Decisions, Decisions: 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6?

[greg_whitten1]

This is not a resolution or "which is best" question. I've read all

the posts comparing sharpness, etc. on the 400mm f/5.6 and 300mm f/4

IS prime lenses. I'm sure both are great and better than what I need

or deserve! My question is different.

 

For those of you who have or have had both 300mm and 400mm lenses,

what have been your preference for sports / wildlife shooting? I

shoot with a 10d. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and shorter lenses. I

want a longer (probably prime) lens to play with and bring in the

wildlife, athletes, etc.

 

I love the thought of the IS and f/4 on the 300mm. However, I wonder

whether only another 100mm over my 70-200 will satisfy in the field

or if doubling up to the 400mm is really the way to go?

 

If you have or have had both lenses, what has been your experience on

which lens you used more and why?

 

Thanks.

 

Greg

[mark_chappell]

If you are interested in wildlife you will need all the focal length you can get (especially for

birds but for many other taxa as well). Even with a 400 you will very often be wishing for

a lot more. The default 'bird' lenses these days are 500s or 600s with teleconverters --

even with APS-sensor DSLRs.

 

I don't own either of the two lenses you mention but in wildlife work, more is almost

always better. Are you considering the 300+1.4X? That will give you versatility, IS,

close focus, and by nearly all accounts, really good optical quality. You can put a TC on

the 400 but with a 10D you'll lose autofocus.

[anna yu]

Greg I was in your shoes, had the 70-200IS first and bought the 400/5.6L because I want

the reach. It's a very good lens and great for birds but guess what? 400 mm was too long

for many other things, like animals. So I bought the 300/4L IS later on. The 300 is my

favorite now, much more useful than the 400 because of the extra f stop and the IS. So,

while the 400 has its use for birds and such, I find the 300 much more useful. On a 10D

and 1Dmk2.

400; http://www.pbase.com/annayu2/image/31540679/original (too tight at times)

300: http://www.pbase.com/annayu2/image/40154720/original

-Anna

[yakim_peled1]

>> Are you considering the 300+1.4X? That will give you versatility, IS, close focus, and by nearly all accounts, really good optical quality.

 

 

I went for this set-up from these exact same reason. However, if you constantly shoot with tripod or in sunny days (I'm not), I'd go for the 400/5.6.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[beeman458]

For versatility I'd recommend the 300mm IS and 1.4x TC.

 

Myself? I kinda painted myself into a corner because of how I bought my lenses. I first picked up a 300mm f/4.0L non-IS for sharpness reasons and then a Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0, for versatility reasons; a lense to die for but no IS. To compliment the 100-300mm, I added a monopod/ballhead combo as the lense is pretty much useless without the added support.

 

The 100-300mm f/4.0 is the better of Canon's 300mm f/4.0L non-IS, based upon repeatable, tripod mounted, MLU, timer release, test target tests; for benefit of the "measurbator" set. Later, the Canon 2x TC and Sigma 1.4x TC were added to the lense kit. Plenty of versatility, but no IS.

 

Long primes of this nature need to be on a tripod, especially with the 1.6X crop factor for birding. Hand holding 500mm (1.6x X 300mm = 480mm) and expecting pixel sharp images isn't a reasonable consideration. Throw a 1.4x or 2x TC into the mix and it's gets even worse as to image sharpness and camera shake. Ya need that monopod, at minimum.

 

So in my case, should I need more reach, considering what's currently in my bag, I'd be adding a Wimberly Sidekick, RRS plate, an Acratech ballhead and a Gitzo G-1327 aaaaaaannnnnd a Canon 400mm f/5.6L.

 

When you get out to the longer focal lengths, it's all about stability, more then it's about the lense itself cause a wobbly platform will kill the best of lenses. The tripod/ballhead/Sidekick recommendation is an important part of the equation to consider whether you're shooting sports or wildlife.

 

If not painted into a corner, as I am, I'd go with the 300mm f/4.0L IS and a 1.4x TC and give serious thought towards quality support gear.

 

Hope my above gives you some ideas as well as insight to your dilemma.

