Canon 300 f4.0 L IS USM vs. canon 400 f5.6 L USM

[keith_payne]

Would I be better off buying the canon 300 f4.0 L IS USM lens or the

canon 400 f5.6 L USM lens for bird and wildlife photography.

Obviously the 400mm is longer but I could use a 1.4x extender on the

300mm lens to bring it up to 420 f5.6 IS. How would auto focus and

sharpness compare? (The image stabilisation in the 300mm lens is the

major draw-card.) All comments will be helpful.

 

Thankyou in advance,

 

Keith Payne.

[mark_chappell]

I would be interested in this also. The subject has been beaten around this forum

several times. There have been lots of comments referring to Bob Atkins' review of

the older 300/4L (non-IS), but it would be good to hear from anyone who has direct

experience with both the 400/5.6 and the 300/4 IS +1.4X.

 

Having said that, let me add that if you really want to get into bird photography you're

likely to want something considerably longer than 400 mm. I have a 500 and almost

always use it with a 1.4 or 2X converter when shooting birds. And I frequently wish

for even more focal length. [ I also wish for less weight, and in that context the 400/

5.6 and 300+1.4X are far more user-friendly ]

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Art Morris deals with this question in his FAQ: <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html">Which is a better lens for bird photography, the Canon EF 400mm F/5.6L or the 300mm F/4.0L IS (Image Stabilizer)?</a></p>

[jbq]

I (sadly) don't have a 300/4 to compare to my 400/5.6, but I have noticed that the 400/5.6 is really an outstanding performer in "complex" light, even when wide open. The only issue I've had with it so far was with shots of a sunlit white pelican in front of a very dark shady area (full-pixel crops from my 10D show a little bit of halation, but it is barely visible on an 8x12 print).

 

It's reasonable to assume that the 300/4 with an 1.4x extender (20 elements in 15 groups) may end up having slightly more flare than the 400/5.6 (7 elements in 6 groups).

[jose_carlos]

I had the 400mm f/5.6 but sold it to buy the 300mm f/4 (non IS version) plus a 1.4x extender. I also do wildlife photography. I enjoy more working with the latter combination as it gives me more flexibility. I got fed up with the 400mm as it was so slow. I could never achieve fast enough shutter speeds to either freeze action or hand hold the lens. Somebody said you must use this lens permanently strapped to a boulder - I think that's just about right! Don't get me wrong, the optical quality is second to none and if you use a tripod to shoot stationary subjects then it is perfect. My 300mm f/4 gives me faster shutter speeds to freeze action, hand hold the lens and use more in a wider variety of lighting conditions. If I need something longer, I just add the 1.4x extender which still produces excellent results. Of course primes are better than anything with an extender but, for me, I prefer the flexibility and in anycase, you will not notice the difference between the two set ups both optically or AF. I know neither one is long enough for photographing the likes of birds from a distance, but if you want to do that, you will need to fork out a fortune for a 500 or 600mm lens which must then be permanently attatched to it's own bird hide let alone a rock!!! It's about finding a balance and either one of the two lenses you mention are superb. Anything after the 400mm range gets too awkward to use and far too expensive.

[greg s]

Here's a Nikon guy who wishes he had access to a 300 with IS.

 

A lot depends on your range of subjects. Most often a 500/600 is needed for birds, but that's not always the case. Some subjects are more easily photographed with a mid-range lens which is freed up from a tripod (I recently bought a shoulder mount for my 300 prime for exactly this purpose). The kinglets/bushtits/etc in my backyard are examples of highly active birds which will tolerate a human presence, but require extremely fast response to capture on film/sensor. Also, having a lens which can be hand held frees a person up from a tripod for general lightwieght roaming around. It's kind of a tough call, but a mid-range IS prime does have its attractions, no doubt. :)

[robert_potts1]

Compare the minimum focus distance of these two lenses. I believe the 300mm focusses closer than is normal for its length. This may be an important factor for you. It would definitely make the lens more versatile.

[sergey_oboguev]

Speaking of strictly bird photography, rather than other wildlife, breadown is as follows:

 

Overall, 600/4 is the most useful lens.

 

400/5.6 on 10D is the best for hand-held flight shots of subjects that either do not fly too close or are small (such as terns) and move erratically, so that AF speed is important.

