Canon 300 f2.8 more popular than Canon 400 f2.8

[nlo]

<p>Most of my research show's the 300 f2.8 is much more popular that the 400 f2.8 Is affordably the main reason or am I missing something ? Please feel free to weigh in on this. </p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

<p>Trevor</p>

[phule]

<p>300mm plus 1.4TC may be more versatile than a single 400mm. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Cost , size, weight, and herd mentality on the part of photographers.

[William Michael]

<p>I can explain what I would do and the rational for it: I have relatively easy access to borrow both of those lenses, but if I were spending my own money to buy one or both (i.e. if it were NOT my business purchasing it) I'd buy the 300/2.8 and the 1.4TC, for the exact reason that Rob has outlined - flexibility in a one only purchase. <br>

Additionally, if I were to buy another super telephoto lens as a partner for the 300/2.8, it would be the 500/4 and not the 400/2.8.<br>

WW</p>

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>Weight & bulk?<br>

How about handling? A 300mm might be close to the borderline already and the further it is from 50mm the less use a lens usually sees...</p>

[nlo]

<p>Thanks for the input so far guys. It's a lot of money for me so I really don't want to make a mistake. Looking at buying used... there's minimal difference in price between both but it's a stretch to begin with. The 400 is quite a bit larger. The bigger is better mentally is hard to break. Weight isn't an issue now but if will be in a few years no doubt. </p>

[SCL]

<p>What you plan to do with it, IHMO, is an important factor in which one to get. Years ago I had a used 300/2.8 from a news agency and it was monstrous, big and heavy...but it really brought in my subjects. These days I use 400mm lenses only for birding, and not the 2.8..they're just too big and heavy.</p>

[nlo]

<p>It's strictly for wildlife. I'm thinking along the lines of the 400 with the 1.4 tele for reach but the 300 is so popular it kinda got me thinking. Got a 5D III & 7D for bodies. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I really like the EF 400 mm f/2.8L IS II especially when combined with the 1.4 converter. I most recently used one on an

industrial shoot. But make no mistake, it's a big heavy lens. What are you planning on photographing? I think that should drive your choice more than the other factors.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>[i want to buy a super telephoto lens]</em> . . . It's strictly for wildlife. I'm thinking along the lines of the 400 with the 1.4 tele for reach but the 300 is so popular it kinda got me thinking. Got a 5D III & 7D for bodies."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe it was my mistake for reading the OP literally and not assuming: the fact that you were considering buying one of these lenses was not spelled out in the OP.<br>

That's a different question.<br>

You need to consider what FL that would be appropriate for the task: I expect that, for most "wildlife" the 300 would lack length and so your initial thoughts of the 400/2.8 and the x1.4 EF Extender would be a more sensible choice.<br>

As Ellis states, the task should drive the choice, not other factors.</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

 

[Alan Marcus]

<p>What focal length we choose is based on need. To understand we must know what focal length delivers a normal view. By unanimous agreement, if we mount a lens with a focal length that about equals the diagonal measure of the film or digital chip format, it delivers a “normal” view. This will be an angle of view of about 45⁰ with the camera held in the landscape position. Longer and the angle of view becomes narrower and the image is magnified. Shorter and the angle of view increases and the image is minimized. <br>

<br>

For the full frame, the format measures 24mm height by 36mm length. The diagonal measure is 43mm. This is an odd value so by mutual agreement a 50mm lens is considered “normal”. If we mount a 300mm the image will be highly magnified. The math is 300 ÷ 50 = 6. This tells us that the view is about the same as a view with 6X (six power) binoculars. If we mount a 400mm the view is 400 ÷ 50 = 8 ---- the equivalent view of 8X binoculars. <br>

<br>

Now high magnification demands a sturdy support. To hand-hold you are advised to us a minimum of 1/300 of a second with a 300mm and 1/400 of a second with a 400mm. My thinking is the 300mm will be a better choice as it will be easier to hand-hold. <br>

<br>

Let me add that a compact digital measures 16mm height by 24mm length. The diagonal measure and thus the “normal” lens for this format is 30mm. Mount a 300mm and the magnification is 300 ÷ 30 = 10X. Mount a 400mm and the magnification is 400 ÷ 30 = 13X.<br>

<br>

Likely the temptation is to choose the higher power. Practicality dictates that the lower power is more practical. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>When I use either of these lenses, I use a monopod, so "Hand Holding" does not come into the equation, (for me).<br>

