300/4 IS + 1.4TC or 400/5.6 or 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS

[tim_kong]

Hi all,

 

I am considering the above option for a longer focal length I currently have.

The longest lens in my arsenal is 200mm (70-200/4IS). I already have a 1.4xTC.

My consideration is IQ and sharpness. I have heard that the 300/4IS on its own

is super sharp and so is the 400/5.6. But what if I were to couple the 300

with the TC, would it be comparable to the 400 in IQ & sharpness? I know that

the 300 has IS advantage over the 400 but I will be using the TC most of the

time if I bought the 300. And would anyone consider the 100-400 IS over the 2

in terms of IQ and sharpness. This lens has IS as compared to the 400/5.6. The

400/4 DO IS and 400/2.8 IS lens is too expensive and heavy for me so thats out

of the question. I wish Canon would make an F4 IS non-DO version of the 400 so

more people can afford it and lightweight too. Well, any advise or opinions

are most appreciated.

[alanp]

I have the 100-400IS and to be honest I do not think it would stack up well in terms of your main critria of IQ and sharpness when compared to most of your other options. However, it is very versitile - which is what swung my own purchase decision, and the IQ is 'good'.

[ifeito]

Tim,

 

I asked the same question a few months back. There is a review on Luminous Landscape that could help you decide.

 

I also have the 70-200 f/4 and also had the 1.4xTC when I decided to buy the 300 f/4, and I absolutely love that lens.

 

I believe the best image quality comes from using the 400 f/5.6, but you do loose IS (which works amazingly at that focal lenght) and you probably won't be able to use it with your TC.

 

The 100-400 is heavier and you loose some image quality, however many swear by it. You probably wouldn't be using it with the TC either.

 

The 300 is a great lens to use without the TC (I feel it's sharper than the 70-200 at 200 mm) and it definitively gives you a great 420 f/5.6 to shoot birds at midrange.

 

Here's an almost full frame shot with that combination:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5317256

 

(DOF was actually not as shallow, photoshop helped a little bit)

 

Ignacio

[mark u]

FAQ:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JDbV&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IM3L&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HcHC&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HZvV&tag=

 

and many more...

[jwhite3.0]

If you want a serious lens for birds in flight or distant wildlife I personally would go with the extra reach @ best image quality which would be 400mm f/5.6. If you want utility then the 300m f/4 IS + 1.4X TC is also good. Even for birds in flight the 300mm + TC combo is good but if you are someone that really wants the best image quality @ ~400mm then the longer prime is the clear winner. As for IQ and sharpness the primes have the 100-400 IS beat. The zoom is for utility which doesn't seem to be your main concern. IS is a nice advantage but if you are shooting in good light, have a camera w/ a high burst cache, and/or using high shutter speeds then the lack of IS is not a major issue.

[terry_lee10]

Tim, as you already have a 200mm length lens, going to 300mm is not that much of a jump but going to 400mm makes more impact on your subject that you are trying to photograph.

 

The 300 prime is indeed a very sharp lens & I am not knocking it but because I did not find myself needing the 300mm length, it helped with my process of elimination.

 

If I don?t need 400mm length, I would have got the 300 prime over the 100-400 zoom.

 

That leaves either the 400 prime or the 100-400 zoom. The funny thing with the zoom is that those who I have met always say that they very often use the 400 end and I am sure most will agree that the IQ at 400 is the weakest link of this otherwise very versatile lens.

 

Before I acquired the 400 f5.6L, I also had the opportunity to try out the 300 f4L IS, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS & 400 f5.6L at a shop and at the same time.

 

The AF speed of the 400f5.6L was superior and was able to lock onto a non-contrasty subject, whilst the other 2 was either struggling to focus, take longer or unable to lock focus. That made my decision.

 

Photographers have been taking great photos before the invention of image stabilization but the IS feature is very handy in low light stationery subjects, night sports etc. You can always use monopods, tripods and increase the ISO as I?m accustomed in using ISO 1600 & 3200.

 

Think of those old days when people used to only shoot ISO 100 slide film (or pushing it to 200) with no IS technology, as ISO 200 & 400 slide film are grainy.

 

These days, Canon?s digital ISO 1600 is cleaner than colour ISO 400 & 800 film.

 

If you intend of getting the zoom, why not try renting one for a weekend to get the feel of the pump action zooming, IQ at 400, weight etc. I also feel that the zoom will soon be upgrade with better optics & 3rd generation IS etc, maybe similar to Nikon?s has a 100-400 constant f4 VR.