[phyrpowr]

I don't have the 400, but this shot was taken with the 300 IS plus a Kenko 1.4 TC, 1/80th shutter, from the deck of a moving boat over 150 yards away, over 100% crop, JPEG

 

I report, you decide

[phyrpowr]

Actually, the more I recall, it was about 300 yards away, it sure wasn't nearby in any event

[mark_chappell]

<I>Hand holding 500mm (1.6x X 300mm = 480mm) and expecting pixel sharp images

isn't a reasonable consideration. Throw a 1.4x or 2x TC into the mix and it's gets even

worse as to image sharpness and camera shake. </i><P>

 

Aside from the weight, there isn't much of a sharpness/camera shake problem with hand-

holding a 500 IS + 1.4X or 2X, <B><I>IF</i></b> you use high shutter speeds. I do this

routinely for flying birds (examples <A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/

MACphotos/birds3/RSHfly.html"> here</a>, <A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/

MACphotos/birds3/ferrugFly.html"> here</a>, and <A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/

personal/MACphotos/birds2/elegantterns.html"> here</a>). Tiresome but effective --

and for things flying directly overhead, probably the only method that works (there may be

a reasonably portable tripod + head that will let you point a 500 mm lens straight up, but I

don't know of one).<P>

 

Of course, if your exposure times with these focal lengths become longer than 1/500 or

so, hand-holding becomes less and less reliable.

[beeman458]

"I do this routinely for flying birds..."

 

I suggest that you relook at your examples.

 

I stand by my comments.

[beeman458]

To give insight to my above comment. The lense, in your example, should challenge the sensor, these images don't do the sensor justice.

 

The addition of a 2X TC will destroy the cabablility of "any" lense and should be used only in an "emergency." This is a well known, well discussed point of fact.

 

A 500mm f/4.0L IS is capable of challenging the sensor of a 1DsMkII. High shutter speeds won't protect against the image degredation introduced by a 2X TC and high shutter speeds won't protect against the image degredation introduced by trying to handhold a 500mm f/4.0L IS.

[justphotography]

I initially bought the 400 f5.6L. In fact, my lens setup includes only 17-40 f4L, 50f1.8, 135 f2L, Canon 1.4x TC.

 

I am using a 1-series DSLR. I went home, fixed up the 1.4x TC with the 400 f5.6L and still got tack sharp images ay a reach of 728mm (1.3x crop factor) at f8.

 

Like many others, I read luminous landscape as well and noted Michael R bought a 400 f5.6L but skipped the 300 f4 L IS.

 

On further thoughts, I would need to shoot at least 1/900s shutter, considering tiredness and fatique in a shootout. In addition, I did not like birding. I was into street, sports and would like to shoot wildlife, animals in the zoo. I then began to consider the 400 f5.6 L was too long for general use and was specialised for birding and sports.

 

The 300 f4 IS being IS would at least have more keeper shots than misses due to camera shake. I like the 400 f5.6L and the colours very much but I chose a practical IS lens with a closer working distance allowing macro photography as well.

 

I went back to the shop and returned the 400 and topped up to pick up the 300 f4 IS L.

[greg_whitten1]

Thanks to each of you for your experiences and insights. You have helped persuade me to the 300mm f/4 IS and teleconverter: speed, IS, teleconverter use all add up to versatility. Plus, if the image isn't big enough, I can crop some. With a 400mm, if I can't get all the image in that I want, I have found it harder to add more of the subject post capture! While there is probably a 400mm or 500mm in my future, she will have to get along for a while without me.

 

Thanks again,

 

Greg

[mark_chappell]

<I>The addition of a 2X TC will destroy the cabablility of "any" lense and should be used

only in an "emergency." This is a well known, well discussed point of fact.<P>

 

A 500mm f/4.0L IS is capable of challenging the sensor of a 1DsMkII. High shutter

speeds won't protect against the image degredation introduced by a 2X TC and high

shutter speeds won't protect against the image degredation introduced by trying to

handhold a 500mm f/4.0L IS.</i><P>

 

I just love lofty dogmatic declarations like this. I have extensive personal experience with

this lens and converter

combination, totalling thousands of images, and I know quite well how good the results

can be (one can debate the aesthetics of image quality; I'm talking about detail resolution).

