Next purchase 300mm f/2.8 L II - should I sell the 100-400?

[J.R.]

I'm planning to get the 300mm f/2.8 L II next and have saved up for the most part. I'm confused whether I would need the 100-400 after I do get the 300. That said, should I sell the 100-400, I might just be able to give myself an early Christmas present or else I have to wait a few months.

All you guys who have used the 300, have you needed the 100-400 after getting the 300 f/2.8 L II? If so, why?

 

[Random Orbits]

I'm planning to get the 300mm f/2.8 L II next and have saved up for the most part. I'm confused whether I would need the 100-400 after I do get the 300. That said, should I sell the 100-400, I might just be able to give myself an early Christmas present or else I have to wait a few months.

All you guys who have used the 300, have you needed the 100-400 after getting the 300 f/2.8 L II? If so, why?

They differ in portability, so the question is how would would you get close to a portable solution to 400mm. A couple possible options are

1. selling your 70-200 f/4 and your 100-400 for a 70-300L, which is compact and portable but you lose some range.
2. selling your 70-200 f/4 and your 100-400 and using a 2x III with your 70-200L, but this is a heavier, bulkier solution.

 

[Dylan777]

JR,
It looks like your "Red-Ring Acquisition Syndrome" kicks in again ;D

Let see if I can help you out: http://www.dylanphotography.phanfare.com/6327914

Mine arrived yesterday. Here are some photos taken at front yard: http://www.dylanphotography.phanfare.com/6328006

 

[takesome1]

All you guys who have used the 300, have you needed the 100-400 after getting the 300 f/2.8 L II? If so, why?

No, it will just collect dust. Sell it and use the money for something else.

The only reason to keep it is if you are a lens collector.
You will notice that most collectors find a reason to use it every once in a while, that way it is justified in their collection.

The image quality is so much better from the 300 that I could never bring myself to take the 100-400 anywhere.
IQ is the big factor for me, and I could never find a reason that out weighed the IQ enough for me to use it.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm planning to get the 300mm f/2.8 L II next and have saved up for the most part. I'm confused whether I would need the 100-400 after I do get the 300. That said, should I sell the 100-400, I might just be able to give myself an early Christmas present or else I have to wait a few months.

All you guys who have used the 300, have you needed the 100-400 after getting the 300 f/2.8 L II? If so, why?

They differ in portability, so the question is how would would you get close to a portable solution to 400mm. A couple possible options are

1. selling your 70-200 f/4 and your 100-400 for a 70-300L, which is compact and portable but you lose some range.2. selling your 70-200 f/4 and your 100-400 and using a 2x III with your 70-200L, but this is a heavier, bulkier solution.

-1...sell both lenses and use the money for 300mm + 1.4x and/or 2x TC III. OP already have 70-200 f2.8 IS II, there is no point getting 70-300.

Looking at OP signature:
1. 24-70 II
2. 70-200mm f2.8 IS II
3. 135L
4. 300mm f2.8 IS II

This combo looks MUCH better, not to mention, BEST OF THE lenses here

 

[jthomson]

I would keep it.
For some activities being able to zoom is critical.
I use a 150-500mm Sigma for airshows not my 500 prime. As the plane passes along the flight line you need to adjust the focal length to keep all of it in frame.

 

[WPJ]

I would keep it for some stuff, it still use mine all bee it I don't use it as much but it still has a lot of use.

 

[Canon1]

I'm planning to get the 300mm f/2.8 L II next and have saved up for the most part. I'm confused whether I would need the 100-400 after I do get the 300. That said, should I sell the 100-400, I might just be able to give myself an early Christmas present or else I have to wait a few months.

All you guys who have used the 300, have you needed the 100-400 after getting the 300 f/2.8 L II? If so, why?

This is a tough one. I have both the 300 II and the 100-400. Honestly I don't use the 1-4 very much anymore. The images are so sharp with the 300 (even w/tc's) that it is difficult to not reach for it. The other thing is that the AF is so much snappier with the 300.

That said, 100 to 400 is a really great zoom range. If you spend a lot of time hiking or kayaking it is really great to use the 100-400. I think that if this lens gets updated and has better AF and IS that I would go for it. I find my 100-400 plenty sharp so if the performance of the lens could be improved I bet I would have to think hard about which lens to use. (300 II or 100-400 II?)

If it came down to keeping your 100-400 and NOT buying a 300 or selling the 1-4 and buying a 300.... then the choice would be simple for me. Sell the 1-4 and buy the 300. The 300 is THAT good. (In fact if I could only have one lens this would be my choice, at least for the type of shooting I do)

 

[AlanF]

I have had the 300mm f/2.8 II + both extenders for about 18 months. Initially, I used the 100-400mm for travel but now throw an SX50 into my hand luggage or take a 70-200mm f/4 IS for lightness. The 300mm is just so much better than the 100-400 that if I seriously need a good lens then I will carry the big one. If I have to compromise for weight reasons, I go the whole hog and take really light gear.

 

[Loswr]

I'd likely keep it, unless a MkII comes out, or selling it would get me the remaining funds needed for the 300 II just before an urgent need for the new lens.

I've got the 70-200 II (and both MkIII TCs) and the 70-300L, neither is really a substitute for the 100-400mm, and at least for me, there will be times when it won't be convenient to take the 300 II.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a good question, and you will decide once you get the lens.

I usually analyze my potential purchases to death by looking at apertures and focal lengths I use, and asking myself what benefit I'd get from the new lens. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I usually buy used if there is a question, and often resell a unused lens for more than it cost.

If there is any question, rent first. I seldom used my 300mm f/4, and a f/2.8 would only get used because I'd feel obligated after spending so many $$.

I recently bought a used Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VRI, but have never seriously used it. However, it only cost me $2500, and is mint! I can sell it for almost double my purchase price any time.

 

[sjprg]

There ARE times when the 100-400 is invaluable. During the America Cup Races recently I use the 100-400 with the 1.4 and the 2.0 TCs to get 1120mm with surprisingly good result at over a mile away. So keep it if you can, at it's price it is irreplaceable with anything else.

 

[AlanF]

There ARE times when the 100-400 is invaluable. During the America Cup Races recently I use the 100-400 with the 1.4 and the 2.0 TCs to get 1120mm with surprisingly good result at over a mile away. So keep it if you can, at it's price it is irreplaceable with anything else.

Have you compared the 100-400mm + 2xTC with the 300mm f/2.8 II with the 2xTC? Would the OP want to use the 100-400mm with the 2xTC if he has the 300?

 

[J.R.]

Thanks for the replies.

So basically its neither here nor there ... :-\ I guess I'll wait and get the 300mm first.

I don't want to end up with seller's remorse. Used 100-400 pop up for resale in India infrequently and if I sell it now and need it again, I'll probably have to get a new one