Debating a Purchase of 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6

<p>I am heading to Africa in May and to Borneo in December for visits to the Kruger Park and the orangutan sanctuaries (respectively), and am concerned to have the "right" gear with me when I go. Right now my longest lens is a 70-200 f/2.8IS, which I love, but I am debating the merits of adding a fixed tele, with my budget limiting me to the two lenses named in the subject line. I also have the 2x extender, so in theory I have reach of 400mm already, though I am concerned that I'd be either unable to use this lens hand-held (not sure about the usability of tripods or monopods at either destination) or that the weight of the lens would make it unwieldy to carry around when walking. What would you do in my situation? </p>

<p>I'd talk to the good folks at your destinations and get their advice. Undoubtedly they've dealt with hundreds of folks who have done what you are wanting to do. [The bit of advice that I can offer directly is to suggest you first test your 2X extender on that 70-200 zoom and see if you like the results; most folks would probably not recommend that combination.]</p>

<p>Now that's a tough one.</p>

<p>I would go with the 400 because you have the 2x extender which I am assuming is a Canon brand?</p>

<p>The 2X does not work well on either 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6, it's only "usable" on 500mm f/4 and above, or 300mm f2.8 and above.</p>

<p>The 1.4X will give you good results on the 300, not so good on the 400. There are people that swear by their 300mm f/4 + 1.4x, and others by the 400mm f/5.6.</p>

<p>I myself decided to go with the latter, and couldn't be more happier about it.</p>

<p>Good luck</p>

<p>The 400mm you have at your disposal right now (70-200mm 2.8 + 2X extender) wouldn't be anything close to being as sharp as the 400mm 5.6 L. Generally speaking the zooms and telephotos do far better with the 1.4 extender. <br />If you knew you would be using a tripod, I would say get the 400mm 5.6 L, but without an tripod, you might be better off with the 300mm 4.0 IS L. The stablization would be a big help. It also works very well with the 1.4 extender, giving you a 420mm with much better IQ than the 70-200mm IS 2.8 with the 2X.</p>

<p>Can you spend a little more for the 100-400, it has IS and definitely useful in dense rain forest in Borneo.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input! My 2x extender is a Canon one, and I did a test this morning using it with my 70-200 handheld and am not crazy about the results. They're acceptable, I suppose, but for a trip to Africa that is not likely to be repeated anytime soon, I'd like something better. I could spend more for the 100-400, though my impression is that a prime would be better; the question is whether the 300 (which I tend to prefer because of the IS and slightly faster aperture) would reach far enough. I could get the 1.4x to go with it, which would get me up to 420mm at f/5.6 (if I have my math right) and since I am shooting with a 5DMkII, I guess I could always crop to get the image size I want in post processing. My impression also is that in Kruger the animals are not that far away, so perhaps the 300 is the way to go.</p>

<p>I have ZERO experience with the lenses/situations you are talking about. I have LOTS of experience with lensrentals.com. If I was going on the trips you describe I would rent the lenses I needed to make sure that I could get the shots I dreamed of.<br>

There may even be some shops that would allow your rental to go towards the purchse price of one of their rental lenses.</p>

 

<p>I would happily rent, but unfortunately I live in China, where there are not only no lens rental companies that I know of, but it's also damned hard to find a shop that will let you even try out a lens that you're considering buying! All the lenses I have bought in the three years I have been living here were first vetted through the kind input of people on forums like this! </p>

<p>Either prime will be better than the 100-400mm zoom, but only in terms of sharpness (somewhat). You could go for the 300 f/4 and then crop, but get the 1.4x as well then, just in case you need more reach. Just my 2 cents ...</p>

<p>I've never used the 2x Extender, but my EF 300 4L USM with 1.4X Extender is amazingly excellent.</p>

<p>300 f4, very good lens has IS, don't use an extender on it, what Diana said is very true although I would not use the 1.4x on it, only on the 300 f2.8 and up should extenders be used.<br>

Ross</p>

<p>Just spoke with my friend in South Africa who will be hosting part of our stay, and he strongly recommended the 100-400 zoom for the simple reason that it prevents you missing shots whilst changing lenses, and minimizes the chance of dust getting on the sensor in conditions where it will be difficult to clean it. </p>

<p>I would go with the 300 f4 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter. That gives you a good range 70-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 with the 1.4x to give you 98-280 f4 or the 300 + 1.4 which is 420 f5.6. <br>

<br /> With 2 lens' you've covered 70-300mm and 420 is you ever need the extra reach. The 100-400 is useful for not changing lens, but you should stick to your budget. If you start by saying, "i'll spend $200 more" you could easily keep adding just $200 and before you know it you're spending much more then you want or can afford. <br>

Lens changes can be a pain in a dirty environment, but some compromise must me made. If your quick and efficient with your lens changes and put your back to the wind when switching, you should do fine.</p>

