EF 300 F/4 IS vs. EF 400 F/5.6

[hstelljes]

<p>My question, is a 300 f4 IS with a1.4 tele-converter as sharp as the EF 400 F/5.6 without. I realize the TC will take the F4 lens to F5.6 but it has IS and that means a lot to me. I shoot with a Canon 40D. I also own a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS which I like very much. After viewing the fantastic bird photos on this site I thought I would take a small step towards what I guess is the minimum for decent bird photos as starting at 400mm lenses. My budget is around 1200 dolloars. I have used the canon 100-400 IS lens, which is great for the versatility, but I used it mostly at 400mm and thought it a little soft. Thats why I'm researching the primes. Any and all advice you can give on this is greatly appreciated. An afterthought to the question is are all teleconverters created equally?</p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>The 300 f/4L IS is plenty sharp with a teleconverter. And it will be sharper if you handhold and there isn't enough light to get above 1/500th of a second with the 400.</p>

<p>And from my experience there is nothing as sharp as the Canon 1.4x TC behind a Canon lens.</p>

[f72]

<p>i tried both the 400 f5.6 win in IQ the, 100-400 sharper than 300f4+1.4,the 1-4 win in versatility and it very close in sharpness to both ant work with 1.4 very nice.</p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>Canon's MTF charts show that the 300 4/fL IS with the 1.4x TC is sharper than either the 100-400L or the 400 f/5.6L.</p>

<p>For what it's worth.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>Due to the many examples I've seen of the 300 4/fL IS with the 1.4 extender and the 400mm 5.6, plus a handful of reviews comparing the two, I would say with conidence that the Canon MTF charts are wrong. The 300mm with the extender produces some very nice images, but the 400mm 5.6 by itself is sharper.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>all teleconverters created equally?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<p>If you shoot with a sharp Canon prime or zoom lens, you stay with a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II.</p>

<p>I shoot with that Extender coupled to a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM and to a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. The loss in resolution is minimal for both lenses. IS is also retained. The autofocus is very slightly slower.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 400 F5.6 is a bit sharper than the 300 f4 but the 300 is more flexible as it can be a 300mm lens (on full frame) a 480mm lens on APS-C, a 420 F5.6 with the 1.4x on Full frame and even a 672mm lens with the 1.4x on an APS-C body. Seriously unless you need the reach of the 400mm lens than the 300 is much more versatile. While the 400 is sharper the 300 with the 1.4x is still very good and close to the 400 in performance. On a long lens like this IS is useful and the 300 focuses faster than the 400 if you do not use a TC. with the TC the 400 is faster than the 300 +1.4x. The 300 F4 is optically much better than the 100-400 and you get faster AF - the offset is the loss of the zoom's versitility.</p>

[sbp]

<p>In my experience, the 300+1.4 converter is equal or better to the 400 in IQ. The 300 has IS, which makes hand held shots viable. You also get the versatility of 300 or 420 just by carrying the small 1.4 extender. FWIW, I sold my 400 after trying the 300+1.4 combination.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Not covering exactly the lenses you're interested in (I've not tried the 400 f5.6) but does look at the 300 f4, 100-400 and TC1.4 and 2x, here: http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/lenstech.html<br>

Not scientific and may be of no use to you but you can decide!</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Here is a resolution comparison chart from digital-picture.com<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=0</a><br>

From personal experience the 400 is much sharper then the 300 & 1.4 combo. You lose AF speed, and I feel that because you are dealing with 3x the glass in the 300/1.4 combo that you can't help but lose IQ. Put the 400 on a tripod for low light situations and you will be very happy with the result. The 400 is a lens I use constantly for my auto racing needs, I handhold it without problem, and the IQ is fantastic.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Looks like the quality of the TC is the key. If you compare the 300+2xTC with the 400+1.4xTC on digital-picture.com, then the quality of the 300+2xTC wins. And this although the 2xTC is reported to be much worse than the 1.4xTC. So probably this is a result of sample variations. This would also explain the mixed results in different reports.</p>

[hstelljes]

<p>Thank you all for the helpful answers, especially those with the links, they do show some pertinent info. Still have not made up my mind. More research I guess.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Holger the Canon 2x is very poor so if you need to get very long the 400 plus 1.4x is the way to go. As I said earlier the 300 F4 is a great lens without the TC and OK (but not up to the 400) with the 1.4x. The great advantage of the 300 F4 is the flexibility it gives you if you have both full frame and APS-C bodies.</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>Also, with a 2x TC the combination will be 2 stops slower (ie f/8 on the 300mm). So, you will not have autofocus on most bodies (except the 1D series if I remember correctly).</p>

[alexander_sukonkin]

<p>If you need 400mm focal length, get Canon 400 5.6L, it is the best 400mm optically in the price range below 2000 dollars. 300 f/4 L IS is an excellent 300mm lens, but with TC attached it is inferior to 400 5.6L. AF speed of 400 5.6L is also unmatched in this price range, it is faster than 300 f/4 bare, and with TC you will loose some AF speed. If you need 300mm and primary and 400 sometimes, then 300mm f/4 IS is a better choice, if you need 400 - get 400.<br>

you can check my field review with sample pictures here:<br>

<a href="http://alexsukonkin.com/reviews/Canon-EF400f56-L-USM_en.html">http://alexsukonkin.com/reviews/Canon-EF400f56-L-USM_en.html</a></p>

 

[Roger G]

<p>I haven't used my 300 f4 IS/1.4 TC combination since I bought the 400 5.6. Mostly used on birds in flight, I find the 400 much faster to autofocus and it almost never loses focus completely [on the 7D]. OTOH the close focusing capability and IS of the 300 are not to be sneezed at. But neither feature is much use for birds in flight, of course if I was imaging butterflies on flowers that would be different.<br>

I'm very satisfied with the 400 in every respect and I find it much more enjoyable to use. I'll probably sell the 300 soon.<br>

Roger.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As Alexander and Roger say - if you need a 400 then the 400 F5.6 is better than the 300 F4 with 1.4x TC. Optically they are close although the 400 is better but the AF is slow when using the TC on the 300. The 300 is a much more versatile lens and can be used easily handheld but if you know you need a 400mm lens then buy the 400 f5.6 as it is the better choice.</p>