mm would be nice.

Will be...Show more →

I can't really answer because I don't have experience with the old 4/300, the new 100-400II and the 5Ds. However, I can tell you that the IS and AF of the 4/300IS shows its age. The IS is clunky and not very effective, the AF is slow compared to some of my other lenses like the 2.8/200L (used on 450D body). Also the 4/300IS isn't any better optically than the older version judging from most reports (better close-up, but not at longer distance).

The 4/300IS is a pretty old design that is ripe for an upgrade, hopefully a DO version like the Nikon 4/300PF. I'm considering switching my 4/300IS to a 100-400II, but only after I buy a new body like 80D that takes better advantage of the 100-400. The better AF/IS and extra reach of the zoom is nice, but the high cost and significant weight increase (plus loosing almost a stop in aperture) is making it a tough decision.

My other upgrade option is a Nikon D500 + 4/300PF, without a doubt better AF, better IS and much lower weight :-)

Apr 28, 2016 at 04:58 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

No question, get the 100-400L IS II.

Apr 28, 2016 at 05:07 AM

Morgo
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

Thats an easy choice, get the 100-400 II

Apr 28, 2016 at 06:24 AM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

I've never used the 300mm f/4, but I have both the 300mm f/4 IS and the 100-400mm Mk II.

It's true that the 300mm f/4 IS could be better optically. I sometimes see purple fringing on specular highlights, and when I first got it I was horrified to see the contrast wide open was actually lower than the adapted OM Zuiko 300mm f/4.5 from the 1970s that I was still using then. However I do still prefer it sometimes over the zoom, not only because it's a stop faster at 300mm but also because the ergonomics and convenience is much better. This is not just slightly - it's lighter, has a convenient built-in hood, more comfortable and better sized grip, better positioned switches, and a proper removable tripod ring. I carried the 300 and my 100mm Zeiss shooting architecture last week instead of the 100-400 - that might tell you something.

However, for your intended wildlife use the 100-400 Mk II is what you should get because of the ability to zoom and the modern IS, which really is better than the old IS. Also, I used to use the 300 on a 1.4x Mk II converter a fair bit, and the effect of the converter image quality was noticeable. I would never go back to it now for wildlife.

I'd take the £260 and not look back.

Apr 28, 2016 at 06:25 AM

technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

melcat wrote:
I've never used the 300mm f/4, but I have both the 300mm f/4 IS and the 100-400mm Mk II.

It's true that the 300mm f/4 IS could be better optically. I sometimes see purple fringing on specular highlights, and when I first got it I was horrified to see the contrast wide open was actually lower than the adapted OM Zuiko 300mm f/4.5 from the 1970s that I was still using then. However I do still prefer it sometimes over the zoom, not only because it's a stop faster at 300mm but also because the ergonomics and convenience is much better....Show more →

I used the OM Zuiko 4.5/300mm too for many years; looking at my slides it had a bit more PF wide open, but definitely better contrast and sharpness than the Canon. But I haven't used the Zuiko on my DSLRs, sold it before Canon adapters became available so cannot make a direct comparison. Looking at DXO ratings the 4/300 isn't the right lens for current high resolution sensors ...

I dread the increased weight of the 100-400II and always use my 4/300IS without the tripod ring/grip. On the other side, I now often have the 2.8/100L, 2.8/200 and 4/300IS in the bag as they all have their specific uses - replacing them with the 100-400II would enable a lighter bag while having similar capabilities (except 1:1 macro or shooting wide open, which I don't use often).

Apr 28, 2016 at 06:42 AM

johnlg
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

Thanks everyone.

I'd not really factored in the additional weight to the 100-400 - 'only' about 300g by the look of it, but very noticeable!

How is the 100-400 wide open? My 300 isn't great, though that that's probably affected by me at that shallow DoF. Fringing has always been an issue on it.

Apr 28, 2016 at 07:15 AM

Photonadave
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

+1 100-400mm IS II and all responses above.

I've had all 4 of these lenses. Yes 4, both versions of the 300mm non-IS, the IS version and the 100-400mm IS II. I no longer have the 2 non-IS 300s.

The older 300mm non-IS version had a non-locking when extended hood and a later production version with an optical change & locking extended hood. That non-locking hood was a bit of a pain!

Compared to the non IS 300mm the IS version focuses closer, faster, better tripod ring, locking when extended hood and optically the same for all practical purposes. Oh yeh, and the IS!

Compared to the 300mm IS the 100-400mm IS II focuses much closer, maybe focus faster, is sharper (especially wide open) and better in every other way except perhaps for weight (comes with the territory) and I would have preferred a fully removable tripod ring. Also the 100-400mm IS II is a little shorter at 100mm and slightly larger in diameter.

Apr 28, 2016 at 07:41 AM

johnlg
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

Photonadave wrote:
+1 100-400mm IS II and all responses above.

I've had all 4 of these lenses. Yes 4, both versions of the 300mm non-IS, the IS version and the 100-400mm IS II. I no longer have the 2 non-IS 300s.

The older 300mm non-IS version had a non-locking when extended hood and a later production version with an optical change & locking extended hood. That non-locking hood was a bit of a pain!

Compared to the non IS 300mm the IS version focuses closer, faster, better tripod ring, locking when extended hood and optically the same for all practical purposes. Oh yeh, and...Show more →

So it sounds like swapping the non-IS for IS is a complete waste of time if they are optically similar.

I had decided on the 100-400 II, but then thought there could be a cheaper solution - sounds like that may have been wishful thinking. I'm left only worrying that I'll lose something with only an f/5.6 lens?

Apr 28, 2016 at 07:45 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

Photonadave wrote:
... both versions of the 300mm non-IS, the IS version and the 100-400mm IS II. I no longer have the 2 non-IS 300s.

