Canon 100-400 or 300 with Rebel?

I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you
comment on the decision process?

--Wayne

I take it you've read the reviews on it?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

I note that some have commented that it sucks air (hance dust) through the
camera more than the average zoom lens.

Cheers,

CC

In article ,
says...
I take it you've read the reviews on it?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

I note that some have commented that it sucks air (hance dust) through the
camera more than the average zoom lens.

Cheers,

CC

The 100-400 is a push-pull zoom, so that can be awkward. The 300 is
fixed, but you can always throw a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on it without
too much trouble.

Better yet, he should buy both and send the one he doesn't like to me.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

"Wayne" wrote in message
news:ewrOe.4425$Hi.3283@trnddc04...
I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for
use with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the
body, either lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and
can you comment on the decision process?


Depending on your current arsenal, you might add in the Forgotten 400:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...tten-400.shtml

The comparison to 100-400 frames are telling.

--
Frank ess

"Wayne" wrote in message
news:ewrOe.4425$Hi.3283@trnddc04...
I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you
comment on the decision process?

The 100-400 is a nice lens but it's pricey and it's a big and heavy beast.
I like mine (here is a sample:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1057.jpg)

A better buy for some folks is the 75-300 IS (here is a sample:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1056.jpg)

I tried some tripod tests with both of the above at 300 mm and the 100-400
is sharper, but not so much as to justify the huge difference in cost. The
100-400 also focuses faster; but again, given the cost, size and weight,
many could be better off with the 75-300.

If cost, size and weight are not issues, definitely go with the 100-400.

Wayne wrote:

I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either
lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

What kind of subjects do you have in mind? If you're shooting something
like wildlife, where your longest lens is never quite long enough, then
you might wish for the ability to go to 400mm rather than 300mm. That's
one thing to keep in mind (I can't comment on the lenses themselves, so
I'll leave that part to others).

--
Jeremy |

I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I can't
always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty good job (x1.6),
but I would like to go out a little farther with 300 or 400 (x1.6).
Thanks
--Wayne


"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Wayne wrote:

I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use
with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body,
either
lens would give a respectable telephoto length.

What kind of subjects do you have in mind? If you're shooting something
like wildlife, where your longest lens is never quite long enough, then
you might wish for the ability to go to 400mm rather than 300mm. That's
one thing to keep in mind (I can't comment on the lenses themselves, so
I'll leave that part to others).

--
Jeremy |

"Wayne" wrote in message
news:ZPtOe.10312$g47.3112@trnddc07...
I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I
can't always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty good
job (x1.6), but I would like to go out a little farther with 300 or
400 (x1.6).
Thanks
--Wayne


The _Birds As Art_ man calls the 400 4.6L best for birds in flight.

--
Chopped Liver

Wayne wrote:

I would be using the lens for wildlife.

I'd go for the zoom, definitely, between the two, then. I just recently
started trying wildlife, and my longest lens is 300mm (x1.5 for Nikon), and
I definitely found that I wanted longer. 300mm seems really long until you
start pointing it at animals.

IS would be a plus, as I can't always use a tripod.

That, too. Tripods aren't optimal for wildlife anyway; I think a monopod
is a bit better as you have more freedom of movement. (I use a ball head
on my monopod, though, which makes it less restrictive.)

--
Jeremy |

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...

"Wayne" wrote in message
news:ZPtOe.10312$g47.3112@trnddc07...
I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I
can't always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty
good job (x1.6), but I would like to go out a little farther with
300 or 400 (x1.6).
Thanks
--Wayne


The _Birds As Art_ man calls the 400 4.6L best for birds in flight.

--
Chopped Liver

5.6

sheesh