EF 300 2.8L IS or 400 2.8L IS?

[kriskent]

if you have money to have either of the two, which one would you choose?

THanks

[Crashoran]

Well the 400, of course!

[sugarzebra]

Me too!

[AdamLM]

I don't know. That 300 has the world's fastest AF.

[basroil]

i'de say the 400 if i had a nice, sturdy monopod, since i already have 70-200IS... i'de probably take the 400 even faster if it was the 400 DO, don't really need f2.8 @ 400mm, not like you'de be taking indoor pics with a 400mm now right?

[blonde]

300 2.8IS any day of the week!!!!! so much more versatile that is not even funny!!!

[nation]

What versatility does the 300 have that the 400 doesn't have?

Add a 1.4x to a 300 and your in the range of the 400. Add a 2x to the 300 and your in the range of the 400 with a 1.4x. Then of course of you've got the 400 at 2x.

As for f/2.8 or not adding the t-cons is going to take away your light. If your shooting fast moving objects it'd be nice to use the higher shutter speeds.

[blonde]

WEIGHT!!!!!!! try picking up the 400 2.8 and tell me how versatile that lens is.... ;) also, the 300 is considered the fastest focusing lens in canon's line up and it takes TC's very well...

[Rumjungle]

Not to mention that you can't make the 400 into a 300. Longer isn't always better, but it certainly is always heavier and more expensive.

[blonde]

exactly!!!

[michael_]

300 DEFINATELY AND IF I WANT THE 400 LENGTH AD A 1.4 tc

grr caps

[roli_bark]

300 2.8 IS all the way:
Handholdable [kind'a ...],
Sharp,
Quick to AF,
300 to 600 usable range (w TCs),
Amazing Colors,
Amazing dark tone Micro-Contrast,

BTW - is it true that taking out the included Gelatine Filter will improve PIC quality ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

300mm...

I don't imagine I'd ever want to lug that 400mm around. I allready have a 13 pound lens that is "arguably" the most "versatile" Super Telephoto on the market,. the 300-800mm...
Well I tell you it's bunk. The 500mm at 5 pounds less weight is much more versatile in this case.

Lugging 13 pounds around is just no fun. :lol:


roli,. I've heard the opposite is true.. that the clear glass filter is part of the optic chain and they work better with the filter in place. I've only experimented myself with the 200mm f/1.8.. and what I found was that focus began to become inconsistant with the fliter removed. I never tried it with the filter removed in the 500mm though

[pitabread]

I'd probably go with the 300mm simply because of the weight and size (as others have stated). Throw in a 1.4x and 2x TC, and you have 420mm and 600mm focal lengths, too.

[roli_bark]

roli,. I've heard the opposite is true.. that the clear glass filter is part of the optic chain and they work better with the filter in place. I've only experimented myself with the 200mm f/1.8.. and what I found was that focus began to become inconsistant with the fliter removed. I never tried it with the filter removed in the 500mm though

Thanks for that info. I'll try it [w a friend's 300 2.8 ... ]

[nation]

WEIGHT!!!!!!! try picking up the 400 2.8 and tell me how versatile that lens is.... ;) also, the 300 is considered the fastest focusing lens in canon's line up and it takes TC's very well...

Can't disagree with that. Lugging more than 2 times the weight can't be good unless you're willing to :)

[Krapo]

It depends on what you shoot. The 400 2.8 is the ultimate football lens.
However, it's probably less versatile than the 300 (which is my dream lens, btw).

Just my 2cts based upon things I've read, not about personal experience :)

[Panza]

400 - Can never get enough reach. For the closer stuff the 70-200 will cover it nicely.

[stumpy]

I REALLY wish this was a choice i was having to make.....

[wiselion]

Seriously here. Unless you were using it for professional use and getting paid well on top of it, who the hell would want to drag around a 12 pound lens? Yes, it would be cool to have, until you have to walk a mile to a spot to shoot wildlife. Thank you, but the 300 plus t-cons is the way to go.

[petrolhead]

300

[GyRob]

i think the main thing about f2.8 is the extra cross type sensor's work on the 1dmk2 ,i would go for the 300 though as i would hate to hand hold a 400 f2.8 for bird's/ jets.
what we need is a camera were they work at F4 now i would sell the wife for that camera ;)
Rob

[michael_]

whats the 600mm weigh in comparison?

[Krapo]

Almost the same as the 400 2.8 (13 pound).

[foxbat]

The 400 of course... then sell it, get the 300 and with the change buy a 5D to use as a lens cap.

[blonde]

The 400 of course... then sell it, get the 300 and with the change buy a 5D to use as a lens cap.

ding ding ding, we have a winner!!!

[Eric23]

I would go with the 500L 4f if I had that kind of money to spend. but out of the 300/400 2.8 I would go with the 300, the 400 would be too much to carry.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I REALLY wish this was a choice i was having to make.....

:lol: :cool:

[Gadget-Guy]

300 :lol:

[StealthLude]

Id go with the 300... jsut the Fastest AF part makes me very... VERY happy.

Sometimes AF speed is EVERYTHING

[defordphoto]

I just recently picked up the 300 2.8 IS and am absolutely thrilled with it. It doesn't care what TC is attached. This lens is sharp and easy to use. You can handhold it, though I do shoot it with a monopod attached to rest the camera in between shoots. This is not a combo you want hanging around your neck.

I have shot the 500 ("borrowed" through CPS) and it's just way to big. And the 400 is just as bad a lug as the 400.

Everything about this lens is perfect.

[MDJAK]

I am almost at the point of plunking down the dough for the 300.

I'd love the 400. I have to admit to being a "size" guy. Give me the 400 and I'll tote that bad boy around all the live long day and I promise you'll hear not a peep of complaint from me.

As an amateur, though, I can justify 4 grand on a lens, but not 6400.

Just bought a 50 inch Panasonic plasma followed by a 45 inch Sharp Aquos LCD. That slightly dented my lens savings. :(

mark

One more thing: I don't believe the 300 focuses faster than the 400. No personal experience, just don't think it's so.

[Tom W]

What versatility does the 300 have that the 400 doesn't have?


Hand-holdability. I can hand-hold my 300/2.8 alone, with the 1.4X, or with the 2X. The 400/2.8, awesome as it is (excellent lens), is not a hand-holdable lens.