As I might need to ditch Sigma 300-600mm F/4 in near future, I'm really curious about 300GM vs 100-400GM for sports. Tho I tried a new 100-400GM, I cant tell if it's really good or not.
arbitrage wrote:
I thought my Sony 200-600 was sharp for a telephoto lens above 200mm focal length until I got the 300 f2.8 for my A1Mk1. This is a godly lens. Auto focus is so fast, no focus breathing and super sharp.
?t=418
I used it exclusively for finish line in high school track and field. Even when cropped in, it outshine the 200-600 set at 400mm on another A1Mk1 here:
?t=440
I'm debating with myself about selling the 200-600 to pick up another 300 f2.8. It's that good. The closest I have seen in the Sony 135 f1.8.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread because I just picked up the 100-400 because I'm a gear whore (people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature). I half expected to want to send it back due to the f/4.5 and being nearly the same length as my 400 2.8 minus hood. I have the 300/400/600 primes. I did a bunch of test shoots for the contexts that I use the 300, and part of the reason I did a bunch is that I was trying to confirm my bias that I need the 300. At 300, I honestly can't tell any significant difference. I compared it to the 400 2.8 for fun, the difference there is still stark but vs the 300... there's really nothing there. The AF speed, rendering quality, bokeh... it's basically the same but you gain the flexibility of the zoom. It's truly the ideal partner to the 600. The main thing that gave me pause is that the 300 fits into a ballpark-legal sling with a body attached and the 100-400 doesn't, but it its the sling on its own and I can bring a second bag with the body and a wide angle (normally I'd bring the wide angle separately).
So, a lens I was sure would be a lifer for me, just left with FedEx to its new owner. With 2 grand net in my bank account.
The_Juggernaut wrote:
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread because I just picked up the 100-400 because I'm a gear whore (people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature). I half expected to want to send it back due to the f/4.5 and being nearly the same length as my 400 2.8 minus hood. I have the 300/400/600 primes. I did a bunch of test shoots for the contexts that I use the 300, and part of the reason I did a bunch is that I was trying to confirm my bias that I need the 300. At 300, I honestly can't tell any significant difference. I compared it to the 400 2.8 for fun, the difference there is still stark but vs the 300... there's really nothing there. The AF speed, rendering quality, bokeh... it's basically the same but you gain the flexibility of the zoom. It's truly the ideal partner to the 600. The main thing that gave me pause is that the 300 fits into a ballpark-legal sling with a body attached and the 100-400 doesn't, but it its the sling on its own and I can bring a second bag with the body and a wide angle (normally I'd bring the wide angle separately).
So, a lens I was sure would be a lifer for me, just left with FedEx to its new owner. With 2 grand net in my bank account....Show more →
"people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature". I like the way you think!
I believe it comes down to light availability. For me, I need 2.8 at least 9 times out of 10. 4.5 at my high school stadiums and inside school gyms won't be usable, and a lot of my shooting is fall / winter / spring sports with limited sunlight. If I was birding or shooting wildlife I would go with the 100-400 probably... But idk. With my 400-800 I almost exclusively used it at 800mm. If my lens is going to stay maxed out with its focal length, a 300 with TCs might make more sense assuming the IQ is better? Idk.
PMRTV has a few videos on the lenses.
?
?
Go 20 minutes in for the answer we are looking for.
Imagemaster wrote:
A 2x TC degrades images when placed on any lens. No ambiguity.
Technically true, but the end result largely depends on how sharp the lens is... and the copy of the FE 300mm f2.8 I tried with the 2x teleconverter was sharper at 600mm f5.6 than my copy of the Nikkor Z 600mm f6.3.
ps09 wrote:
did you compare it at 600/560mm with the 2x/1.4 tcs or just test the lenses naked?
I didn't mainly because my intended use for it is a partner to the 600 f/4. It's a good idea though, I'm curious to see how it will do with TCs. The 300 did amazing things, the big GM primes all have more resolution than the camera can see so the TCs have no noticeable impact to me. I'd put the 2x on the 300 and it would do things like the below, shooting across the entire ballpark. Would be neat if this lens is a usable 200-800.
A Canon 400 f5.6 was my first telephoto lens just over 20 years ago. I bought it used (well used lol) off Arthur Morris. I seem to like that focal length since I end up with the 1.4X on the 300 f2.8 more times than not. I didn't think I'd ever consider selling the 300 f2.8 but this new 100-400 has me considering it.
Quick and dirty test comparing with the 600 f/4, set it up on the gimbal in the back yard and pointed at a tree branch. Like the 400 2.8, the 1-4 can't touch the look of the big canon but quality wise... I denoised the 100-400 photos since with the 2x it went up to f9 and ISO had to go up to 2000 since it's later in the day, but otherwise straight out of camera... the rendering and sharpness is right there with the big dog! As much as I emotionally miss the 300 being my first really serious lens, I am comfortable saying I don't need it anymore.
Have a similar dilemma to others with this, looking at the 100-400 as an option
Have a trip planned to shoot sea eagles, 4 3-4 hour sessions over 3 days looking into lens options
Have the 300-600 f4 but isnt going to be suitable for this trip (size, weight and 15 frame limit) so was mulling hiring the 100-400 or 300mm (or both and run 2 bodies)
billsnature wrote:
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.
www.the-digital-picture.com has added 100-400 F4.5 to its lens comparison tool:
