BrianP wrote: Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I’m going to have to decide if I want to go with this over my 300mm 2.8 GM. I love that lens but switching teleconverters is annoying and because I do a mixture of landscape and wildlife I end up switching between my 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II, and 300mm 2.8 (with various teleconverters) frequently. This lens is bigger and heavier than the 300mm but with it I could realistically just use a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 on another and have my bases covered for wildlife and landscape.
Any other 300mm 2.8 owners in the same boat?
I am not going to trade the 300 for this. The 300 is still an f/2.8 lens natively. With a 1.4TC, it is a 420 f/4 (longer and faster than the 100-400 f/4) and a 600 f/5.6 (longer and faster than the 100-400+1.4TC). The 300 will also be easier to carry with you. I really fail to see the appeal. I said it earlier here, but if they followed Canon with the 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4TC, I could see it.
The 300mm is definitely an amazing lens. My only gripe with it is that it’s a prime and I’m much more of a zoom lens person. While this lens is longer, heavier, and not as bright the ability to simplify my set up with a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 4.5 on another for landscape/wildlife is very tempting. Currently I’m switching between the 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II, and the 300 GM with various teleconverters between two different bodies and it gets to be a lot. That’s the huge appeal for me. I do have to wonder if the 300mm 2.8 is really $2500 more of a lens compared with this?
May 13, 2026 at 11:13 AM
Previous versions of Swimming_trouble_718's message #17037551 « New 100-400 lenses »