The older 300mm non-IS version had a non-locking when extended hood and a later production version with an optical change & locking extended hood. That non-locking hood was a bit of a pain!

Hi Dave, according to Canon, there's only one optical formula for the non-IS 300/4L lens. I don't know about hood upgrades, but all of my experience with Canon stuff suggests that they would have published a new optical diagram, if it was introduced. Also, it was only in production for six years, which doesn't give much time for a serious optical re-design.

Apr 28, 2016 at 07:53 AM

dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

For general purpose wildlife I would get the 100-400mm v2 without any hesitation.
Despite any great performance you would see with the 300mm, the fixed focal length is too limiting for wildlife and motosport action, IMO.

WIth the 5DSR I doubt you will loose much with a f/5.6 lens (at 400mm), compared to what you will gain.
OTOH, why not get the 200-400mm f/4?

Apr 28, 2016 at 07:54 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

It is hard to think of an advantage for the 300mm these days, except possibly for price. The newer 100-400 produces excellent image quality, has IS, packs smaller, and is more versatile.

Dan

Apr 28, 2016 at 07:58 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

The 300/f4 is is a good lens but not sharp compared to newer long prime lens. The 100-400 is sharper than the 300/f4 IS.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=111&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=972&FLIComp=2&CT=AVG

The only reason you would prefer 300/f4 IS over 100-400 is the one stop. However, I find that 300 is mostly too short for my wildlife and the 100-400 is a better choice because even though you would most use it at 400, its good at 300 (or 200 or 100).

I would get the 100-400 v2 over the 300/f4 IS and just push it up in iso when needed.

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:00 AM

jhg photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

I once had the 4.0 300 mm L IS and replaced it with the 100-400 mm L v1 for flexibility. Sharpness was about equal at 300 mm and with 1.4x tc 420 mm was slightly worse than 400 mm on the zoom.
Having moved to the new 100-400 mm L IS v2 was the best decision. Now, I have flexibility and superior image quality in one package. It is really a fine piece of equipment.

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:07 AM

johnlg
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

dgdg wrote:
OTOH, why not get the 200-400mm f/4?

That would be great, and so affordable

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:12 AM

svassh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

Just a thought! I was considering a 100-400 II or even a version I which is reasonable priced these days. I went with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary under $1K US pretty sharp, seems to track focus well. It certainly allows some shots I never would have considered before and is just all around fun to shoot with.

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:15 AM

technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

johnlg wrote:
Thanks everyone.

I'd not really factored in the additional weight to the 100-400 - 'only' about 300g by the look of it, but very noticeable!

Maybe even more difference in practice: the 4/300IS is officially 1190 gram but removing the tripod ring saves about 110 grams.

According to official spec the 100-400II is 1570 grams, don't know if that includes the tripod mount/ring but I don't think there is much that can be removed. Does anyone know what the minimum weight is in practice?

---------------------------------------------

Scott Stoness wrote:
The only reason you would prefer 300/f4 IS over 100-400 is the one stop. However, I find that 300 is mostly too short for my wildlife and the 100-400 is a better choice because even though you would most use it at 400, its good at 300 (or 200 or 100).

I would get the 100-400 v2 over the 300/f4 IS and just push it up in iso when needed.

Agree for general wildlife use where the additional reach (and being able to use a 1.4x TC with very little IQ loss) is important. However, for some special applications like (flying) dragonflies and butterflies, the lower weight and smaller size of the 4/300 can be an major advantage. It's easier to move quickly for pointing/tracking, or hold for an extended period of time.

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:22 AM

dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

It's all about incremental compromises/advantages.
Some have complained about the Sigma's 600mm sharpness and tracking ability. YMMV. Worth a try.

The 100-400mm v2 is probably the best all arounder for your needs since you are adamant about not getting the 200-400 f/4.

David

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:29 AM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

technic wrote:
According to official spec the 100-400II is 1570 grams, don't know if that includes the tripod mount/ring but I don't think there is much that can be removed. Does anyone know what the minimum weight is in practice?

Including hoods and caps the zoom weighs 37% more:

300mm f4 IS 1240g (tripod ring removed)
100-400mmm Mk II 1702g (tripod foot removed)

I measured this with my kitchen scales. The zoom's hood alone is 87g.

The 300 is slightly longer, but because the zoom's hood is stored reversed and it flares out the zoom is much wider. The 300 fits snugly, even with the tripod ring attached, in my old LowePro lens case. The zoom really needs the hood to be removed if you don't want to risk damaging that, and won't fit at all with both the hood and foot fitted. I have not yet found a nice case for the zoom so in practice I stow the hood separately, loose.

(I don't like the supplied Canon cases because they contain PVC. They also lack weather flaps over the zips.)

Apr 28, 2016 at 08:48 AM

technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Upgrade 300mm f/4 L USM or 100-400?

melcat wrote:
Including hoods and caps the zoom weighs 37% more:

300mm f4 IS 1240g (tripod ring removed)
100-400mmm Mk II 1702g (tripod foot removed)

I measured this with my kitchen scales. The zoom's hood alone is 87g.

My 4/300 IS weighs 1200 grams without tripod ring on the digital kitchen scale; my 2.8/200mm II weighs exactly the official 765 grams (without caps/hood) so I guess the scale is pretty accurate. Maybe your kitchen scale is overestimating weight slightly?

Anyway, your measurement suggests that the official Canon weight spec is without all the parts that can be removed, and the weight penalty with the 100-400II is in practice pretty big. And thanks for mentioning the size, I would need a new camera bag as well if I upgrade to 100-400II ...

Apr 28, 2016 at 09:47 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

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