Also both lenses have Image Stabilization.</p>

<p>Both these factors have a direct influence on shutter speed choice for the shot and also the practicality and ease of general use and carriage of the lens(es).</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While I cannot comment on the exact qualities of the Canon lenses, but my personal choice would be either a 300 f/2.8, or 500 f/4 - not to imply there is anything wrong with a 400 f/2.8, but they are the most expensive, largest and heaviest. Wildlife means quite a bit of hiking usually, and carrying a suitable tripod plus the lens, for me the facto of weight and size would become a pretty dominant one.<br>

Especially if you think you will use the 400 f/2.8 mainly with a TC, I'd start looking hard at the longer f/4 lenses.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Size and weight no doubt. Plus if you are not shooting sports, birds, or on safari too much reach.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Trevor,</p>

<p>Looking at your portfolio, your focal lengths vary quite a bit on your wildlife shots, some even being below the 300mm level. This leads me to believe the 400 might be a bit too long at times, so perhaps the 300 with both a 1.4 and 2x tc would be a better outfit for the type of shooting you enjoy. I used to have a 400 5.6 that I sold in favor of a 100-300 f4 and 1.4 tc because of the greater versatility, but I have a personal preference for the versatility of zooms most of the time anyway.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, I've <i>always</i> wanted a 400 f/2.8: they do teleconvert reasonably well (giving you a 600 f/4-ish) and you start losing a lot of subject separation if you "slum it" with the 500mm. I have a 200 f/2 (Nikon), which means I have a slightly iffy route to something resembling a 300 f/2.8 already, which reduces how tempting the 300mm would be to me - and 300mm f/4 lenses tend to be quite good and relatively affordable. And there's always the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 if you really need that flexibility - or the 200-400 f/4 if you want the reach. Not that I'm going to advocate the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigzooka. But certainly, if you're always expecting to teleconvert the lens, it's better to start with longer "native" glass.<br />

<br />

My experience has been that I can hand-hold a 400 f/2.8, at least for a short period (I'm sure the 300mm is easier). I can't do that with my 500 f/4, although my old Nikkor is much more front-heavy than the current Canon equivalent. If your arms are a different length, you may have a different trade-off here - certainly there are enough people out there hand-holding 500 f/4s that I believe it's possible, even if they don't all use the "bellypod" approach that I have for giving my left elbow support.<br />

<br />

The 400 f/2.8 is awfully popular at sporting events, but generally used by people who aren't having to carry it anywhere. I'd always believed that the 300mm's popularity is probably mostly a cost thing, although I don't deny its portability advantages (and it's a very good lens).</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Pick up a 400 F2.8 and you will see why it is less popular than the 300 - it is 5.5kg vs 2.5 kg for the 300mm lens. I believe the new version might be closer to 4kg but it is still a lot bigger than the 300. Of course it is over $11K vs just over $7K for the 300. In addition the 300 is much more versatile as you can shoot it handheld - handheld shooting is not very practical with the 400 given it's size weight and extra focal length.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I looked at these, but decided to get the EF 100-400mm IS L instead, while it was still available. Mobility and flexibility outweighed any advantage prime, fast lenses have for me personally.<br /> I've been very happy with the lens in the year or so I've had it. For any of these, the response of the public seems to be <br /> "Whatcha got there, boy, a rocket launcher?"</p>

<p>I'm considering getting a camouflage cover for it. :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Philip: Lightweight. :-) The new 400mm is 3850g, vs 5370g for its predecessor. Yes, the new 300mm is only 2350g (it didn't save anything like as much weight), but the difference is about the weight of a 70-200, or a pro body. In the Nikon world, my 200 f/2 weighs 2900g (and I can cart it around for a long time), which is why the new 3800g Nikkor 400mm doesn't scare me (but I seemed to be able to handle the 4600g previous version okay too, which may be significant given the price difference).<br />

<br />

I find it's more the weight distribution that's the problem. My 500mm AI-P is only 3kg, but most of that's at the subject end, which makes it very hard to balance. Fortunately, the 400mm lenses seem to be within my reach (if not financially). If you're about to drop this kind of money, definitely try it, though.<br />

<br />

JDM: Yes, I get that even with the 200mm. Though the 150-500 I used to cart around was especially phallic with the hood reversed, allowing for a suitable response.</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>If I had Any doubts about which super tele focal length I wanted, I would rent some lenses before I bought one:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto</a></p>

<p>They are expensive to rent ($50.00 -> $100.00+ per day), but, compared to the purchase cost of the lenses you mentioned, it is a small price to pay for real world experience.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I simply worked my way up from 200/2.8 to 300/2.8 to 400/2.8 in search of my preferred focal length and image quality. Have considered moving on up to 600/4 but I have had so much success with 1.4x and even 2x converters on the 400/2.8 that I remain satisfied...for now. It is heavy, especially my old manual focus Nikon, but I use it on tripods and monopods at all times. </p>

