Canon 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6

[mauricedecastro]

This is actually motivated by a recent post I made that helped a lot me but now

I have more questions.....

 

I have a Canon 30D, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS and the Canon 1.4x and 2x TC.

 

I am looking a Telephoto for wild life and SOME bird photography.

 

I currently have continued AF up to 400mm with the 70-200 plus 2x TC. (it would

result in a 140-400mm 5.6)

 

I was thinking of buying a 400mm 5.6 to get up to 800mm with the 2x TC but

someone recommended the 300mm f4 to get up to a 600mm f8 with the 2x TC because

the 400mm 5.6 with the 2x would result in f11 that would be very difficult to

focus manually.

 

If that?s true, I could even get the 300mm f4 IS if I get one at a good price,

that way I would get Stabilization.

 

My budget is US$ 1,000.00

 

Recommendations?

 

PS, I know I will lose AF when using the 2x TC with any of those lenses.

[jim_doty]

This article might help in terms of the bird photography part of your question:

 

http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html

 

I think you will miss AF when using a 2x TC.

 

You could rent one or both lenses for a week for $35-55 per lens and try before you buy.

 

Jim

[mark_chappell]

If you search the archives, I think you'll find lots of threads (here and in the Nature forum)

about this specific question.

 

There's no consistent answer, but I agree that trying to focus a 30D at f11 is going to be a

nightmare unless your eyes are A LOT better than mine.

[jwhite3.0]

My two cents, if you want to do SOME bird photography but you want to do SOME SERIOUS bird photography go with the 400mm f/5.6. Main reason being faster autofocus with 400mm vs 300mm + 1.4X TC which will help with birds in flight. Another reason is that your 70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4X TC gets you to 280mm so getting a 300mm lens is very close to overlapping focal lengths. However, one can get good bird shots with a 300mm f/4 + 1.4X TC, you just may miss a couple due to slower AF. I find manual focus on the 400mm not to be that big of an issue especially if you're using a tripod.

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"I was thinking of buying a 400mm 5.6 to get up to 800mm with the 2x TC but someone recommended the 300mm f4 to get up to a 600mm f8 with the 2x TC because the 400mm 5.6 with the 2x would result in f11 "</i></p>

<p>If you use the 1.4x with the 400 5.6, you get a 560 f8. Thats not too different than the 300 with 2x. Plus the 400 will allow you to get further without a TC in the first place. Besides, if you use it with a 2x, f11 will A LOT of light, and be hard to focus with. Best to only use the 400 with the 1.4x.

[the chad]

Native focal lenghts are always the best. TC's are usefull, nevertheless the 400 5.6 is buy far the superior lens. Primes are nice, but a 300mm prime does not excite me. I atually like 50, 85, & 100mm primes for portrait's. In the field, modern telephoto zooms like the 400 5.6 (especially on digital 1.6x FOVCF) are the best. TC's produce images similar to spotting scopes with built in digital cameras. Nice for the family, but not so much in our world. I must say the 300 prime is a wonderful lens worth having, but if one must choose, the 400 zoom is better. Don't let its slow speed scare you, a good photographer knows how to adjust ISO and shutter for that, plus the IS really makes the speed look a whole lot worse then it is. You can hand hold this lens and get awesome shots with cloud cover in the evening (no joke). A wonderful professional "L" series lens that produces amazingly sharp pictures. Probable the most popular serious wildlife lens out there. Good luck!

[mark_chappell]

<I>, the 400 zoom is better. </i><P>

 

? what zoom?<P>

 

<i>, plus the IS really makes the speed look a whole lot worse then it is. </i><P>

 

I have no idea what this means, and the 400/5.6 has no IS.<P>

 

<I>Probable the most popular serious wildlife lens out there. </i><P>

 

Purely my own opinion but I'd vote for the 500/4 or 600/4 in that award category.

[akajohndoe]

I had the 80-200/2.8L and now have a 70-200/2.8L. I have both the 1.4x and 2x extenders. I briefly owned a 400/5.6L, but returned it within days and got a 300/2.8L. Now and again I rent a 600/4L. Never did try a 300/4, though.

[michaelschrag]

>>>>TC's produce images similar to spotting scopes with built in digital cameras.

 

Absolute nonsense. Many primes work quite well with a TC, especially a 1.4X TC. The 300mm f/4 is a good example.<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

crop..<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

Well in the interest of disclosure, the MaCaw above was really the 300mm f4/ IS by itself. This is the 300mm w/ 1.4 TC....<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

100% crop<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

One more try, 100% crop..<div></div>

[brian robinson]

Why not consider the 100-400 IS.

[ralph_jensen]

No question: get the 400.

 

With your 70-200IS and a 1.4x TC, you already have 280/f4 with IS; why buy the 300/f4 IS? If you're like most photographers, you'll find the 2x TC not nearly as useful as the 1.4 (because of noticeably reduced image quality with the 2x), so whoever recommended the 300 with 2x clearly never tried it. The 400 with 1.4, however, is a very useable combination.

[anthony_woods]

I am working on a wildlife book at present.I am using the Canon 100-400 zoom, and find it to be one of the most versatile field lenses out there. I did however find that I wanted to get closer to some small animals shrews, kingkisher etc. and bought a x2 tc. It is restrictive due to it's f 11 mininmum apperture and image quality is greatly reduced in fine details such as feathers and fur. Also no AF makes it difficult to shoot fast moving creatures. However when you do manage to focus it you may get a passable frame. My advise is get the four hundred and learn how to get closer to the subject. From the conversation I may try the 1.4 instead.

