Jemini wrote:
Thank you Sir. The 300 look fatter
Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
After three more days of shooting I think it may have a small advantage but I don’t think it is a big advantage. I only did some back to back of those two on Friday. Saturday/Sunday did more comparisons between 300/1.4 and bare 100-400.
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
Are you saying that the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (560mm) is better than the 200-600 at 600mm? Or do you mean the 100-400 is better if you can get 50% closer to the species and frame the same size? The latter would be expected, but I'm not sure about the former. The front end is only about 89mm minimum compared to 95mm for the 200-600. I so do wish the 100-400 were a fixed f/4.
arbitrage wrote:
After three more days of shooting I think it may have a small advantage but I don’t think it is a big advantage. I only did some back to back of those two on Friday. Saturday/Sunday did more comparisons between 300/1.4 and bare 100-400.
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
I don't expect a huge difference here. What do you think about 300/1.4 vs bare 100-400? I'm going to be a dual system shooter for some time (may be until we see Nikon's next move) and zoom fit my requirement at this point. I love 300. It's a hard decision.
Jemini wrote:
I don't expect a huge difference here. What do you think about 300/1.4 vs bare 100-400? I'm going to be a dual system shooter for some time (may be until we see Nikon's next move) and zoom fit my requirement at this point. I love 300. It's a hard decision.
I think the 300/1.4 has a slight edge. I was just going through sequences of martins and swallows IF and the 300/1.4 just have that slightly sharper catchlight. Again, they are close. AF hit rate is excellent for both. But I'd give the win to the 300/1.4x.
The 100-400 is really if one wants a zoom lens. Otherwise the 300GM can't be beat. It is amazing that even though the 300GM needs and extra TC factor to get to each equivalent focal length it still is just as good or slightly better than the new 100-400.
EB-1 wrote:
Are you saying that the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (560mm) is better than the 200-600 at 600mm? Or do you mean the 100-400 is better if you can get 50% closer to the species and frame the same size? The latter would be expected, but I'm not sure about the former. The front end is only about 89mm minimum compared to 95mm for the 200-600. I so do wish the 100-400 were a fixed f/4.
EBH
I'm saying the 100-400 with 1.4TC is better than the 200-600 in most ways.
The IQ is very similar if shooting a perched bird or a lens chart.
But the AF is better with the 100-400/1.4TC so for BIF I was getting much better hit rates.
The 100-400/1.4 is also way better balanced in hand and significantly lighter to handhold all morning long.
And of course the 100-400 can be a 100-400/4.5 which the 200-600 cannot.
The 200-600 is the value buy and if one is looking for reach to shoot more static subjects then it is a better buy. But otherwise the 100-400 is better.
The 300 is a classic for sure. I haven't seen any other lens thst perform this well with 2X. Your conclusion doesn't surprise me. Those new/extra focus motors in 100-400 may have slight edge with one less TC.
Thanks again. Happy shooting
arbitrage wrote:
I think the 300/1.4 has a slight edge. I was just going through sequences of martins and swallows IF and the 300/1.4 just have that slightly sharper catchlight. Again, they are close. AF hit rate is excellent for both. But I'd give the win to the 300/1.4x.
The 100-400 is really if one wants a zoom lens. Otherwise the 300GM can't be beat. It is amazing that even though the 300GM needs and extra TC factor to get to each equivalent focal length it still is just as good or slightly better than the new 100-400.
My 2 cents so far.
- the 1-400 plus tc is a killer macro combo for insects too, way better than the 200-600
- Af consistency is superior on the 100-400 plus tc than the 200-600
- My impression is that the 300f2.8 , even with converters is better to equal to the 100-400 depending on converter combo. But the 300 is a lighter, more compact package than the 100-400 and it's much easier for flight shots because of that.
- the 1-400 is a better flight lens for sure, lighter makes it easier to swing around and to handhold
- one thing that bugs me about the 1-400 is the creeping zoom. You can tighten with the switch, but I like the speed and smoothness of it in the loose setting. It's not a deal breaker, but I do have to ensure I zoom in as soon as I pick it up. It does creep very quickly.
- but as arbitrage stated, the 200-600 is value buy in comparison.
scott f wrote:
My 2 cents so far.
- the 1-400 plus tc is a killer macro combo for insects too, way better than the 200-600
- Af consistency is superior on the 100-400 plus tc than the 200-600
- My impression is that the 300f2.8 , even with converters is better to equal to the 100-400 depending on converter combo. But the 300 is a lighter, more compact package than the 100-400 and it's much easier for flight shots because of that.
- the 1-400 is a better flight lens for sure, lighter makes it easier to swing around and to handhold
- one thing that bugs me about the 1-400 is the creeping zoom. You can tighten with the switch, but I like the speed and smoothness of it in the loose setting. It's not a deal breaker, but I do have to ensure I zoom in as soon as I pick it up. It does creep very quickly.
- but as arbitrage stated, the 200-600 is value buy in comparison....Show more →
For someone leaning towards the zoom here's my perspective
- 100-400 + 1.4C is almost same weight as 300+1.4+2X (travel weight)
- Zoom is great if you mix large mammals and birds (a trip to Yellowstone or something like that)
- You can achieve 800mm in a pinch with 100-400 and 2X (additional weight and loss of light). Can't do that with 300
- AF at 560-600mm is pretty much same from what I'm hearing
- AF at 400mm is pretty much same
- After all 100-400 is way cheaper if you are buying brand new
I'm certainly keeping both 300GM and 100-400GM. Heck I'm even keeping my "old" 100-400GM. I'm certainly not buying a 200-600 nor 400-800 (even though I've never tried the 4-8). The 200-600 I've been testing against is my friend's copy. He has 100-400 on order (and also has 300GM). He said once I give the 200-600 back he will be selling it right away.
One cool thing I sort of stumbled onto with the new 100-400GM is I found some baby Pacific Tree frogs. They are about 1 to 1.5cm long. But there was a lot of leaves and grass in my way trying to shoot them when standing back at the 400mm MFD. Then I remembered that the max magnification is just as good at the 100mm mark....you just need to get closer. So I zoomed out to 100mm and got really close (frog was almost inside the hood...). Then I could get around all the leaves and get a clear view.
I recently shot butterflies at two gardens and compared two lenses: the 100-400mm and 70-200mm II, each with the Sony 1.4X TC. With perched butterflies, I have not had any issue getting physically close, so going in I was thinking that the 70-200mm might have an advantage in two ways: a higher maximum magnification, and the ability to stop down further before reaching the same aperture size as the 100-400mm. Based on about a thousand shots with each, the 100-400mm had superior IQ at f/6.3 even compared to the 70-200mm at f/8, and I also felt the OIS was more effective even with the longer focal length. I was surprised because I have always found the 70-200mm II very sharp. It could be that the 100-400mm is better a a close-up performer despite lower maximum magnification. The main advantage of the 70-200mm was size, sometimes the butterflies were close and I needed to zoom out or back up to get the shot, as well as giving others in the garden the space to walk by. Overall, I currently lean towards the 100-400mm for close up shooting with the TC.
In the near future I would like to compare maximum magnification on the 100-400mm at 100/200/300/400. I saw someone (Mark Galer?) show that the 100mm magnification was slightly higher than 400mm, but I also found that if I was too close at 400mm then a slight zoom out would solve the problem, indicating it's not a fixed MFD. With the 70-200mm II, my sense is that you get higher maximum magnification at 70mm and 200mm (better at 70mm), but in between it drops.
). Then I could get around all the leaves and get a clear view. 
