Greetings!
Zoo photography and bird photographs have intrigued me greatly in recent days, and though the current 70-200mm f/4L does a great job at zooming in, it sometimes falls short. In search for a longer lens, I came up with the Bigma and the Canon 100-400mmL. The Bigma had great range at a great price, and there were talks about how good its build was. But since I preferred to shoot handheld and IS is really important to me, the Bigma, and also Canon's 400mm f/5.6L were not for me.
Just today, something hinted me to take a look at the Canon 300mm f/4L IS and now I'm utterly confused. This prime is a lot cheaper than the 100-400mmL zoom, and with a 1.4X TC, I'd be able to achieve the same range and get the same max aperture. As it turns out, the 300mm prime is no slouch, and highly rated as well. The magnification factor is slightly better than the zoom and it seems quite nice for closeup shots as well.
The prime is lighter than the zoom, and at the same focal length (300mm), the prime may be anything between 3/4 to a whole stop faster than the zoom. Plus, the MTF graphs (funnily enough), even seemed to show that image quality of the prime improved with a 1.4X TC. Of course, the zoom still wins in its own way because of the flexibility.
Any suggestions? Should I save and splurge more on the zoom, or should I go for the prime + TC combo? I don't have a clear idea at this time on how much each choice would cost, though I am actively considering upgrading from my 70-200mm lens very soon in the future. At any rate, I'm only thinking of buying second-hand because cost is somewhat an issue.
Zoo photography and bird photographs have intrigued me greatly in recent days, and though the current 70-200mm f/4L does a great job at zooming in, it sometimes falls short. In search for a longer lens, I came up with the Bigma and the Canon 100-400mmL. The Bigma had great range at a great price, and there were talks about how good its build was. But since I preferred to shoot handheld and IS is really important to me, the Bigma, and also Canon's 400mm f/5.6L were not for me.
Just today, something hinted me to take a look at the Canon 300mm f/4L IS and now I'm utterly confused. This prime is a lot cheaper than the 100-400mmL zoom, and with a 1.4X TC, I'd be able to achieve the same range and get the same max aperture. As it turns out, the 300mm prime is no slouch, and highly rated as well. The magnification factor is slightly better than the zoom and it seems quite nice for closeup shots as well.
The prime is lighter than the zoom, and at the same focal length (300mm), the prime may be anything between 3/4 to a whole stop faster than the zoom. Plus, the MTF graphs (funnily enough), even seemed to show that image quality of the prime improved with a 1.4X TC. Of course, the zoom still wins in its own way because of the flexibility.
Any suggestions? Should I save and splurge more on the zoom, or should I go for the prime + TC combo? I don't have a clear idea at this time on how much each choice would cost, though I am actively considering upgrading from my 70-200mm lens very soon in the future. At any rate, I'm only thinking of buying second-hand because cost is somewhat an issue.