[John Crowe]

Since you have up to 400mm already covered with autofocus and IF you don't mind losing autofocus above that then your best optical solutions below $1000 USD are used Nikon manual focus lenses that you use with a cheap mechanical adapter. For the type of photography you will be shooting wide open anyway, so you leave the aperture open and your Canon will meter and set the shutter speeds in Av or you can use Manual mode.

 

 

All the Nikon supertelephotos could likely be used with your 1.4x and 2x converters and likely with good results. Otherwise used Nikon converters are available for under $150 USD each.

 

 

The Nikon 300mm f2.8 AIS and 400mm f3.5 AIS are your best bets in your budget. Both are handholdable in a pinch, but you would not want to carry them very far. Questions have been raised about the image quality of the Nikon 400 on DSLRs but the 300/2.8 is that much better and with a 2x would be vastly superior to the Canon 400/5.6 L with even a 1.4x and be 1 stop faster. The 400/3.5 with a 2x at worst would likely be similar to a Canon 400/5.6 L with a 2x but you would gain close to 2 stops of ISO settings which would improve your picture quality and your viewfinder would also be that much brighter.

 

 

I use several Nikon lenses on my 10D including the 200/2 AI and 400/2.8 AIS.

 

 

Just something to consider. Good luck.

[John Crowe]

Sorry, I did not realize that you had the same question posted earlier.

[ott_luuk]

Get the 400. Your 70-200 and 1.4x gives you 280/4 with IS which is really close to the 300/4 IS prime. The 400/5.6L, however, would give you much better AF speed and image quality than the 70-200 with a 2x. It is also very nice with the 1.4x. I`m pretty sure the resulting 560/8 is better in terms of IQ than the 600/8 that you would get with 300 + 2x. 2x converters generally degrade the image much more than any decent 1.4x.

 

As you already own the 2x, it costs you nothing extra to put it on the 400/5.6 from time to time but don`t expect the 800/11 combo to become your primary wildlife solution. It`s just too dark to be practical.

 

If you want a very long lens, you need to look for a very long lens in the first place, not just one that takes teleconverters. Think seriously about some used 500mm options: Canon 500/4.5L, Sigma 500/4.5 HSM, Nikon MF 500/4P with adapter. If these are out of the question, the 400/5.6L seems to be your best bet for the longest affordable, high quality lens. It would also nicely compliment a big 500 or 600mm lens that you may add to your system later on.

[jim_larson1]

I dunno. I disagree with some of the views here. However. . .I don't shoot much wildlife. When I do. .I have a 70-200/4L with 1.4TC.

 

A 300/4L-IS with a 1.4TC in my mind is better than a 400/5.6 simply because the 300 has image stabilization.

 

If you can manually focus a 400/5.6 with a 1.4TC on a 30D . . .then you are probably a better man than me :)

 

The 300/4L-IS is only *slightly* above your price limit :)

[digitmstr]

>>My budget is US$ 1,000.00<<

 

I think the IS mechanism of the 300 may give you an edge if you are shooting a bird on a branch. I'd rather have margninally less resolution due to the 1.4 TC but, the advantage of IS rather than the 400 without IS.

[michaelschrag]

I agree with Giampi. All the shots that I posted above were handheld. I have used the 300mm + 1.4 TC and achieved some very nice bird/animal results with the flexibility of NOT using a tripod. With the 400mm + TC you will undoubtedly need a tripod for sharp results, except in very bright light. Do you have a good solid tripod and a decent head, and is that conducive to your style of shooting? Another point is that the 300mm has very good close focus and you can obtain some excellent pseudo macros shots with it. I did not realize this when I bought the lens but have come to appreciate it greatly. It is my preferred lens for close up of say a butterfly on a flower etc? Good luck with your choice.

[joe_robinson2]

Ha,ha, me too Michael.---"I did not realize this when I bought the lens but have come to appreciate it greatly. It is my preferred lens for close up of say a butterfly on a flower etc?"---I had mine quite a while before I realized it. With the 1.4x I guess it is something like 4' working distance from the front of the lens, and about a 2"x3" Subj. will fill the frame on a 1.6 crop camera. Not bad at all if you are not into serious + macro.---JoeR

[bob_zuur]

With my 400mm 5.6 I shoot wide open without a second thought. A 300mm f4 would have to be stopped down to be close to being as sharp. A friend has a EF 300 2.8. With an EF 2x teleconverter, his combination is clearly less sharp than my 400mm.

 

So with the 300mm plus 1.4x teleconverter and stopped down you have longer shutter speeds, risk subject movement (even if you control camera movement), slower AF, and miss nice bokeh at wide open. If you want to shoot birds or sports such as windsurfing, you want the longest lens you can afford. The 300mm plus 1.4x has the advantage of an additional shorter focal length and closer focusing, but with the 200 zoom, you have shorter focal lengths covered.

[mauricedecastro]

Thanks a lot for all your valuable comments.

Looks like since I can get 280mm f4 with my 70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4 TC, the 400mm 5.6 is the way to go.