Need help with decision on IS Canon Big Guns 300 2.8/400 2.8 / 500 4.0

[sbrauchli]

I have searched the forum and while I have seen threads discussing some of

these lenses, the threads are fairly old and deal with the older non-IS

versions, or do not really provide the info I am looking for.

</BR></BR>

I recently purchased a 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS and absolutely love the lens. I want

to get more into wildlife and landscape photography (hopefully an Africa trip)

and have been thinking about acquiring one of the Canon big guns. I recently

rented an EF 300 2.8 IS and was very impressed with the bokeh, colors, and

sharpness. After two days of carrying around the 100-400 on the 40D and the 300

on the 5D, my back and arms were slightly sore.

</BR>

Sample 300 2.8 IS image:

</BR>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6906620-lg.jpg">

</BR>

I really like the separation you achieve with this lens. I guess even with 4.0

you would still get a pretty good effect. Since with my 100-400 I always find

myself shooting at 400, I am considering the 400 IS 2.8 and 500 IS 4.0 as well.

The 400 being the heaviest of these lenses and the 500 not being quite as fast.

I will be trying out the 500 this weekend and hope to be able to handhold it or

rest it using a bean bag or similar (I generally do not have the time to set up

a tripod and I guess in Africa since you cannot leave the car you would be

resting on the window frame).

</BR>

Which is the most versatile of these lenses? I guess the 300 would also be

useful for landscapes. But if I end up adding TCs to it all the time, I might

be better off getting the 500 4.0 IS, or the 400 2.8 IS. Do any of you own

more than one of these lenses? I sit possible to hand-hold the larger two at

all (or rest them on something other than a tripod/gimbal combo)?

If I take the plunge and spend this much money on a lens, I want to make sure I

will use it often and not only use it for rare occasions (tripod).

[ken munn]

No experience with these lens, but I shot on a Tanzanian safari using a 400 f5.6 on film. Two

points. I often wished for more reach, rarely for less, and the form there was that the van had

a pop-top, so that I could shoot standing up, head out of the van. I was able to use a

monopod in the van to carry the weight and to steady. I guess the combi of a monopod and

IS would be pretty useful.

[zml]

Yep, even though I rarely use anything longer than 300, on a safari one wishes for two lenses only: long and longer :-))) The 500/4 is a wonderful lens but not easy to handhold and iffy to AF on lesser bodies when used with a TC. 400/2.8 is wonderful (almost equal to the 300/2.8 IS, which IMO is in terms of IQ the best supertele there is) and adding a 1.4x TC will give you a 560/4 rig able to autofocus on all current Canon bodies. Your choice depends also on your camera, whether you shoot FF, 1.3 or 1.6 crop. Say, on a 1.6 crop camera, the 400 + 1.4 TC becomes a nice 900 mm EFOV, long enough for safaris, eh?

[sattler123]

I use the 500 f/4 is on a 1.6 crop body (40D) for bird photography and I ALWAYS want more reach. The 1.4 extender isalmost permanently attached to the lens. Hand holding this lens is almost impossible, even with the IS - I know there are folks who use it hand held for birds in flight, but you really can't do that for very long. At the very minimum you'd need a monopod or a beanbag when you are shooting out of a car. The bets solution is a sturdy tripod with a gimbal-type head (I use the sidekick). I also have the 100-400, which honestly gets much more use, because I can take it with me on hikes. While I have a backpack for the 500, which is quite comfortable to carry, it would take too long to unpack the lens to get any of the shots I am getting with the 100-400. Oh, yes, the 500 is a marvelous lens!

[sbrauchli]

Thank you all for your help - I shoot a 40D and a 5D primarily so have the advantages of full frame or crop when I need them. I do have a monodpod which I guess would take less time to set up, but it seems like if I want to have the lens on me most of the time, the 300 might work best. Maybe I change my mind after I try the 500 this weekend.

[m_barbu1]

I'm personally saving up for the 500 (skipping over 300 and 400). However, I don't see myself being able to use it very precisely without a tripod (and I'm no weakling).

[sbrauchli]

I also use the 1.4X TC, but I would not want to use a 2X, as I find that quality takes a dive with it. With the 1.4, it is still ok with the 300 2.8 IS (not so with the 100-400 which is then also only manual focus).

[marknagel]

I have a 300/2.8is and almost bought the 400/2.8is. I also have a 5D and 40D. If I were to do it again, I would have gotten the 400 for the extra reach. I use gimbal and/or handhold and its fine either way if light permits of course.

