I'm looking for a new lens that will give me a bit more reach than my EF 70-200mm f/4 L for photographing wildlife (i.e. ducks, squirrels, etc.). I've excluded the 100-400mm L as I don't like the push pull and the 400 mm f5.6 due to it's lack of IS. I can't afford any of the faster L telephotos or those with longer reach.
EF 300mm f/4L advantages
* faster lens 4.0 vs 5.6 at 300mm
* compatible w/ Canon extenders
* slightly better sharpness at 300 mm?
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L advantages
* $80 cheaper $1269 vs $1349
* more versatile (range of focal lengths)
* more compact (travel friendly)
Did I miss anything. I appreciate any and all opinions/comments. Thanks!
A few observations that may or may not make a difference. First, depending on what you shoot, I doubt the difference in sharpness between the 70-300 and 300 is noticeable most of the time. Second, the speed advantage of the prime might be outweighed by the superb IS in the 70-300L (simply as a piece of machinery the 70-300L is pretty wonderful). Third, it seems a bit odd to have both a 70-200 and a 70-300, given the considerable overlap - it may make sense to buy the 70-300 and sell the 70-200. Fourth, you could reduce the overlap by reconsidering the 100-400 (the push-pull mechanism may grow on you; I rather liked it when I rented one a few weeks ago) or reduce it even further by stepping outside Canon and considering the reincarnated Bigma (i.e., the OS version of their 50-500mm), though it is rather big and heavy. I've attached a photo of a hawk I spotted one lunch hour while wandering around Independence Mall in Philadelphia last week; hand-held, at 500mm (probably its least sharp focal length) (tweaked a bit in lightroom and cropped a bit as well).