Decided to get a good telephoto...300 f/4L IS or 400 f/5.6L

[jim_d5]

Ok, so my next lens will be a super telephoto. I have about 1100 to spend and

these are my two considerations. I see that both are excellent optically. I

use my 70-200 f/4L for my telephoto now (sports and landscape). I consider the

images from my 70-200 to meet my IQ requirements and would like my new lens at

least match its performance. I think these two easily do that.

 

I will be shooting with a 30D and XTi. I already have good support, tripods,

monopods etc.

 

This is made exponentially more difficult by the fact that they cost the same!

 

But...the 300 has IS and the 400 doesn't. But, the 400 has more reach but one

less f-stop. I would like to get (back) into bird photography and feel the 300

to be too little reach especially if I go to a full frame or 1.3x crop

eventually, which will almost certainly happen.

 

I have an old 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 (no IS) in my closet and have looked at the 300

focal length and don't really know what to think. On the one hand it seems

pretty good reach wise but on the other hand it seems somewhat difficult to get

"intimate" with small subject, like birds, even with the 1.6x crop working in my

favor.

 

I know about the extenders. I have tried the 1.4x and I know it works well but

do not own one.

 

Now, the IS. It would help me zero in sports which consists of college football

(behind the fences) and baseball (also from behind the wall). I often get

excellent results at these games with my 70-200, but it is often not enough

reach especially for football, once again I cannot get intimate. The IS would

help would birds of course. Then I do have a monopod, however the pod is

sometimes impractical at sporting events. Thanks for any personal experience

help here on this decision.

[mendel_leisk]

The last fiew paragraphs here compare the various Canon lens in this range:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

All the lens are methodically reviewed and tested there, and there are example pictures as well.

 

I'm considering something in this range as well, and am leaning towards the 100-400. They all have their pros-and-cons though. Currently my longest lens is the 70-200 f2.8 with IS. The IS is invaluable for hand-held in this range. Also, I switched from 20D to 5D and there is a signif. drop in reach. The upside is the the 70 end get's to be close to normal perspective.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Ok, so my next lens will be a super telephoto. </i><P>

 

Depending on semantics, most folks would not call either the 300/4 or the 400/5.6 a

'super telephoto'. That moniker is usually reserved for 500 and 600 mm f4 lenses. That

aside, both the 300/4 IS or the 400/5.6 are fine lenses (according to reputation; I don't

own either). The 100-400 mentioned by Mendel is also a good lens -- if you get a good

sample. My 100-400 is just OK wide open at 400 mm, but quite good stopped down

even a little.<P>

 

There have been endless threads on this very question so you might search the archives.

My take is that you should get the 400/5.6 for the best optical quality at 400 mm and the

fastest AF performance -- at the expense of no IS and not very good close focus. You'll be

needing to use it on a tripod or at least a monopod except in very bright light and

consequent high shutter speeds. The 300/4 IS is optically excellent and has stabilization

and excellent close-focus ability (to about 1.5 meters instead of 4 meters for the

400/5.6). With a 1.4X, it's still very good, but AF slows noticeably. The 100-400 is

extremely versatile, has good close focus, and moderately fast AF.

[phyrpowr]

JD, search for "Jody Melanson" in the member section to see what the 400 can do in the right hands. I used a 300/4 IS and was extremely pleased, TC included, but I'm not a birder

[jon_austin]

If I were making this decision, I'd go for the 300/4L IS now, and then start saving up to add a Canon 1.4x extender. That approach would give you 300/4 IS now, and then add 420/5.6 IS as soon as you can scrape together an extra $300 or so.

 

(Disclaimer: I already own the Canon 1.4x extender, which I've used on both the f/4 non-IS and f/2.8 IS versions of the Canon 70-200L series. I'm hard-pressed to see much IQ difference between each of these two excellent zooms, with and without the Canon 1.4x mounted.)

[pturton]

After using the 300 f/4 L IS and 400 f/5.6 L for the past couple years for backyard birds and general photography, my 300 is my preference for its versatility - close focus, IS, great images with Ef 1.4 TC and acceptable images with EF 2 TC.

[awindsor]

Mark Chappell,

 

Amongst their lenses in current production Canon call the following lenses super telephoto: 300/2.8 IS, 400/2.8 IS, 400/4 DO IS, 400/5.6, 500/4 IS, and 600/4 IS.

