Canon 300mm/4.0USM vs 400mm/5.6USM

Hello. I am interested in updating my 75-300mm and thinking between

Canon 300/4.0 and 400/5.6. I heard good things about 300 and mixed views about 400. Although I am on an extremely low budget, I'll sleep

in my tent, hitchike and eat rice or chips rather than compromise

optical quality on this trip, where I'll try to travel from Ecuador

to Tierra del Fuego, keeping to wilderness areas as much as possible.

Nevertheles, I would interested in hearing people's views on the new

Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro. I am leaning towards 400 w/1.4Ex, but I am also wondering about 300 w/1.4 and/or 2Ex. Thanks.

If you want quality and reliability, plus an extra stop at times, the

clear winner is the 300/4L plus the 1.4x TC and an EF 25 extension

tube (for closeup shots). Maybe the 2x as well if

you have the money, want to carry the extra item and don't expect

superb image quality at 600mm. The Image Stabilized lens is an

option if you don't mind another $500, plus I still have to be

convinced that adding an extra 7 elements doesn't drop the

sharpness and contrast of the lens! I presume you have read my

review of the 300/4L on photo.net, so I won't go into more detail.

 

<p>

 

The Sigma 400/5.6L APO Macro is the way to go if you are short on cash.

I have the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Macro (WOW, what a name!). These are my thoughts on it.

 

<p>

 

One of the things that makes it good for nature photography is its ability to focus down to about 4 feet. I can take nice photos of flowers and critters that are a few feet off the trail or that will run away if I approach then any close. It's also a lot lighter than a 400mm f/2.8 lens so you can lug it around on a hike.

 

<p>

 

The build quailty seems good to me. I have heard bad reports of cheaply built Sigma lenses but this one seems to be very well built. Of course, since I have only owned it for 6 months I can't make any claims for its long term durability but I have no reason to think I won't last a long time.

 

<p>

 

Optically, it is sharp. I have never compared it to a similar Canon or Nikon lens but its hard to imagine my 11x14 enlargments being much sharper. Some people claim that the Sigma has a yellow cast to it. Again, the colors and contrast look fine to me but since I have not compared it side by side with a Nikon or Canon lens I don't know about the yellow cast. I do use a multi-coated Hoya 1B on it, perhaps that reduces the yellow cast (if it exists!).

I really like the built in lens hood. I can't forget it like I do some of my others. :(

The only negative thing about this lens is its speed. F/5.6 is rather slow if you are shooting ISO 50 or 100 film in poor light. Sometimes I lose a shot because the shutter speed is to low to stop subject motion. Still, if I used an f/2.8 lens I would have lost all of my 400mm shots because it would be at least 4 more years until I can afford to buy it!

I have the Canon EF400f/5.6 and get sharp slides when viewed by an 8x loupe. Same result with the Canon 1.4x. With the 2x the number of crisply sharp slides falls off - partially due to the difficulty of manual focusing at f11 and camera shake at 800mm even with a tripod and mirror lock up. I chose the 400(+ extenders) because I already had a zoom to 300 and wanted the extra length for birds and small critters.

Your thinking of moving to a 300mm or 400mm fixed is an excellent choice. This is a choice I had to make a while back. I bought a used Canon 300mm f/4 "L" USM lens through Photo Shopper's swap meat area (http://www.photoshopper.com). Photo net here also has some great deals in their classifieds. I am so satisfied that I bought that lens. It is so sharp and clear, the f/4 aperture is really nice to. I can use a 1.4x TC with it and still get excellent image quality with an autofocusable f/5.6 (420mm), and with poorer image quality could throw on a 2x TC for a manual focus f/8 (600mm). To me, this is a far better lens than the 400 f/5.6. Besides, you can pick up a 300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC for about the price of the 400 f/5.6 and you have two awesome focal lengths and an f/4 for low light and action. I would suggest that you buy the Canon "L" lens if at all possible. While the Sigma APO Macro's are really nice lenses, they don't optically compare to the Canon. Plus the USM and manual focus override is really nice. Whenever I hear/read that someone puts a teleconvertor on a sigma (or any other aftermarket lens for that matter) they lose image quality, mostly I think because of the poor quality of the TC. I truly believe that with lenses you truly get what you pay for. Good luck.

 

<p>

 

Bill