 

Remember if your subject moves, you can use panning techniques thus a slower shutter speed can be used.

 

The price of the 300 & 400 primes are very similar but the zoom is more expensive & heavier.

 

If you are really into non-flash low light stationery subjects, night sports at 400mm, you should be looking at the f2.8 with IS.

 

Isn?t it good that Canon gives us a variety of choice to choose, from f2.8, f4, f5.6 primes, zoom, IS, non IS, DO etc.

 

I would not agonize over it, choose the appropriate focal length you need according to your budget, go out and take great photos.

 

Oh by the way, Merry X?mas to everyone.<div></div>

[terry_lee10]

400mm f5.6 + 1.4xTC - manual focus<div></div>

[jwhite3.0]

Terry, fanstastic shot of the moon with 400mm!

[terry_lee10]

That was my 1st attempt shooting the moon, here's the 2nd attempt.

The 20D sensor helped me to gain that longer reach, again with the 1.4x TC.

 

Might try with a 2x TC one day but have to borrow one and look up in the sky at night. Not too long ago, I saw someone posted some moon shots at his website which gave me the motivation to give it a go.<div></div>

[david_wu6]

WOW, very nice shot!

 

I din't realize the surface of the moon is that smooth.

[steve santikarn]

Tim, from practical point of view I would get the 400/5.6 if you use sturdy tripod, get the 100-400 if you use monopod, and get the 300 IS if you handhold your 20D. If you are shooting in low light then I'd go with the 300IS and a mono/tri-pod.

[andrew robertson]

You'd have to be nuts to buy a long lens without IS in this day and age.

[tim_kong]

Hi Guys,

 

Thank you all for the valuable advice. Looks like the zoom is out as far as my criteria is concerned. It now boils down to the 2 primes and its going to be a tough decision. At 400mm focal length, I am sure the 400 will outperform 300 with TC. However the lack of IS on the 400 is a real concern for me. I will be shooting mostly handheld with a 20D. Light might be an issue sometimes especially when I am under thick foliage shooting birds/animals. If I am shooting outdoor sports, I would get the 400/5.6 without a second thought. Real tough decision but its mine to made. Anyway, you guys have provided me with some pros and cons on these lens and I want to thank each and everyone of you. Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[pturton]

Tim,

 

A couple years ago I faced the same decision. I was fortunate enough to have funds to buy both the 300 f/4 IS and 400 f/5.6. My 300 gets far more usage than my 400 because of its versatility. The 300 can focus much closer which makes it a nice walk-around lens. Images from it with an EF 1.4 TC are indistinguishable from my 400 unless pixel peeping at 200% and the difference is still hard to see.

 

The IS works sufficiently well that even with an EF 2 TC, the lens can still be HH and produce excellent images - in bright light of course.

 

A comparison between the 400 + 1.4 TC and 300 + 2 TC.

http://www.iaw.on.ca/~pturton/dpr/400vs300.jpg

[eric merrill]

Tim:

 

I faced a similar decision a few months ago. Decided that I didn't want the zoom.

 

If there were an IS version of the 400/5.6, I might still be trying to make a decision. :) Instead, I picked up the 300/4 IS along with the 1.4x and 2x converters. The 300 + 1.4x combo is very nice. I shoot people more than animals, and it resolves individual eyelashes without a problem.

 

 

Eric

[kevin conville]

Tim Kong- "I will be shooting mostly handheld with a 20D."

 

This IMO is VERY unrealistic with the 400mm lens. One would have to have statue-like

composure to do that. It would require very high shutter speed at all times as your motion

will be extremely exagerated. Forget about anything approaching careful composition,

you'll be all over the place. Effectively you'd be handholding a 640mm lens.

 

Clearly, the 300mm lens w/ IS will be far more manageable. I don't even use my 70-200

F4 (non IS) at 200 handheld with a 1.6x body. I suggest a tripod, always.

 

Do yourself a favor and rent (or borrow) these lenses before you buy. You'll learn alot

more than reading answers from us in this forum.

[tim_kong]

Thanks guys for your valuable input. Looks like the 300/4 IS is the clear winner here, as far as hand holdability is concerned.

 

Kevin, I would love to rent these lens to try them out but unforntunately, renting equipment is unheard of where I live. I only have opinions from forum like this to rely on for my pre-purchasing decision. But so far, I have not been disappointed with the opinions from fellow photogs like yourself. Thank you very much.