300mm f/2.8L IS vs 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[H. Jones]

So I've been having some trouble deciding about this for some time, and figured I'd ask if anyone had experience with the two.

I'm mainly a working photojournalist and have only ever really needed the 70-200 IS II for long work, though the newspaper has a Nikon 200-400 available whenever reach is seriously needed. I shoot almost exclusively with my own Canon gear though, since I have it, and I've been looking to grab something on the longer end of things for personal use and for breaking news/some sports. Also really personally interested in being able to snap some bird photos for once, since 200mm really isn't long enough for that.

Lowlight sports isn't really a big deciding factor, so I'm okay with 5.6 on the 400 end for daylight sports, though it would be great to have the 300 2.8 for football/basketball.

That said, I've really had trouble deciding between these two. In a perfect world I'd get the 300L IS II, but that's a bit on the pricier end for something I don't think I'd use on a daily basis, since a majority of what I do ends up shot with just the 24-70. I can currently get the 100-400L IS II for $1750 or the 300mm f/2.8L IS for around $2800.

I could go and buy the 100-400L IS II tomorrow if I wanted to, which is tempting me, but it's also tempting to have a supertelephoto 300 f/2.8 in my kit. On the bird side of things, I'll likely be buying extenders no matter what lens I buy, and my 1DX2 does have full autofocus at F/8 with the 100-400 and a 1.4.

One concern of mine with the 300mm f/2.8L IS is the fact that Canon will likely stop servicing them soon, if they haven't already stopped, which is a risk for me as a professional. If anyone has more knowledge about this part of things, I'd love to know that as well.

If you can't tell, I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II right now, but I don't want to dismiss the 300mm f/2.8L IS without hearing from some owners. If anyone has experience with both these lenses, I'd love to hear.

 

[dslrdummy]

So I've been having some trouble deciding about this for some time, and figured I'd ask if anyone had experience with the two.

I'm mainly a working photojournalist and have only ever really needed the 70-200 IS II for long work, though the newspaper has a Nikon 200-400 available whenever reach is seriously needed. I shoot almost exclusively with my own Canon gear though, since I have it, and I've been looking to grab something on the longer end of things for personal use and for breaking news/some sports. Also really personally interested in being able to snap some bird photos for once, since 200mm really isn't long enough for that.

Lowlight sports isn't really a big deciding factor, so I'm okay with 5.6 on the 400 end for daylight sports, though it would be great to have the 300 2.8 for football/basketball.

That said, I've really had trouble deciding between these two. In a perfect world I'd get the 300L IS II, but that's a bit on the pricier end for something I don't think I'd use on a daily basis, since a majority of what I do ends up shot with just the 24-70. I can currently get the 100-400L IS II for $1750 or the 300mm f/2.8L IS for around $2800.

I could go and buy the 100-400L IS II tomorrow if I wanted to, which is tempting me, but it's also tempting to have a supertelephoto 300 f/2.8 in my kit. On the bird side of things, I'll likely be buying extenders no matter what lens I buy, and my 1DX2 does have full autofocus at F/8 with the 100-400 and a 1.4.

One concern of mine with the 300mm f/2.8L IS is the fact that Canon will likely stop servicing them soon, if they haven't already stopped, which is a risk for me as a professional. If anyone has more knowledge about this part of things, I'd love to know that as well.

If you can't tell, I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II right now, but I don't want to dismiss the 300mm f/2.8L IS without hearing from some owners. If anyone has experience with both these lenses, I'd love to hear.

I haven't owned the 300 f/2.8L but do own the 300 f/2.8L ii and the 100-400 ii and can honestly say that as good as the prime is the 100-400 gets more use these days shooting a combination of sports and wildlife on the 1DXii. The versatility and lighter weight of the zoom are what sets it apart and if you use the 1.4 extender on the 300 as I tend to do then its advantage over the zoom in low light becomes less obvious. The zoom takes the extender very well too which gives you the added reach needed for birding - provided the light is reasonable. I still prefer the 300 if it is really dark or I especially need to blur out the background but otherwise can highly recommend the 100-400. Good luck with your decision.

 

[mackguyver]

+1 on dslrdummy - I agree with him completely. I had the 300 f/2.8 II and loved it, but some health issues made the weight too much for me to use. I have the 100-400 II now and while I miss the f/2.8 and the blur, the zoom is far more versatile and is nearly as sharp, especially in the center. The only thing I really miss is the drop-in CPL, which I made heavy use of with the 300.