 

J. D.,

 

I went the route of the 300/4 IS + 1.4x extender combination. The zippy AF of the 400/5.6 is great but part of that comes from a dismal close focusing distance. The 300/4 focuses very close (even with the focus limiter on - Canon could have made the lens much better with a 3 position focal limiter) which is great for small subjects. The 400/5.6 is marginally better especially on the borders but the 300/4 IS +1.4x combination is good enough for me to use it wide open. I have used the 300/4 + 1.4x to take some shots of birds in flight but the time taken for initial focus lock is a problem - prefocusing helps somewhat. Once lock is achieved it tracks well but if AF snaps to the background you are back to the initial lock problem again.

 

The weakness of the 300/4 IS + 1.4x extender is the AF speed but for most of my shooting it is simply not an issue.

 

The zippy AF advantage of the 400/5.6 is only really useful if you use the 400/5.6 handheld or on a gimbal mount. The 300/4 + 1.4x AF is fine for anything approaching static - the only problem is initial focus lock on rapidly moving subjects.

[camilo]

I had the same dilemma that you have right now a couple of months back, and a very good friend of mine recommended me to spend a bit more and get the 100-400L IS lens. Thanks God I listen to him I’m very happy with my lenses since it is very versatile, example my first shoot was on the F1 in Melbourne and when you are shooting this very fast cars you need to be able to follow them which requires the ability to go from say 250 to full 400 the way in which the lens changes focal length also make the hole experience easier at the moment of shooting, I know that this lens might have not been on your mind originally but it will worth to give it a try and see what you think.

[eos 10 fan]

You wrote that your 75-300 "...seems pretty good reach wise...", so it would look like a good place to start might be at 300mm.

 

Why not start with a 1.4x TC on your 70-200/2.8 IS? Have you tried this combo with the sports you shoot?

 

--

 

The PhotoZone.de (PZ) reviews show the 300/4 IS + 1.4x TC, 400/5.6L & 100-400/IS all to have very close resolution at 400mm f/5.6 (at both centre & border); not much difference in CAs or vignetting either.

 

Unfortunately the PZ 70-200/2.8 IS test did not include a 1.4x TC. My own experience with a Tamron 1.4x TC + 70-200/2.8 IS on a 30D is that there seems to be a slightly slower AF and no difference in image quality... ymmv.

 

--

 

My looong term lens buying plan includes answering your question... I'm leaning towards the 300/4 IS, but the $$ to 'put my money where my mouth is' is still a few years away.

[William Michael]

No comparison: get the 300mm F4, or if not, get the 300mm F2.8.

 

And look at the x1.4 extender, buy it.

 

One cannot compromise on speed at telephoto lengths.

 

There are few occasions where one can say one will NEVER use IS.

 

I have decided to use a non IS, 70 to 200 F2.8. I can therefore am credentialed to make the comment about IS.

 

WW

[savvas_sidiropoulos]

The EF300/4IS is somewhat sharper than the 400/5.6

 

Adding an 1.4xTC to the 300 will give you practically the same sharpness with the 400 but somewhat slower AF, while giving you IS.

 

I would choose the 300 + 300+1.4x solution for it's versatility with two focal lengths plus the /4 apperture.

 

Alternativelly, the 300/4 with it's increased sharpness could be used with cropping the shots simulating a 400 focal length.

[photographicsafaris]

Just gone down this route: brought the 100-400. My experiences relate to Full frame and

transparencies.

 

I have used the 300 f4is, and it really is a cracking lens, I managed a handheld (by

deffinition - actually supported with both elbows on knees) shot at 1/10th of a second.

The shot printed out acceptably sharp at 8x12-so the IS is a gem.

 

The 100-400 Image stabiliser is not in the same league, I now realise that, but more than

useful for aviation and avifauna photography. which is where the 400 f5.6 falls down

without the IS and handheld... Also the zoom function for finding sneaky red Arrows

hiding in the sky is so useful!

 

One thing I am realising is that the zoom lens needs bright sunshine, the kind where you

can shoot at ISO 100 1/125 at f8 then the results will yeild amazing clarity. Ideal for

Africa.

 

Caveat Emptor:

In lower lighting levels, whilst everything will function well, the images lack the definition

and POP that the primes give.

 

My decision was teetering between the 300f4is with the 1.4x (which I already had) and the

100-400 when in the store cash in hand I went for the 100-400. If I had the money it

would be the 300 f2.8 no questions.

 

What I have learnt, is that the 70-200 f4 should be almost superceeded, yet it is not: I am

constantly finding myself picking up the 70-200 for portraits, and anything where I would

crank up the ISO above 640.

 

Ultimately for me the 400mm range is almost strictly for African Safaris and UK Aviation: it

is actually really good for smaller tame birds of the redbrested robin variety.

