I am currently deciding between the 100-400 L f 4.5- 5.6, 400mm f 5.6 prime and the 300mm f4 lenses.

[RonL52]

I currently have a 70-200l f4 lense and would like to purchase an additional lense which would provide me with more reach. I am considering the three I mentioned above, but am favoring the 300mm f4 prime at this time. I would appreciate any feedback that anyone could provide on these lenses or any other recommendations.

Thanks!

[ebiggs1]

"I've never had a sharpness problem with the 100-400, ..."

And I shot for Hallmark which is neither here nor there when comparing the IQ of the two lenses.  The 100-400mm "razor sharp" vs the 70-200mm f2.8 is not even arguable.  DXO scores the 100-400 at 11 P-Mpix and the 70-200 at 18 P-Mpix.  Not a big fan of DXO but this is a huge difference in sharpness.  This is measured on my 1Ds Mk III and has an even bigger advantage on a higher res 5D Mk III.

"... when you're hauling lenses around from the airport ... , ..."

Yes it goes with the territory.  If you don't like hauling gear you better find a different line of work. I have the biggest Tamrac and it is full.

[cicopo]

Lab tests aren't really all that useful for the type of people who are seeking help from most forums. Labs don't shoot real world style, but we do. How important is the lab test done with the lens locked down when evaluating it if we are going to hand hold, or shoot from an average quality tripod or while panning. If I were to believe the lab tests (and even many user assessments) I wouldn't be able to shoot many of the things I do because I'd constantly be changing lenses. My 100-400 is very sharp, even wide open & even when examining files at 100%. Add to that my 28-300 L IS is also quite sharp yet many say they are "always" soft. Technique will have more to do with results than lab tests unless we are comparing lenses with similar specs (as in a group of lenses in the 70-300 range) with drastically different prices.

No matter how sharp the 70-200 f2.8 L IS ll is it will not be very sharp at 400 mm so why mention it? When you need the versatility of a zoom you find one that works for you & pay the price in both $$$ and by giving up a minute bit of IQ.

[RonL52]

I posted this quite some time ago and have since bought the canon 70-300L lens which I am quite happy with. Thank you for your reply and advice.

[cicopo]

I'm sure the regulars realize that (very nice lens from everything I've read) but others may still be trying to make a similar decision & may find this thread with a search. .

[hjphotog]

I was going to suggest you meet me in the nearest alley to discuss you comment that I need to find a new line of work -- until you said you carry around a full Tamarac. I changed my mind. I challenge you to haul it on a backpack trip 9000+ feet into thin air. Let me know how that works.
Otherwise, I know of those sharpness tests you mentioned. and that 8-point difference is only detectable by machines looking through the lenses. The prints and Web shots I present don't show a difference if during processing you drop the pixels to 400 dpi for slick pages and large prints. Also, a 200 zoom still doesn't have the reach of a 400, especially when I attach a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter. I can testify that a 400 comes in handy when taking shots of a horny, pissed off bull elk during mating season. I got chased into a forest by one two years ago and I was REALLY glad I had a head start due to the longer lens. As a nature photographer, I find the 100-400 the best lens I've ever owned for versatility in the field. No, I don't use it in the studio; it's useless there.

That being said, though, my other nature photog friends who carry their gear into the field prefer the f4 70-200 because of weight. I carry a 5DMiii (graduated from Mkii), a 16-35, 24-105, 100-400 and 1.4 teleconverter. If you carry more than that, you need a new line of work, like the Mr. Olympia competition.

[ebiggs1]

"I was going to suggest you meet me in the nearest alley to discuss you comment that I need to find a new line of work ..."

I am glad we don't have to do THAT !  

I wasn't at 9000 ft but I did carry it through Mesa Verde (when I was younger). I believe it is 7000 ft.

"Let me know how that works."

It went just fine, BTW.

Me and that bag have been all over Colorado. Many other places besides.  Of course, I choose certain lenses when I am on a day outing and leave the bag at camp.  I have big white lenses that don't even fit the Tamrac.  They usually go too.

The rest of your choices, we will just have to disagree on.  IMHO, the 100-400 should never, never have a tele converter bolted to it. It just doesn't have the IQ in the first place to give up.  But if your are satisfied with the results, more power to you. I have since sold my copy of the 100-400 in preference to the Sigma 150-600mm S.

You are correct about one point you made, if you shoot for the web, just about any lens will do.