Don't make the mistake of looking at a low-resolution web JPEG and assuming that's the

quality of the originals. It's true that you get a small but noticeable

reduction in

resolution when adding a converter (did I claim otherwise?), but the 500 IS lens and the

Canon 1.4X and 2X are so good that the

resulting images can still be excellent. If you don't buy my statements about the quality

possible with TCs, check out Art Morris's site (many view him as

<B>the</b> premier bird photographer) and you will find that he routinely uses 2X

converters with 500 and 600 mm lenses. The man is a bit of a Canon promoter, to put it

mildly, but I've

heard few complaints about the quality of his images.<P>

 

The statement that high shutter speeds won't

protect against image degredation during hand-holding is (pardon my being blunt)

patently

absurd. You don't think that an exposure of 1/2000 sec or 1/4000 sec will compensate

for camera

shake better than a 1/200 sec exposure? I beg to differ. Then there's the effect of IS in

ameliorating shake. Have you tried hand-holding this combination? If not, where's your

credibility? If so, all I can say is that it works for me even if it doesn't for you. Given a

choice, would I prefer to have the lens on a tripod? Of course. But hand-holding works

amazingly well and provides images otherwise unattainable. If you don't wish to try it,

fine. You may lose picture opportunities if you're not willing to make the attempt, and I

would encourage people to make their own experiments and not listen to solemn but

untenable pronouncements.<P>

 

Your statement about 'challenging the sensor' is also inaccurate. On more than one

occasion I've taken images shot with the 500 IS+ 2X converter and measured resolution of

feather details (barbules, which basically make a nice grid of cross-hatched lines) on a

pixel-by-pixel basis. There's no doubt that the

lens+converter combination is capable of as much or more resolution than the sensor can

capture. I didn't do this with a 1DsMkII, but with a 10D, which has about the same pixel

density (photosites/mm²) on the sensor, and hence the same inherent

resolution, as the 1DsMkII, albeit over a

smaller image area.

[beeman458]

Again, I stand by my comments.

[jim_mueller2]

If you're going to us the lens primarily for birds in flight, then the 400/5.6 is your lens.

 

If you want an all purpose lens with IS and close focusing, then the 300/4 IS is your lens. Add the TC 1.4X and you have an 420/5.6. But don't expect it to focus as fast as the 400/5.6, which is why the 400/5.6 is good for birds in flight.

 

Read the comments of (the famous) Arthur Morris on his "Birds As Art" Web page.

 

Personally, I use the 300/4 IS + 1.4X mostly for stationary birds.

[andrew robertson]

This question comes up at least once a week. The same question.

[chip]

Hi Greg,

 

While the EF 400 5.6L is a very good lens overal it is a much narrower use lens. this means that unless you are ONLY going to shoot subjects that can be framed with a 400mm lens you are going to leave that lens in the bag more often than not. In your situation I'd go for the 300 4L IS and an EF 1.4X I/II converter. You'll get so much more versatility out of this combination and you'll also find that when hand holding a lens/body combination with an effective 35mm FOV of 670mm IS really is a wonder! The difference in sharpness is not that great with the EF 1.4X converter and you probably wouldn't see much if any difference even if you used the EF 2X II converter with a 10D.

 

Being a professional motorsports and sports shooter I've owned and used many of Canon's best long lenses and the lenses I come back to time and time again are the EF 300 2.8L and EF 300 4L IS. So these are the lenses I spent my own money on along with the usual EF 1.4X and EF 2X II converters. FYI, in testing the EF 300 28L on a tripod I didn't see any difference between the EF 1.4X mkI and the mkII converters so I kept the mkI 1.4X. The EF 2X mkII however showed a slight advantage on chrome films so I bought it.

 

Now that I'm pretty much fully digital (I had to buy an EOS 1 for a shoot and never sold it), I have no problems shooting with the EF 2X II because I can make up that slight difference in post capture processing. This is on of the great things about digital, flexability and the option to work your captures a bit to get the image that you visualized.

 

As for Thomas, he's nuts! Film has MUCH more resolution than even the EOS 1DS mkII is capable of recording, the limiting factor is still the glass, this is obvious. If this were not so why can we see and measure the differences between even identical lenses when using film as the test media but we cannot do the same with even an EOS 1DSmkII? The reason is because film has more resolution than the current DSLR's do. It's simple to test, try it! I already have and discovered this for myself.

 

BUT WHO CARES? I have so much resolution to work with from my EOS 1DS body when shooting interior architecture jobs that I don't see any reason to buy an EOS 1DmkII until Canon or SOMEBODY comes up with better WA glass. The EOS 1DS approaches the resolution of my old 6x6 Blads in terms of fine image detail, it's not quite the same but it's so close all of my clients have been amazed that the images came from a 35mm format camera.

 

Thomas you can stand by your comments but you do look kind of silly doing so.

 

 

Cheers/Chip

[beeman458]

Not at all but you're welcome to keep thinking so.

 

Fewer and fewer industries and professionals are supporting film for a reason.

 

Wishing you well with you film based efforts. Myself, I'll continue standing by my comments, unchanged.