<p>Three little comments: </p>

<p>1. Those lenses are surprisingly expensive. I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8. The Sigma 2x extender gives reasonable results considering the price of the combination compared to the price of an un-extended prime or longer zoom. The extender wastes 3/4 of the light, though. It's like having a tiny sensor, except that you also need extra glass elements in the light path. Avoid using an extender if you can.</p>

<p>2. My sister shoots wildlife with the 100-400/variable-max-aperture (no-IS) on a 1.6x crop body and often uses the (400x1.6=) 640-mm equivalent. That's only 1/3 x 1/3 of the frame your 200-mm, after all. Make sure you get the length you need. Your camera has superb low-light sensitivity, so don't worry too much about maximum aperture. </p>

<p>3. The lens mentioned above and other pump-action zooms will suck debris into your camera. I don't think they're a good idea. </p>

<p>I'd buy the 400-mm prime. I envy your trip.</p>

<p>"the 100-400/variable-max-aperture (no-IS)" The Canon 100~400 has IS.</p>

<p>James, I can't speak for Borneo, but I've made many visits to southern Africa including most of the National Parks and Natal Parks in SA, and in years gone by also to those in Zimbabwe. In my experience, the advice your SA host offers is good. The 100~400, especially on a 1.6-factor body, is just about the ideal game park lens. Most of your shooting will be from a vehicle, and done hand-held or with at most a monopod, so forget the 400/5.6 for this sort of work – you really do need IS – and forget about taking a tripod, it will just be in the way. The 100~400 at 400mm, a focal length that you will probably use quite a lot, is significantly better that the 70~200/2.8x2 according to all the reported comparisons that I have seen. It is probably not quite as good, at least wide open, as the 300/4ISx1.4, but you will be taking plenty of shots at much less than 400mm. By the time you have changed lenses, the opportunity will have gone, and also changing lenses is a much bigger dust hazard that using the 100~400 push-pull zoom.</p>

<p>However ...</p>

<p>... what makes this more complicated is that you already have the 70~200/2.8IS, which is, of course, an excellent lens on its own, and I would expect it to work really well with the Extender 1.4x – my 70~200/4IS certainly does. For trips of this kind, you should have a second body with you, and if you are carrying a second body, put it to good use. So in the light of what you already have, I would not suggest the 100~400 but the 300/4IS. Use that, with or without the Extender 1.4x, on one body, and the 70~200 on the other, and you will be in very good shape. Also, the Extender x2 will work quite well on the 300/4 (no phase-detect AF unless you are using a 1-series body, of course) if an occasion arises when you really need to go long.</p>

<p>The 300/4L IS produces excellent results on its own and with the EF 1.4x Extender. As a bonus, its 1.5m minimum focus distance (MFD) lets you take great closeups as well as long shots. The 400/5.6 has a much longer MFD of 3.5m, but is a much better choice for "birds in flight" (BIF). </p>

<p>The problem with putting the 100-400 on your body to avoid lens changes is that you would end up leaving it there and waste the far superior image quality available with the 70-200/2.8. I change 6 primes on my two cameras and have not had dust problems and I have taken far more shots than I have missed.</p>

<p>You could stretch your budget by a couple of hundred more and get the 1.4x to go on your 70-200, when you need the extra reach, while maintaining IS (and better image quality than the 2x), and get the 400/5.6 L when you need even greater reach while maintaining image quality.</p>

<p>If you really want a challenge, both physically and mentally, you could consider a used Nikon 500mm f4 P AIS manual focus lens for about $1500 USD with a $10 adapter. The adapter you can get from your local China distributor. No autofocus, and only stopped down metering, but it will always be wide open anyway so who cares. Other options like this for under $1300 USD are the Nikon 400/2.8 AIS and Nikon 400/3.5 AIS. I used the Nikon 200/2 AI and 400/2.8 AIS on my Canon 10D before switching to a Nikon D2X.</p>

<p>James,<br>

The changing lens in the field issue is a real one.<br>

I would worry about another problem - a backup body.<br>

The 5D with the 70-200mm and a crop sensor body with the 300mm<br>

will give you the ability to have the best of both worlds -<br>

using the excellent lens you currently have plus the optically excellent<br>

and image stabilized 300mm IS as a 420mm prime (with the option<br>

of getting double that for a shot that might otherwise be impossible).<br>

The Xsi has come down in price enough ($500) that even if you<br>

don't have a crop sensor body the puchase of this is valuable insurance.<br>

It is also adds insignificant weight/volume to your package.</p>

<p>James<br>

I am a very budget conscious and never an advocate for spending money but have you considered a long fixed focus with a dedicated body. A 400mm is minimum for your requirements but if you buy used you can probably get a good used body and lens for the price of a new Zoom. You will find that if you use the Zoom it will be racked out 90% -95% of the time anyway. I would take a 400 or 500 with a monopod on one camera and you 70-200 on the other I would choose a camera the same or similar to what you have now for ease of operation and with the big auction site you can buy stuff carefully and sell it when you get back this will be much cheaper that renting. Also as John Crowe said a manual Nikon lens is a viable option I had a 400mm 3.5 MF that was a dream to focus but consider two cameras and forget about converters and lens changing, this could be a once in a lifetime opportunity .<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>You can expand the possibilities of what equipment to use by renting. Try talking to the people at lensrentals.com after visiting their website. They might be able to offer suggestions as to what equipment would work best. You might be able to get the equipment you need for when you need it without spending a lot of money on purchasing.</p>