 

Being the kind of chap that takes alot of gear I have found that the 100-400 is a pain as it

is considerably bigger than the 300 f4is in a camera bag, so I have to cart it around on the

camera or seperate to the camera bag.

I also have a 100 2.8 Macro: now that really does bring out a whole new meaning to sharp

lenses in the zoom category, so I suppose my advice is to go with `primes...

 

Good luck with your choice.

 

G

[robin_sibson1]

"Super" in "super-telephoto" has nothing to do with the optical specification, just the price!

 

As between the 400/5.6, 300/4IS possibly plus Extender 1.4x, and 100~400, the question is simply what tradeoff suits you best. I have the 100~400, and have used the 300/4IS both with and without the Extender 1.4x, and I agree with Mark C's assessment of them. The 400/5.6 definitely has a fan-club (if it existed, a 400/5.6IS would certainly have a much bigger fan-club), but is much more of a niche option than the other two because of the combination of fixed focal length, lack of IS, and poor close focus. You pays your money and takes your choice.

[William Michael]

But Robin, answering a direct question: would you buy a telephoto (300mm or longer) without IS?

 

I have the 70 to 200F2.8L (non IS), and I use it for a specific purpose. Having used it for 12 months + (and I am very happy with it) I would not consider a non IS tele lens.

 

Doing so, IMO, is too limiting for the money invested.

 

WW

[lee_shively]

Sports and landscape subjects currently with desire to photograph birds. A wide range of subject matter indeed.

 

Try shooting with your current zoom at 300mm. Can you cover everything with this focal length? If so, get the 300/4. If you need more reach get the 400/5.6. Get the 1.4X entender either way--you will find birds are small, wary creatures and even a 400mm w/1.4X extender can come up short. Don't fuss too much over the IS feature in the 300. It will not help at all for fast-moving sports subjects. For landscapes, you'll likely be using a tripod anyway--or you should. It might occasionally help for birds but they tend to be pretty active--you'll need more ISO than IS.

[William Michael]

>>> A wide range of subject matter indeed. <<<

 

and

 

>>> Don't fuss too much over the IS feature in the 300. <<<

 

Interesting perspective, and succinctly expanded in your post (using a tripod, and lack of use for IS in sports).

 

But it was the vast / general range of uses the OP had for a telephoto lens which made me suggest it was a no brainer to get an IS lens. And I have chosen a non IS lens for my specific use (sports).

 

Interesting how we see the same issue, but resolve it so differently.

 

WW

[lester_wareham]

If bird photography is the main criteria and you plan to be working from a tripod then the 400/5.6 is the obvious choice.

 

The 300/4 IS has some advantages, obviously the IS but also a much closer focus distance. This and the fact it is easier to get more magnification with tubes makes the 300/4 IS more attractive if some long focal length close-up capability is desired.

 

Personally I chose the 300/4 IS for this reason. It does work well with the 1.4X and I use it for birds with that. Of course the 400/5.6 will be sharper and have faster AF.

 

I have got some good shots with the 300mm and the 2X also, where the main disadvantage is manual focus. Of course the 400 + 1.4X will have the same issues but should be sharper although the 300+2X is quite usable.

 

Regarding the 100-400 IS. This lens seems to have good sharpness at the tele end but less so zoomed out. However, my understanding is it does not cope as well with the 1.4X as the primes, this also leads me to think it would cope less well with close-up work also as this makes similar demands on the lens resolution. This was part of the reasons for me to pass over the zoom option.

[robin_sibson1]

I would not myself buy a long lens without IS because I know how I use my lenses, and it would just not make sense for me. But I'm quite open to the idea that other folks may have different needs. The bad outcome is to take dogmatic advice from others and then find that it's not right for you!

[awindsor]

Lester Wareham wrote..

<blockquote>

If bird photography is the main criteria and you plan to be working from a tripod then the 400/5.6 is the obvious choice.

</blockquote><P>

I disagree that the choice is obvious. I mostly work from a tripod and still went with the 300/4 IS. The AF disadvantage of the 300/4 IS + 1.4x is really only applicable if you are tracking a moving subject handheld (or possibly on a gimbal mount). I have never had a problem with the 300/4 + 1.4x on a tripod only used handheld panning with a bird in flight. The 400/5.6 does have an optical advantage but the 300/4 IS +1.4x is good enough for me even wide open. <P>

 

Part of the fame of this lens for bird photography comes from <A HREF="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html">Arthur Morris'</A> staunch support for this lens. Regarding how he uses the 400/5.6 Arthur wrote

<blockquote>

For photographing birds in flight, however, <b>handheld</b> 400mm f/5.6 lenses perform superbly ..... Now, on most sunny days, I carry the 300 IS lens with an A2 body over my left shoulder, the 400 f/5.6 outfit on my right shoulder, and the tripod-mounted 600mm f/4 ..... On cloudy days, I do not take the 400 f/5.6, which I use almost exclusively for flight shooting on blue sky days.

