Canon 100-400 vs 300 f/2.8 IS + 2x (!)

I am considering getting a used 300 f/2.8 IS with extenders as a possible upgrade for my 100-400 (no, I do not have the budget for a 500+). All the reviews I read about the 300mm, with or without extenders, were really good and it seemed like a no brainer to me.

Until I ended up checking on this: http://the-digital-picture.com/Revie...mp=2&APIComp=1

I do not know how accurate their images and tests are, but this comparison actually makes the 300mm + 2x look like a point-and-shoot against the 100-400. Which does not seem to make sense.

Anyone actually had the chance to compare both or could comment on this comparison?


Thanks.

Hello P-A.,
I own both the 100-300 and 300 f/2.8 (and 500 f/4). In the samples on the web page, note that the comparison of the 300+2x was done a 1.4x times further away than the 100-400. So in a comparison made at the same distance, the 300+2x would show a lot more detail and have more pixels on the subject. Also note that with the 2x version III, image quality is improved. Finally, did they do a microadjustment with the 2x?

In my own experience, the 300 f/2.8 is very fast at AF, the 100-400 not nearly as fast. My 300 has much higher image quality then my 100-400. For example, I imaged this very fast flying pygmy falcon with the 300 f/2.8 + 2c version II TC:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...60.e-1024.html
Most of the other images in the gallery were taken with the 300 f/2.8. It is a no contest for me: the 300 f/2.8 is my choice more and more these days (even over the 500). I'll take the 300 on my next Africa trip too (leaving the 500 home).

Roger

It is true that I forgot to consider that images might have been taken at different distances. I thought they were simply different crops taken at the same distance. That would explain the difference.

I am not considering the 500+ because of budget issues, but even if I had the money, the 300mm being much more portable is pretty much why I considered it as an upgrade (with extenders).

But you raised a point: micro AF adjustment. My 60D does not have this functionality. Are these adjustments significant and commonly required? In other words, am I looking for trouble trying to fit the 300 + 2x on a 60D?

Roger, If you only owned the 100-400 L and are buying a super tele now (Vr II), which one would you prefer, 300 f/2.8 II or 500 f/4 II? (obviously if cost was not an issue)
Sanjeev

P-A,

I own a 100-400 and used to own a 300 f/2.8 version 1. No comparison. IQ and AF responsiveness of the 300mm bests the 100-400.

Sanjeev,

I would opt for a new 500 f/4 over a 300mm now. Handheld, the 500 f.4 would be an awesome BIF lens.

Even with the 2x? It is actually the impact of the 2x that got me worried.

Ditto what Roger and Robert said! I own both. The 300 2.8, version 1 and the 2x, is FAR better, with or without the 2x. The 300 is fast, sharp and produces crisp images, when in the hands of someone who knows when to click the shutter. The 100-400 is nice for a carry around lens. Some here use only that lens and make outstanding images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanjeev Aurangabadkar

Roger, If you only owned the 100-400 L and are buying a super tele now (Vr II), which one would you prefer, 300 f/2.8 II or 500 f/4 II? (obviously if cost was not an issue)
Sanjeev

---

Hello Sanjeev,

More than a decade ago I had that choice and went with the 500. But pixel sizes were larger then and one needed focal length for more reach. With today's smaller pixels, it is a harder choice. I also do astrophotography and actually originally bought the 500 f/4 for astro work. Today I would probably go for the new 400 f/2.8 for astro work (if price were not a factor). For general wildlife, including large animals, I would go for the 300 f/2.8. When on safari on the Serengeti I have rarely felt I needed longer focal length than 600 mm (300 with 2x) and most of my images have been either at 300 or 420 mm. If my main subjects were small birds, then I would say the 500 (or better the 600). All considered, I would be quite happy with only the 300 f/2.8.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin

But you raised a point: micro AF adjustment. My 60D does not have this functionality. Are these adjustments significant and commonly required? In other words, am I looking for trouble trying to fit the 300 + 2x on a 60D?

---

On zoom lenses with lower optical quality, it is not so much of a factor. But sharp fixed focal length lenses, especially f/2.8, it is more of a factor. You could always test your setup. For example set up a flat target with some fine detail for focusing, and near it, set a ruler at 45 degrees. Take some images focused on the flat target and see if the focus on the ruler matches the position of the flat target. If it does, then your camera and lens are set. Or try my in-the-field methods: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/microadjustment/ as a check. Each lens can be different, so even if your 100-400 does not show a need for microadjustment, a super tele might. In that case, the only solution will be to upgrade camera bodies (e.g. 7D). Every DSLR has the capability to do microadjustment, it is a matter of software to impliment it. Canon should include it in at least the XXD series cameras in my opinion.