<p>I have been to Kruger Park many times, operating out of both Thorneybush and Ngala. Except in the wet season, dust is a problem. When dry, the surface soil is the consistency of cake flour, and it gets everywhere. Your RSA friend has good advice about minimizing lens changes in the bush. My usual kit for the bush is a full frame body with 70-200 f/2.8 and a cropping body with 300 f/4 (effectively 480). In Kruger, especially driving, you often get quite close to the animals, and i have never felt the need for more reach than the 300 (480) offered. Since you already have the 5D2 and 70-200 f/2.8, my suggestion would be the 300 f/4 and a second body, 30D, 40D etc. If you will be driving, there will probably not be room for a tripod. Monopods and bean bags are useful if you need to stabilize in lower light. </p>

<p>I have been to the orang utan centre in Sumatra and they have different areas you can visit. First is the nursery for orphaned youngsters and secondly is the rehab area for juveniles/adults who have been held in captivity and you can get quite close to them so the 70-200 will be ample. There is also a quarantine area where new inmates are held to make sure they do not have human diseases (TB, viruses etc) and you can't get too close here - but again the 70-200 should be sufficient.<br>

There was also the feeding stations. When the rehabs have been taught to climb the are let out into the rainforest to roam and feed, but twice a day the keepers go to platform to give them coconut milk etc until they are really able to fend for themselves. And here you may be anything from 30 feet to 70 feet away. Full-grown orang-utans are about 3 feet tall when sat down sat down so if you think about a 4-year old child from those distances then you will have an idea of what sort of lens you want.<br>

I think the Borneo reserve operates much the same sort of organisation except the animals are fed on the ground. I am not sure how close you get to the animals in the Borneo feeding stations but it is worth researching.<br>

The rainforest can be surprisingly dark at times and the high ISO capability of your camera will be a fantastic bonus (I had to push 500 ISO film to 800 to get handheld shots. As has been said, a monopod would be a great help.</p>

<p>But you may also be lucky and see the animals in the trees and even 400mm won't be enough for a close-up. By the way, if the rehabilitated adults come to the ground you will not want to get up close for a great shot. OK, you may want to but it is a very bad idea - if they take a shine to your camera they can move surprisingly quickly and they will get it from you (you won't have a choice!).</p>

<p>Anyway, have a great time (Jealous?!</p>

<p>I second the advice of putting a long lens on a crop body and another lens on a FF body. I'd guess your 70-200 would be perfect for the FF.</p>

<p>I also second the advice that versatility rules in the jungle. (Unless you really need 500+mm a 100-400/IS on a crop body might be the best choice.)</p>

<p>Using a beanbag on a static platform might help with the shakes but if the platform is a car with the engine running you might be better off handholding it.</p>

<p>And... search the forum for SAFARI because there are several old threads about this subject.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

<p><strong>Question is also - do I want an IS lens, or - am I able to consistently shoot 400/5.6 non IS lens.. </strong><strong>I will talk about things I know personally only. </strong></p>

<ul>

<li><strong>f/5.6 is slow for jungle most of the time</strong></li>

<li><strong>in Sanctuaries, 70-200/2.8 would be great, rare need for longer lens, cause Orang Utans are used to people and mostly friendly. Be prepared for 16-35 also (yes, that friendly)</strong></li>

<li><strong>shooting with 2x extender calls for stopping (at least) by 2 f-stops, not matter what lens you have for the optimal quality and yes, result can be pretty good. BTW - does your camera focus @f/8 ?</strong></li>

<li><strong>300/4L IS focus very close and doesn't suffer from CA even with (lot's of) extension tubes. It can double as good lens for closeups (big bugs, flowers etc.)</strong></li>

<li><strong>once you get in real wilderness, your best friend and enemy is 600/4 (you will sweat like hell climbing a hill with that baby in 95% humidity and 30 dg Celsius or thereabouts). There is never enough reach.</strong></li>

</ul>

<p><strong>You make your decision :) BTW - 400/4 DO IS is great lens too, if you can afford it. 300/2.8 can give you exceptional 300mm lens, good 420mm/4 and OK 600/5.6</strong></p>