James,
what is it about us that we always have to second-guess our decisions LOL? After my review of the 100-400L, I began to think about the positives as well as the negatives. And to question whether or not there was an alternative that would give me most of what the Zoom would give me without so much weight. Keep in mind that I shoot almost 100% hand-held so that weight is a major factor in my purchase decision.
So, I decided to test-drive the Canon EF 300 F4L IS. This is also an older lens in the Canon line-up having been introduced in 1997. It has a first generation IS, good for about 2 stops of hand-holdability vs current models that claim 4 stops. It's not small but it is much lighter than the zoom. And, it can take the 1.4 Extender and retain autofocus as a 420mm F5.6 lens.
My first test day was limited to the back yard because of Holiday activities. So I did the best I could to test how it works in the semi-macro stuff I like to shoot both with and without the 1.4 Extender. This shot, of a Cloudless Sulphur, was taken with the extender and from about 30 feet away.
This shot of one of the Candelabra Plants was also taken with the extender from about 15 feet.
And this shot of the woodpile, also with the 1.4 extender, was taken from the other side of the yard.
Compare that with this shot taken without the extender to demonstrate how sharp the lens is at native focal length.
Day two I managed to get out a bit and stopped at a local pond where there were a number of birds hanging out. This is an Anhinga drying its wings. Shot with no extender.
Over at the pasture along which I like to walk the dogs, there were a group of Longhorns milling about. This bull got curious and decided to come over to visit.
This guy managed to look up when I took his picture but wasn't interested in coming over.
And this boy just wanted to pose for me. Very pretty guy.
All three shots were at 300mm.
My conclusion: the lens is sharp enough at normal focal length to not give anything up to the 100-400 and it's actually sharper at 420mm with the extender than the 100-400 at 400mm. It's faster at 300mm (f4.0) than the 100-400 at 300mm (F5.6). It doesn't have the flexibility or versatility of the zoom and it's too long in certain situations like shooting ring candids at dog shows were my 70-200 is ideal. But I'm primarily looking for a wildlife lens and I think it has a lot to offer for basically the same price as the 100-400 zoom. So, now I have a conundrum: which of these two lenses will provide me with the reach, IQ and portability I would like as part of my Wildlife Photography kit. I'll let you know when I finally make up my mind.
Jim