 

m

[gary_ferguson1]

I've owned and used the 300 2.8, 300 4.0, 100-400, 500 4.0, and the 70-300 DO.

 

I sold the 300 2.8 because the 300 4.0 does nearly everything the 2.8 does, but it's genuinely handholdable and portable. I sold the 100-400 because the image quality didn't really match up to the long primes and the trombone focusing was horrible.

 

If I need portability I use the DO lens or the 300 4.0, if I need extreme reach I use the 500 4.0 and extenders.

[eosbob]

I have the 300 2.8IS and find it hand holdable with the tripod collar removed. It is still very serviceable with the 2X and the resulting 5.6 still works fine with my 1D MarkII. I choose it because it fits in my Photo Trekker AW backpack and I take it every time I venture out. I have friends with the 400 and 500 lenses and they are great when they have them, but if you ever plan to hike about the 300 is a great choice. The 300f4 doesn't cut it when you add the 2X.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I've got the 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS lenses, and have used them for about 7 years now. I started out using them with film (two EOS3s) and am now using them almost exclusively with 1.6X crop D-SLRs (two 30Ds and a 10D). For my purposes, the 500mm got more use with film/full frame than it does now with 1.6X crop cameras. But, someone else might find just the opposite to be true.

 

If I'd been buying just a single lens, I might have considered the 400/2.8 IS instead. However, as you noted, it's larger, heavier and more expensive than the 500/4 IS. (Not that either the 300/2.8 or 500/4 are particularly small, light or cheap!)

 

Both lenses work very well with 1.4X II and 2X II teleconverters, which I also use. I have noticed some warming of images with the TCs on the 500mm lens, but that may be unique to the particular copy of the lens or to the teleconverters I've got. The effect is stronger with the 2X than the 1.4X. But it really isn't a problem or even objectionable. It's easily handled with post processing of digital images.

 

Bokeh with both these lenses is gorgeous. They are also both incredibly even sharp wide open. Color saturation and contrast is great, too. Use the deep lens hood to help preserve that. Just watch for too shallow DOF. Especially when working through crop sensor camera viewfinders, which tend to exaggerate DOF. Oh, and don't break or lose the lens hood from either lens... Either replacement hood alone costs more than some lesser Canon lenses, or even some entire cameras!

 

One reason I chose these two lenses over the 400/2.8 and/or 600/4 is their size and weight. Both the smaller lenses can be used on a gimbal accessory like the Wimberley Sidekick, while the larger/heavier lenses require a full blown gimbal head. So, the larger lenses essentially require a dedicated tripod, for all practical purposes.

 

The smaller lenses make possible an easily convertible tripod, that can be switched back to conventional ballhead use for macro, shorter lenses, etc., with just the twist of a knob, removal of the Sidekick and repositioning of the platform. (Notes: I use a Kirk BH-1 ballhead, but there are a number of good ones on the market. You do need a pretty heavy duty one to use the Sidekick. And, you certainly can convert a tripod with a full size gimbal on it back and forth to ballhead use, too. But, tools and more time are necessary to do this. It's not just a quick, easy operation like it is with the Sidekick.)

 

Although I've handheld both lenses from time to time, plus used them with bean bags and monopods occasionally, I really couldn't imagine using them a great deal without a tripod and gimbal head. These are accessories I think most super tele users will want and find very useful!

 

A nice bonus use I found with the Sidekick is that cameras fitted with an Arca-Swiss quick release plate can also easily be mounted vertically. This makes an L-bracket on the camera unnecessary (which would cost more, plus add weight and bulk). This vertical camera orientation is not possible with any of the full blown gimbal heads currently on the market.

 

Renting and trying is a great idea. Glad to hear you are doing that.

 

My two lenses share a small selection of drop-in filters (UV or plain, which is supplied with the lens and is required; circular polarizer, which is dedicated to drop-in use only; and an 81A warming filter).

 

They are also both covered with Lens Coats, which are available in a variety of camo patterns, black and white. These neoprene covers also protect the lenses from bumps while out in the field using them.

 

As Gary noted, the 300/4 IS is also a fine lens, and quite a bit more easily hand held. One key difference, the 300/2.8 is a couple years newer and it's IS can be used on a tripod (which is useful for gimbal type work). With the slightly older 300/4, you are supposed to shut off IS when the lens is on a tripod. Of course, there's also a bit less potential for background blur with the f4 lens.