Roger

Actually it seems this feature was available on the 40D/50D but not on the 60D :2eyes2:

That being said, I thought again about the distance for the sample images on the site linked in my first post. If they did take the images for the 300 + 2x farther than for the 100-400, the number of pixels on the chart should be the same, so I am not sure I understand how it affects the quality of the image. I mean, if we were talking about 1km I would understand, but at such a short range?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin

Actually it seems this feature was available on the 40D/50D but not on the 60D :2eyes2:

That being said, I thought again about the distance for the sample images on the site linked in my first post. If they did take the images for the 300 + 2x farther than for the 100-400, the number of pixels on the chart should be the same, so I am not sure I understand how it affects the quality of the image. I mean, if we were talking about 1km I would understand, but at such a short range?

---

Hi P-A,

The 300 + 2x gets about 1.5x times the pixels on subject over the 100-400 at 400 (linear measurement). Look at the attached image. The 5DII to 7D image is a 1.5x difference in pixels on subject (linear measurement). If you want more detail on your subject, which image would you prefer? You would get a similar result with a 300 +2x TC versus your 400 mm.

Roger

Attached image is missing in action? :S3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin

Attached image is missing in action? :S3:

---

Hmm...that's strange. Here is another try. Yes, it shows in preview. I probably forgot to hit the upload button.

I understand the "more pixels on subject" part, but would a 100% crop of the 7D look less sharp than a 100% crop of the other 2 cameras?

Maybe it's because it's monday, but I'm really having a hard time understanding why the 300 + 2x image in the comparison looks so blurred compared to the 100-400 for a same-size image.

The reviewer at TDP is not very careful with critical focus, sometimes his results are inconsistent. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on his results.

Also the old extender 2X MKII (the one used for the test you noted) was not great when used wide open, the 2X MKIII is much better in that respect (see Doug Brown's review).

While I don't own or usually use a 300 I have used the old 300 with a 1.4MKIII and the new 300 MKII with the 2X MKIII. There is no comparison with a 100-400 in terms sharpness IMO.

Hi Roger & Arash,
Arash, You mean the 300 II+2X III is much sharper than the 100-400 L? Thanks Roger for your clarification.
Regards
Sanjeev

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanjeev Aurangabadkar

Hi Roger & Arash,
Arash, You mean the 300 II+2X III is much sharper than the 100-400 L? Thanks Roger for your clarification.
Regards
Sanjeev

---

It is sharper however it is not meaningful to compare 600mm vs. 400mm IMO.

If you want to compare the 300 with 100-400 you need to use the 1.4X TC.

I used the 100-400mm for a long time. I then briefly upgraded to a 300mm f2.8 (mk1) plus TCs before switching to Nikon.
After purchasing the 300mm, the 100-400mm stayed in my camera bag until I sold everything. It's just so much sharper, delivering images with better contrast, clarity and colours.
With the 1.4x TC you don't even notice the loss of AF speed, and it focuses much faster than the 100-400mm. You might miss the versatility of the zoom...but you will never look back.
The Canon primes don't cost so much more than the 100-400mm "L" zoom for no reason. :bg3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin

Even with the 2x? It is actually the impact of the 2x that got me worried.

---

In my experience/impressions, the 2x + 300mm still AF faster then the 100-400mm.

Thanks all for the comments. I was pretty sure it made no sense to believe the 300 + 2x would be worse than the 100-400, but the comparison from digital picture really got me worried.

I'll keep saving and will definitely consider it for an upgrade in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Amoruso

In my experience/impressions, the 2x + 300mm still AF faster then the 100-400mm.

---

if not faster, at least 'equal' in my experience :S3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-A. Fortin

Thanks all for the comments. I was pretty sure it made no sense to believe the 300 + 2x would be worse than the 100-400, but the comparison from digital picture really got me worried.

I'll keep saving and will definitely consider it for an upgrade in the future.

---

Remember that comparing the 100-400mm and the 300+2x is not comparing apples with apples. Even comparing the 100-400mm @ 400mm with the 300+1.4x is comparing 400mm to 420mm.

True. But since everyone seem to agree that AF is faster, and that IQ at 600 is similar or better than the 100-400 @ 400, then it makes it a worthy upgrade.