300mm vs 400mm

<p>What is the advantage to have a 300mm + 1.4x TC rather than 400mm. Which would be better please</p>

The advantage to the 300mm + TC is that you have both a 300mm and a 420mm lens, the advantage to the 400mm is that it has slightly better image quality than the 300mm + TC combo.

 

Which one would be better depends on whether you need a 300mm lens, a 400mm lens, or both.

<p>Of course, with a 100-400, you've got 100-399mm as well...</p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">In short, the 300/4 IS is a better GP tele while the 400/5.6 is preferred for birding.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">It has been discussed a lot. I suggest a search.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>The 400/5.6 does not have IS if that is an issue for you.</p>

<p>Also, the 300mm and the 100-400mm both focus closer than the 400mm, if that makes a difference to you.</p>

<p>I require it for close ups and birds.</p>

<p>Close ups -> 300/4 IS. Birds -> 400/5.6. Both? 300/4 IS and 1.4X TC.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>Simon:</p>

<p>Do a search. If you need 400mm, the straight 400 will yield better results.</p>

<p>Then again, if you need image stabilization, the 300/4 IS + 1.4 will fair better.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Although there are exceptions, the use of a teleconverter will usually adversely affect the results from a lens, and it NEVER improves the results except in the one dimension of focal length. It also slows down the lens by a stop or two, making AF problematic. If you need 400mm, get the 400mm. If you need the 300mm and an occasional longer lens, the converter might be OK. Canon teleconverters are not exactly cheap either. For the 400mm, lack of IS is not such a big deal, since a tripod is likely to be in the picture as well.<br>

IS helps reduce user shake, but at these focal lengths, it can only go so far, and even the steadiest photographer will have sharper pictures with a tripod than with a hand-held long lens.<br>

You don't say if your body is APS-C or not, but the smaller image size is also a factor in steadiness (it's not that you are less steady with the smaller sensor, it's merely that any shake constitutes a larger % of the image).</p>

<p>Its an APS-C (50D).<br /> By the way I intend to buy in the future a 70-200mm, maybe it would be good for closeups and in this case maybe it would then be a good idea to choose the 400mm. But I don't know if the 70-200 is good for close ups, it focuses close the same as the 300mm (1.5m).</p>

<p>Many other photographers have gone through this same decision process. If you need a specific focal length and only that focal length a prime can be the best way to go. The TC adds a bit of flexibility by getting you a second focal length from that single FL prime, at the cost of a bit less IQ and the inconvenience of having to remove lens, add/subtract TC, and replace the lens when you want a different FL.</p>

<p>For photographers who think they'll want more than the one FL and/or don't find the add/subtract TC process to be appealing, the 100-400 L zoom is a great option. Image quality is excellent from this lens and the flexibility of being able to cover anything within the 100-400mm FL range is very valuable for most users. (The 100-400 is at least as good at 400mm as the 300+TC combo is at 420mm.)</p>

<p>Of course if you need it and can afford it you could consider the f/2.8 300mm lens...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Michael Reichman has a great review of the 400 f/5.6 on the Luminous Landscape website. Probably worth a read if you're considering this lens. He compares it to the 100-400 as well.</p>

<p>Get the 100-400mm L. The image quality is as good as the 400mm L in real world use and is a bit better than the 300mm+1.4 (I only tested 1 copy of each, so your mileage will vary). The IS is a bit dated (only 2 stops) but it is helpful nonetheless. The close focus distance also makes it useful for smaller critters and large insects. If you really want a prime, the 300+TC gets you IS and very good IQ and you can do without your tripod in many conditions. I wouldn't recommend the 400mm due to the lack of IS and its absymal close focus distance. Of course if you plan on shooting on a tripod anyway and don't have any interest in smaller subjects, it is the cheapest option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Michael Reichman has a great review of the 400 f/5.6 on the Luminous Landscape website. Probably worth a read if you're considering this lens. He compares it to the 100-400 as well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That review/comparison is roundly considered to be fit only for deletion: it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the fantastic experiences many of us have had with the 100-400mm.</p>

<p>Even MR himself acknowledges that he caught a ton of flak for it, and quite rightly IMHO.</p>

<p>The issues with the 100-400 is mostly due to product variance. Enough users have had to go thru 3, 4 or 5 different copies before getting a satisfactory lens, that it's an issue. Of course, you could also be the guy who gets a good one the first time.</p>

<p>For birds tho, there's nothing else out there in the same price range that is as good as the 400/5.6L, not just image quality, but probably more importantly AF speed. For closeups, get an extension tube, or a good quality closeup lens like the Canon 500D.</p>

<p>Kin,</p>

<p>no offence, but you're really just repeating internet "fluff".</p>

<p>I personally know enough people who - like me - got great 100-400mms <em>first time</em> , to be pretty sure that this "product variation" criticism of the 100-400mm is just fantasy: it seems to me that the truth is absolutely the other way round, and that it's the user who has to go through several before getting a good one that's the real rarity.</p>

<p>And I'll also say <em>with some confidence</em> that if someone really has needed to try 3, 4 or 5 100-400mms before getting a good one, the problem isn't with what's directly in front of the camera, but with what's directly <em>behind</em> it...</p>

 

<p>400mm f2.8L IS, faster for sports, but heavy on the wallet</p>

<p>get 100-400 L and practice. Practise makes perfect.</p>

<p>For some subjects -- birds in particular -- 400mm is the short end of usefulness (for a full frame sensor, anyway). For catching a bird in flight, it often helps to be able to move the lens around more freely than even a gimbal head would allow. </p>

<p>That's where the 400/f5.6 shines. It's relatively light and very sharp, so you can shoot without being locked down to a tripod if you have decent light. And if you do lock it down, a 1.4x TC will give you a 560/f8 that's still quite sharp.</p>

<p>From everything I can see, the business about "bad copies" of the 100-400 is way overblown - and has become something of a photographic urban legend. If you know how to use it this lens is really a very, very good performer.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Hey, amazing, G Dan and I are in harmony on this one!</p>

<p>Some new users of any given lens, will--having been hyped up by internet viral criticisms--wonder if their lens is a "good one" or not. Since they are not acquainted well with how it works, they take a couple of shots which they examine at 100% on their screen and find it is fuzzy!<br>

Something's <em>fuzzy</em> all right, but it's only very rarely the lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I'll also say <em>with some confidence</em> that if someone really has needed to try 3, 4 or 5 100-400mms before getting a good one, the problem isn't with what's directly in front of the camera, but with what's directly <em>behind</em> it...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I have a friend which shoots birds and jet model airplanes all the time. He went through 3 copies of the 100-400 IS and 2 copies of the 400/5.6 (but only 1 copy for the 500/4 IS and 600/4 IS) until he was completely satisfied. You can say what you like but as I know him to be a very good photographer I trust his word.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>I went through one copy of 400mm F5.6 and one of 100-400mm. They were both excellent, sharp and fast, but they are recent builds (after 2006).</p>

<p>As some of the above posters said, I also think you'll be most happy with the 100-400mm lens. The 400mm prime is sharper and bit faster focussing, but it is only good for subjects that are farther away. I missed many photos just because it didn't focus close enough, or I could not zoom out to get the entire subject in the frame.</p>

<p>I recently upgraded to a 300mm F2.8 and I heavily use the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders. I can tell you they are a pain to use! But it's a fantastic upgrade in terms of sharpness, bokeh and so on. I don't mind changing the extenders to get better shots. But I don't think the 300mm F4 would be such an upgrade over the 400mm prime. Indeed you get IS and an extra stop, but for me was not enough to get the 300 F4.</p>