</blockquote><P>

The emphasis is mine. I went with the 300/4 IS because I get a 300/4 and a 420/5.6, using the 1.4x, both of which autofocus successfully. The 400/5.6 and 1.4x will not AF on my bodies (nor on J. D.'s) without taping pins or using a 3rd party converter. IS is wonderful and is very helpful with long lenses but it was the icing and not the whole cake.

[keith reeder]

Lester wrote:<br><br>

 

"<b>However, my understanding is it does not cope as well with the 1.4X as the primes</b>"<br><Br>

 

Actually it works *extremely* well in IQ terms - my Kenko Pro 1.4x TC is on my 30D/100-400mm combo pretty much all the time and it is splendid.<br><br>

 

<img src="http://capture-the-moment.co.uk/wb/media/eider/eider4.jpg"><br>

Eider drake at 560mm, handheld.<br><Br>

 

<img src="http://capture-the-moment.co.uk/wb/media/stonechat/sc8.jpg"><br>

Stonechat at 560mm, handheld, f/5.6

[alan_myers]

J.D.

 

Like some others, I'd definitely choose the 300/4 simply for it's I.S. Best thing since sliced bread. I use the 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 and 500/4 I.S. lenses... And I wish Canon would put I.S. on their 135/2 and 200/2.8 (and/or bring back the 200/1.8 with I.S. added)!

 

If at all possible, I simply wouldn't want to be without I.S. on any lens 135mm (on 1.6X, 200mm on full frame) or longer. I also use tripods and monopods a lot. I.S. is extremely useful there, too.

 

This is especially true since you are shooting with 1.6X cameras (me too, although I bought the lenses for use on full frame film originally). Keep in mind that the 300mm "acts like" 480mm on your cameras. It will magnify any camera movement 1.6X too!

 

I'd also agree with the suggestion to pick up a 1.4X when you get the chance. Canon's is excellent, but I haven't tried the third party versions so can't really make any comparisons.

 

Then go out and work on your stalking skills. If and when you feel the need for something longer, you might opt for a 500mm or even a 600mm instead. The 1.4X will work equaliy well on those, too.

 

I have only lightly used the 100-400, which also has I.S. It's a decent and convenient lens, but I prefer primes and a non-variable aperture.

 

Have fun shopping!

[DickArnold]

Lots of photographers go to the Everglades, set up a tripod and hangover the observation walk rail with a huge lens. Not me. I go out into Big Cypress and look for wildlife. I like to shoot on the wing and I cannot figure out how to do that with a tripod particularly when I stalk birds like hunter. One day I had my 70-200 2.8L with 2X(I know) and I was walking behind these guys hanging over their rail when an Osprey lit high in a tree right next to me. I photographed this bird for at least twenty minutes in a wind flapping his wings trying keep his(her?) balance. These guys with their butts facing me could never have got their tripods turned around at a high enough angle to shoot that bird. About that time an Anhinga lit in front of me and in this glorius light I got a superb picture of this bird. As I had the extender on the lens I could not have gotten the picture without a zoom lens. They were both too close. I sold a blowup of the Osprey for a pretty good price. I won second place in a fairly large local art show with the Anhinga. The Osprey was sold within an hour of the opening of that same show even though they were both taken with a 2x. Because I stalk and sometimes get quite close I think I need a zoom. That is why I bought a 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS L. It is better at the same focal length than using a 2X on my 70-200. Those guys never turned around and never knew the birds or I were there. Both the Anhinga and one of those Osprey pictures are in my gallery.

[awindsor]

Keith,

 

I thought I had posted this earlier. You mention using the 100-400 with your Tamron 1.4x convertor; how is the autofocus? With a Canon convertor the combination would not autofocus near the long end on most Canon bodies since it is slower than 5.6.

[keith reeder]

Hi Alistair,

 

it's actually a Kenko TC (I believe it's the same as the Tamron) and with pins taped the AF is fine - very little hunting, and very few missed pictures caused by the TC.

[awindsor]

Does the Kenko actually communicate the effective aperture? If not what does taping pins do ?