Also, I thought I'd get away with the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 2x III extender, but it's an awkward and ungainly rig to shoot with in terms of ergonomics and AF. Hence the 100-400 II.

 

[Maiaibing]

If you can't tell, I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II right now, but I don't want to dismiss the 300mm f/2.8L IS without hearing from some owners. If anyone has experience with both these lenses, I'd love to hear.

First intuitions are almost always right. And you should probably go for the zoom. I have both and use the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II far more than the zoom. But I really need subject isolation for my shooting, so using the 300mm wide open is the reason I almost always reach for it whenever I can. Otherwise I can also confirm the 100-400mm IS L II is a super lens by any standard (I also had the original, and as happy I was with that lens, I find the update much better).

 

[Mikehit]

I rented the 300 f2.8 original to compare against my 100-400 ii and I was often hard-pushed to tell the difference in image quality especially when the 300mm image was cropped to the same FOV. The background blur was nice but I found that in a lot of cases the background detail was close enough that the f2.8 still left some detail, or it was far enough away both lenses gave decent separation. The one difference for me was that the 300mm f2.8 was quicker focusing and the 100-400ii has better IS.

I would have thought that 300mm was too long for basketball but would be OK for football - but even then if you are shooting school sports you can often stand on the touchline which means you are much closer. With the 1Dx2 you can shoot at insane ISO levels which will in many cases offset the f5.6 of the zoom.

 

[Curmudgeon]

It is pretty clear that you are leaning toward the 100-400, and with good reason, I would suggest. I have the lens and it is terrific. I don't have the 300, but I do have the original 70-200, and I bought the 100-400 precisely because the thing I found I missed most often in the 70-200 was extra reach. There are a couple of additional reasons you don't mention for favoring the 100-400. First I think it should autofocus on the 1DX2 (and the 5D4) with the 1.4 extender, which shouldn't push it past f8. That takes you out to a focal length around 600mm, which is fairly serious birding territory, and I've read a number of reviews which say the 100-400 plays nicely with that extender. Second, you do get the advantage of Canon's most advanced optical formulas. Third, the low-light high-ISO capabilities of the modern sensors in the 1DX2 and the 5D4 allow you to ramp up the ISO quite a bit before you see serious image degradation; I shot a tennis match at ISO 3200 using the 100-400 on a 5D4, and speaking as a retired journalist, the quality was more than good enough for any paper I ever worked for. ISO 3200 looked like ISO 800 on my 5D2. And fourth--and perhaps especially important--ypu get Canon's latest IS, which is a perceptible upgrade on previous iterations.

On top of all that, the 100-400 is significantly lighter and cheaper. All in all, it is a spectacular multi-purpose lens. If you can get a warrantied copy for $1750, my advice would be to jump in with both feet.

 

[bholliman]

I agree with the comments above, it sounds like the 100-400 II is what you are looking for.

This coming from a very happy 300 f/2.8 II owner. I purchased the 300 before the new zoom was announced, or else I probably would have gone that direction. I know many wildlife photographers who are shooting almost exclusively with the 100-400 II and are producing excellent work. I use my 300 for portraits and some kids sports (wrestling, football, soccer) so I like having f/2.8 for those instances. If I was primarily interested in wildlife, I would probably have the zoom.

 

[H. Jones]

Thanks everyone! Lots of good thoughts here. Perhaps in the future when the 300mm f/2.8L IS II gets replaced and the price drops I'll pick that up, but for now I think I've found the right lens for me. I think an extender is in my future though! I'm getting addicted to the reach.

Found the 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II in near perfect condition for $1500 and immediately jumped on such an amazing deal.

So far I'm totally loving it-took it out to the Conowingo Dam to give it a good test. No regrets here!



Conowingo Eagles by Harrison Jones, on Flickr, EOS 1D X Mark II, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM @ 400mm, 1/2500 s, f/5.6, ISO 640

 

[Mikehit]

Enjoy your new lens ;D - and if the quality of that image is anything to go by.....you will !

 

[bholliman]

So far I'm totally loving it-took it out to the Conowingo Dam to give it a good test. No regrets here!

Great shot! Congrats on the new lens.

 

[arbitrage]

You will enjoy the 100-400II....you would also have enjoyed the 300 but at this point in time anyone who likes reach should save up for the 400DOII and not buy the 300 IMHO.

Because you have the 1DX2 I would highly recommend the 1.4TCIII on the 100-400II. The f/8 AF is amazingly good on the 1DX2 and feels just like you are shooting an f/5.6 lens. Also the 1DX2 ISO performance can handle the 1 stop of light loss.