 

In the past, several different lens tests ranked the 300/2.8 IS second behind only one other lens in production, which at that time was the now discontinued Canon EF 200/1.8. (We'll just have to wait and see if the new 200/2 IS expected to arrive on shelves next month is that lens' equal.) In terms of image quality, the 300/4 is darned close though, and a whole lot cheaper and more portable. Only on a couple occasions have I carried *both* 300/2.8 and 500/4 at the same time, and never very far!

[mark u]

I suggest you research what you take on safari as a separate exercise. Your best choices will depend on the destination, time of year and the local arrangements. Safaris are not created equal, and experiences vary widely.

[ferensen]

Good information here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Safari-Tips.shtml

[alan_myers]

Hi again,

 

Robert reminded me...

 

Yes, it's tight but the 300/2.8 even fits into a smaller backpack (Lowepro Mini Trekker in my case) and both will fit in an overhead bin on an airplane. You get strange looks and maybe a few questions when the backpack goes through airport security, though. Once a security screener commented, "Wow! That's quite a lens, we can tell looking at the X-ray when a lens has exotic glass like fluorite." Not sure if that was true or he was just making conversation, but he seemed to know a little bit about cameras and lenses.

 

The 500mm will fit into a Photo Trekker, too, but certainly not in a Mini Trekker. However, you'll probably want to carry less other stuff along with it!

 

Hmmm. Not making your decision any easier, am I! ;-)

 

Both lenses come with Canon straps, that probably should have health warnings printed on them! If you intend to use a strap, I recommend replacing the OEM ones with something that's a lot kinder to your body, such as Op-Tech or UpStraps.

[sbrauchli]

Wow- thank you so much for the abundant and useful information. While I am sure that the 300 f4 is an excellent lens, it is pretty close to my 100-400 (which in my case is very crisp):

 

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

 

"The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens is another highly recommended lens that competently covers the 300mm focal length - and much more. At 300mm, the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens has slightly better sharpness (especially in the corners), slightly less pincushion distortion, slightly higher maximum magnification and is lighter, less expensive - and possibly most significantly - is 1 stop faster. However, if you can live with 300mm f/5.6, the 100-400 L adds the great versatility of a wide focal length zoom range that includes 400mm. If 400mm is your goal, the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo. "

 

I am leaning towards the 300 2.8 IS at this point as I was able to handhold it all of last weekend and got some great shots with it. The IQ is just beyond anything I imagined. Being 6'4", I was able to handhold it quite well. I guess the 500 will be different. I will definitely add my experience with the 500mm after this coming weekend.

 

Alan, thanks again for your indepth information. Bill, that link is full of good information (though with the 40D high speed mode and 1.6 crop the whole Nikon D2X advantage vanishes). Thank you all for your help.

[matt_sallis]

<P>You are doing absolutely the right thing in trying each lens for yourself. Personal preference for handling varies so much that no-one else can really tell you which lens you can hand-hold.</P>

 

<P>I have the 300mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. The 600 weighs about the same as the 400mm f2.8, and I can assure you that hand-holding a lens of that weight is just not practical. I'm fairly strong and I <i>can</i> hand-hold my 600 for about 1 minute, but would definitely not take it out for the day without a tripod.</P>

 

<P>The 300 on the other hand is like a featherweight when I've been using the 600 for a few days, and I can hand-hold that all day. In fact I don't think I've ever used the 300 on a tripod; a monopod when light is low and shutter speeds are below 1/60th maybe, but generally it's hand-held.</P>

 

<P>I find the 1.4x on the 300 is almost indistinguishable from the bare lens, but with the 2x stopping down 1 stop or more is needed to regain resolution and contrast.<br>It's fine if you do stop down, and I don't believe anyone could tell if converters had been used by just looking at an individual shot. Maybe in a direct comparison between a bare lens and a 2x shot, but not an image on its own.</P>

 

<P>By coincidence I actually borrowed a friend's 500mm f4 a fortnight ago (while he had my 300), and I did find I was able to use it hand-held, <i>but</i> this was photographing <a href="http://www.nature-photos.biz/birdlist/turnstone/index.htm" target="_blank">Turnstones</a> and <a href="http://www.nature-photos.biz/birdlist/purplesandpiper/index.htm" target="_blank">Purple Sandpipers</a> on the shoreline, so I was sat down most of the time and able to take the weight of the lens with my elbow resting on my knee, or leaning on a rock.<br>I'm not sure I'd want to be without a tripod all day with it, especially for free-standing shots with nothing to lean or rest on.</P>

 

<P>I'm sure your weekend's comparison will let you make the right decision about the hand-holding. Optically the 300 and 500 are very similar, with perhaps a tiny advantage to the amazing 300mm f2.8.<br> Good luck with whatever you decide.</P>