 

In cases you can get really close to large subjects so that zooming becomes essential, 100-400 is most convenient. It is also a lens of choise for large birds, such as pelicans, flying overhead at low altitude, letting you to reframe instantly.

 

Where does it leave 300/4 L IS?

 

Well, if (1) you can move close enough to the subject (or group of subjects) and (2) subject is fairly static so real-time reframing is not needed [*], having IS makes it nice over 400/5.6 and having sharp prime is nice over 100-400.

 

I ended up having all of the lenses mentioned above, but for birds, 300/4 is the one least used.

 

----

 

[*] For example, when visiting animal parks (such as San Diego W.A.P.) where subjects are very close and fairly static, and looking for a light walk, set of 10D + 100-400 + 300/4 + teleconverters makes it.

[andrew robertson]

I don't think I'd like to go into the backcountry with a 600mm f/4 L - I doubt I'd get a mile

in!

 

Sharpness would be about even off a tripod, assuming average conditions. With perfect

conditions, the 400 might beat out the 300 a bit. Windy days, the 300 would blow it away.

Assuming you shoot handheld also, there's really no question - get the IS.

[brian_kennedy]

The 400/5.6 is a better flight lens because 400mm is a good flight lens length and it will AF slightly faster than the 300/4 with a 1.4x on it. Both lenses are light and easy to handle.

 

The 300/4 IS, with and without TCs, makes for a more versatile wildlife setup overall. You can shoot at f/4 if you need the extra stop, the MFD is much shorter, and most importantly, you have IS.

 

Both lenses are very sharp, so that's not something to get too concerned about. But with the 400/5.6, you won't get sharp shots when you have to lean the lens on the edge of the car window or lean your body against a tree and shoot in less than ideal light. With the IS lens, you will.

 

Unless you're going to shoot only birds, I recommend the 300/4 IS by a mile. If you're shooting only birds, the 400/5.6 by a hair.

[vesa_perala]

Nice answers but no one has mentioned if the suggestions they gave are good/perfect for full frame 35mm sensor/film or cropped (1.3x or 1.6x) which might make more difference than 300mm vs. 400.

 

Vesa

[sergey_oboguev]

<p><i>> I don't think I'd like to go into the backcountry with a 600mm f/4 L - I doubt I'd get a mile in!</i>

 

<p>I have hiked just fine few miles there and back, up and down the hills (which is more noticeable than miles) with 600/4 setup over my shoulder, including flash, DCB, 2 bodies, TCs and other small stuff.

 

<p>If that is what it takes... you can console yourself with the argument that it makes effective way to save on the gym ;-)

 

<p><i>> no one has mentioned if the suggestions they gave are good/perfect for full frame 35mm sensor/film or cropped (1.3x or 1.6x) which might make more difference than 300mm vs. 400</i>

 

<p>Actually it is both.

 

<p>If you want flight lens for small (or remote) subjects, 400/5.6 is usually preferable over 300/4 even on 10D, not to mention 1V (which often would call for TC in this case).

 

<p>If subjects are big and close, 100-400 is preferable.

 

<p>Of course, there is some window for 300/4, but in my experience it is fairly narrow.

[mlfly]

I have and use the 300 f4 IS often. It's a great lens and if you intend to have something longer in the future, it's a must have. I would not consider a zoom in its range. If, OTOH, you have a film camera and you're not looking for a 500 or 600 down the road, then a 400 is probably what you need if your camera can autofocus with the 400 f5.6 and a 1.4x. If it can't or if it is digital and has a magnification factor of 1.3 or 1.6, then the 300 would be my recommendation.

 

Mike

[J.W. Wall]

Jose - Doesn't the extender on the 300mm f/4 cost you a stop, so it's the same as the 400mm f/5.6?

[andrey_mikhaylov]

In my experience the IS does not make much difference on a telephoto lens if it is not designed to work on a tripod (except maybe in some special situation such as on a boat). For normal flight shots you get the same results (1/60 sec.) with a shoulder stock. The IS improves this results by some 10% maybe (my subjective estimate).

[keith_payne]

Thankyou all very much for your answers they were very helpful!