<p>I've gone through 200/2 and 80-200/2.8 lenses and have settled on the Canon EF 70-200/4 L and Canon EF 300/4 L for my lightweight, handholdable, autofocus requirements. Image quality is not in the same class but shooting with them is very easy and makes up for the loss. </p>

<p>Currently using them all on a 5D II, primarily for motor racing, but have used them for soccer, swimming, whitewater slalom, and landscapes. </p>

<p>I have not done wildlife, but the lens of choice, especially for birds seems to be the 500/4. I used to hike with the 300/2.8 but the 500/4 would certainly provide more bang for not too much more weight. I only "hike" with the 400/2.8 from the parking lot to the sporting event which is never more than five minutes! I can walk around all day with the 70-200/4 and the 300/4.</p>

<p>For your purposes I'd be comparing the 300/2.8 and 500/4.</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>I have not done wildlife, but the lens of choice, especially for birds seems to be the 500/4<em>.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd have to agree, even though my only experience was a week's rental last fall on a 500 f/4L IS USM II. A spectacular lens for birds. It also loses almost nothing with an Extender 1.4x III on back, giving a 700mm focal length.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>And, it is quite a bit lighter than the 600 f/4 or even the 400 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Other things to keep in mind for the OP:</p>

<ul>

<li>I've heard that the 300 f/2.8 II with both Canon III series extenders (one at a time) is a very nice and light combination both on the shoulders and in the wallet.</li>

<li>Most will recommend that if you will do most of your shooting at the long end (i.e. with extenders) then you're images will usually be better with the lens that is native at or near that focal length. So the 600 is better to use for the best IQ than the 300 & 2x. Consider extenders as an occasional, or "in a pinch" option, rather than a regular use item.</li>

</ul>

[savagesax]

Well I'm going to pop this out. Just to confuse everyone, mainly the PO and myself!

 

For 11K you can get the Canon 200 to 400mm zoom. Based on the reviews it's pretty darn sharp. I've

never tested it.

 

When using longer lenses you could, actually in my opinion you will lose some sharpness the more

space there is between you and the subject. I have both lenses, the 300 and the 400mm. I like the 300

a bit better and I really like the price difference. With the 300mm you can crop and often get better

results compared to the 400 thats not cropped. Because you are closer to the subject.

 

I'm getting rid of the 400.

 

Canon does let "Pro's," borrow lenses. You have to register with Canon as a pro and pay for the type

of repair service you want to spend per year. This is goofy. If you buy one of the 3 packages you get a

faster service turnaround. This varies from a week to whatever service plan you want. It's not

inexpensive. Well they did at one time rent them, I'm not sure if they still do. If they will let you test

them see how the lenses feel in your hands. Often some lenses feel better than others. Such as the

balance, even if you are using a 10 pound tripod you can feel if the lens may be top heavy or if it is well

balanced and it's easy to use and carry around.

 

Also about the feel of the lenses take note with the focusing. Does one lens hunt around trying to focus

on a subject and how fast is the focusing. An example unrelated to the 300mm and the 400mm is the

100 to 400mm zoom. That lens is sooo slow. You could go out and get a cup of coffee at Starbucks

then come back and the lens will still be in the focus mode!

 

Often for me there's nothing more frustrating when you have a moving subject such as a bear or some

sort of animal and the lens hunts to auto focus on the subject, often relative to what camera body you

have. You don't want to take a image of a bear. You want to get that bears full face turned towards

you. Hope this helps with your search. It's a very personal decision. Take your time.

[savagesax]

I do have to add this about the 100 to 400mm zoom. The quality of the glass is really great. About 2

years ago I used this lens with an extension tube and I was able to get some amazing photos of little tiny

dragon flies. Who thought that taking photo's of these tiny insects could be so much fun and the quality

was excellent.

[JDMvW]

<p>OK, now that we're wandering (wondering, too) off.</p>

<p>If you are working from a stand or blind - fixed location - where manual focus is less of a problem, there are numerous catadioptric (mirror) lenses in the 500mm to 600mm range (fixed f/8 and 'donut' highlights come at no extra cost).</p>

<p>Probably the Nikon-mount ones are the easiest (to use and find) to adapt to Canon EF mount, but many others can also be adapted (e.g., M42x1, Exakta).<br>

I have lots of the <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00RaKy">mirror lenses</a>, and my favorite ones are a Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 and a Nikon-mount Sigma 600mm f/8, each of which cost around US$200. Stay away from the cheap, new mirror lenses - the old ones are far superior.</p>