[sbrauchli]

I tried out the 500mm 4.o IS yesterday and today. Yesterday, after the experience with the 300mm 2.8 IS, I was somewhat disappointed with the 500s performance. But after another go at the Zoo today, I must say it does also perform quite well. Besides the size and the weight being more than the 300, I noticed that the IS system was rather noisy (on the 300 it was barely audible) and focusing was not quite as fast as the 300, but this could be due to the specific lens I had. As a result of this, I had more throwaways with the 500 than with the 300. The reach is outstanding (though at the Zoo you do not always need it). I found that I am able to hand-hold the lens for some time, but I carried a Manfrotto 679B monopod with a 3265 pistol grip to help get the weight off while waiting for shots. The pistol grip head kept slipping with the weight of the lens and I did not trust it to do more than keep the weight off my arms. What ball head would you recommend for a 300 & 500 size lens?</BR></BR>

The bokeh on this lens is also nice and so are the colors, but it does not have quite the "wow" effect of the 300 @ 2.8.</BR></BR>

I would love to have both of these lenses (but I do not have the money for both). I am thinking of going with the 300 first due to the fact that it is considerably smaller and lighter and will allow me to carry it on my 5D with my 100-400 or 70-200 on my 40D on hikes. If I got the 500, I would have to carry a monopod or a tripod and the sheer size would not make it possible to carry much else.

</BR></BR>

For a safari, I can see how the 500 or 600 would be better suited. For a trip to Namibia though, where landscapes (dunes etc.) are just as worthy a subject as wildlife, the 300 might be the better lens to take.

</BR></BR>

I am also thinking of getting a lens coat neoprene cover. I think they look somewhat silly, but the cold air(32F) yesterday morning was tough on my fingers holding the lens and the lens I rented has quite a few areas where the paint had chipped.

</BR></BR></BR></BR>

Sample image with the 500 (1/500 @ 5.6):</BR></BR>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6933255-lg.jpg">

[mark_chappell]

<I>I sit possible to hand-hold the larger two at all (or rest them on something other than

a tripod/gimbal combo)? </I><P>

 

I routinely hand-hold a 500/4 IS, usually with 1.4X extender, for shots of flying birds.

Here the shutter speed is very high to stop action, but I also hand-hold that combination

(or with the 2X extender) if I can rest the lens on something: car window, rock, tree, etc.

Use the neoprene lens covers made for these optics and you don't even need a beanbag

most of the time. <P>

 

<I>What ball head would you recommend for a 300 & 500 size lens?</i><P>

 

I would not attempt to use a ball head with this lens if I had any choice. Get a good robust

gimbal head -- Wimberley or the like. I've tried both and there's no comparison,

especially if you contemplate tracking moving subjects: a gimbal makes life far easier.

The downside is that a gimbal is essentially useless with short lenses, although you can

use adapters. A reasonable compromise is a SOLID ball head with an Arca-Swiss style

clamp and a Wimberley Sidekick, which converts the ballhead into a nice gimbal in

seconds, and vice versa. I used that combination for years.

[sbrauchli]

Thanks Mark.

 

I plan to use the 300 rarely on a tripod (since I can handhold quite well). I ordered the Arca Swiss Z1 (single pan) along with the lens and a Wimberley P-20 plate. This coupled with a good tripod should allow me to take some low light landscape shots. I will make sure to keep the camera strap around me though while adjusting to avoid damage due to a lens flopping over.

 

Maybe in the future when I can also afford another longer super tele, I can get the full Wimberley head or a Sidekick so I can easily track moving subjects.

 

I am glad to hear that the lens coat neoprene cover can be used to rest the lens against stumps, car doors etc. I alos got the neaoprene hood to protect the lens from dust while moving around (the leather hood is too cumbersome to deal with in the field).

 

I can't wait to get the lens and start shooting with it. Only disadvantage of it that I noticed is that due to its size it gets alot of attention. I'll just have to try to look extra intimidating so I can concentrate on my subjects and not be constantly interrupted...

[sbrauchli]

Man the 300 2.8 IS is truly a dream lens. I forget how heavy it is when shooting with it and looking at the results. It is noticeably better than my 70-200 2.8 IS (my best lens so far). Sharpness is great, but especially color saturation and bokeh are absolutely stunning and it is extremely fast at focusing.

 

For a quick hike in well lit areas the 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS is still hard to beat due to its small weight and range.

 

Well enough lenses for a while ;) Now I have to find some time to put them to use...