 

Keith Payne

[mark_chappell]

I offer a counterpoint to Andrei about the benefits of IS. When I'm feeling especially

masochistic I will hand-hold my 500/4 IS (often with a 1.4X converter) for flight shots.

Occasionally I've done this without making sure the IS was switched on, and results were

far worse than when IS was working. And of course, IS is invaluable when using a

beanbag or on a tripod (but note that this particular lens has the 3rd or 4th generation IS

that works well on a tripod -- apparently, this isn't the case for some earlier IS lenses).

[richard_alvarnaz1]

Slighlty off the subject brandwise, but I have sometimes used my Tokina ATX 400 5.6 AF with ISO 200-400 film hand held for tame waterbirds and small birds in trees for fun! On a bright day, shutter speeds are no problem!

[keith_payne]

Well I ended up buying the 300 f/4 IS, it's a great lens, but I tend

to need to stop it down to f/5.6 to get maximum sharpness. So only

now, 2 and a half years later am I wanting to buy the 400mm f/5.6.

[bob_chapman1]

I, like so many before me, have the same dilemma. You said you love the 300, but after 2 years, you want the 400? Did you try the teleconverter?

 

If the 300 is soft at 4.0, and you can't unsharp mask with good results, then why would you think that the 300 at 5.6 would be equivalent to the 400 at 5.6? Wouln't you find the same problem with the 400? You'd have to stop down a bit, and then have such a slow lens you'd compromise with noise on the ISO setting, AND be without IS?

 

So, have you at least demo'd the 400?

[keith_payne]

Now almost a year further on I have the 400 f/5.6 and have had it for about 8 months.

How does it compare to the 300 f4 IS? Well here is an extract from my article on them from my website: www.elkeith.com/photography/

 

 

--------------------

 

Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM

 

I owned this lens for two years, it is a great lens, very versitile, but I sold it for one fundemental reason: it's not sharp wide open! (only gets sharp once you get to f/5.6) having said that, it is quite sharp at f/4 but it's much sharper at f/5.6 which always made me avoid using it wide open - defeats the point of owning an f/4 lens.

 

PROS: image stabilisation, 1.5m minimum focusing distance, focus limiting switch, built in lens hood, weight, cost.

 

CONS: NOT SHARP WIDE OPEN!, only gets really sharp once you get down to f/5.6. Image stabilisation only first generation (bit clunky).

 

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM

 

The 400mm f/5.6 L USM is a very nice lens, the longest you can get before the huge price jump to the canon super-telephoto lenses. I got mine used for about NZ$1300 (US$830) on ebay. It was old but virtually unused.

The lens does two things well which makes it so good, it is very sharp wide open and it focuses very fast. It also has very good saturation and contrast.

 

It is very sharp wide open (if you call f/5.6 wide) and only gets fractionally sharper towards f/8. The points where it could be improved are exactly those that would make it more expensive. Image stabilisation would be the biggest improvement the lens could get. Being restricted to 1/400s with a f/5.6 lens really makes you use high iso values a lot if you're not using a tripod. The minimum focusing distance of 3.5 meters is restrictive, extention tubes fix the problem but are quite a hassle in the field. The focus limiting switch from 8.5 m to infinity is great at times. So if canon could put out a f/5.6 400mm L lens with image stabilisation and a minimum focusing distance of about 2.5 m for around US$1500 there would be many takers!

 

Performance of the lenses with the teleconverter were mixed. The 300 f/4 IS works well with a teleconverter if you stop down a stop, but the AF speed is bad. The 400 mm lens never really worked that well with the TC (with taped pins) the AF was a bit dodgey and the sharpness was only acceptable if I stopped down a stop which made a f/8 560mm lens with no IS. So not much use in most situations.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Final notes:

 

I really miss IS with the 400mm, even when on a tripod.

 

The verdict? I'm saving up for a 500mm IS or 600mm IS. I guess that's what a lot of people end up doing.

 

All the best,

 

Keith Payne.

www.elkeith.com

[pete_dorman]

I have a Canon 500f4.0 and the 300f4.0. I find I get very sharp images of birds with the 300 wide open. I'm supprised to hear others don't. Th e pictures I have are of stationary birds, not birds in flight.