400mm options

[basroil]

for a few thing's ive been doing, 200mm just doesn't cut it. in fact, even 300mm wouldn't help that much. i've looked at the 400mm 5.6, but for a lens without IS and only f5.6, it's really expensive. 100-400 seems good, but i'm not sure about the other alternatives (primes are better than zooms in this case, since i plan to use my 70-200f2.8IS for anything closer). anything that's faster than f5.6 or has IS would be nice, but 1400 buck limit, since anything more means i'de take the 100-400IS. any options would be good (i.e. if 300 f4+1.4tc is great, add it, any 3rd party alternatives, add them)

[Billginthekeys]

for that budget the 100-400, 400 5.6, 300 F4 IS +tc, and the bigma. Theres not much out there. I stand behind the 400 5.6 as a great lens, and have used the 100-400 and it does a very good job.

[blonde]

from what you descirbe, the 400 f5.6 prime will be perfect. don't be fooled by the no IS thing, it is light and SHARP!!!

[Rumjungle]

I'd go with the 300 + 1.4x first or a 100-400L second (since you already have a 70-200).

[basroil]

maybe i should add that i plan on getting an upgrade from my xt before this lens too... any luck for a 400mm f5.6 IS in semi near future?

[Rumjungle]

That would interest me (and several others here) too.:)

[SolPics]

From what you described of your needs, I think the 400 f/5.6 is your best bet, since you really don't need the zoom of the 100-400 L. The 400 f/5.6 is a nice lens and focuses fast.

[4x4rock]

There's a 300 f4 selling on FM. The samples from this lens with a 1.4x are simply amazing, so sharp.

[genewch]

If focal length at 400mm reach is the first consideration, there are not many options left. I can think of 100-400mm L, Sigma 80-400mm OS, Tamron 200-500mm, 300mm or 400mm +/- 1.4x tc. Choice reduces to whether you need zooming or just walk to zoom.

[GyRob]

if you want sharp the 400f5.6L wins, the 300f4is + 1.4 tc will match or just beat the zoom in sharpness and i think the focus will be faster too.
Rob

[Woolburr]

no question....300 f/4 and TC

[Doctor Diesel]

another vote for the 300 is

(tho' my 200 2.8L + 2X tc is pretty nice too

[basroil]

(tho' my 200 2.8L + 2X tc is pretty nice too

i'de stay away from 200 2.8 since i already have 70-200 IS, and it's about 1/4th the price to get 2x than 200+2x.. and i'de loose the IS:confused:


seems 300+1.4 tc is a good bet, anyone know how focusing speed compares to a 70-200 (no tc)?

[GyRob]

i'de stay away from 200 2.8 since i already have 70-200 IS, and it's about 1/4th the price to get 2x than 200+2x.. and i'de loose the IS:confused:


seems 300+1.4 tc is a good bet, anyone know how focusing speed compares to a 70-200 (no tc)?
i would think its as fast or faster its just a tiny bit slower than the 400f5.6 i have both and tc and tested them .
Rob.

[John_Paul]

for a few thing's ive been doing, 200mm just doesn't cut it. in fact, even 300mm wouldn't help that much. i've looked at the 400mm 5.6, but for a lens without IS and only f5.6, it's really expensive. 100-400 seems good, but i'm not sure about the other alternatives (primes are better than zooms in this case, since i plan to use my 70-200f2.8IS for anything closer). anything that's faster than f5.6 or has IS would be nice, but 1400 buck limit, since anything more means i'de take the 100-400IS. any options would be good (i.e. if 300 f4+1.4tc is great, add it, any 3rd party alternatives, add them)

In your case,.. either a used 400mm f2.8 MkII USM L, or the 400mm f5.6 USM L..(new or used)..

Avoid the original 400mm f2.8 L lens.. I owned it,...it has issues..

The 300mm f4 IS,..(I used to own it) is soft wide open compared to my (now sold) 300mm f2.8 USM L lens.. not even close comparrison.. Add a 1.4x and degrade that already soft wide open lens to a 420mm f5.6 lens that you need to stop down one stop for more reasonably sharp pictures, and you are already in f8..

The 5.6 400mm L has suprisingly fast AF for a f5.6 lens, and it is sharper wide open when compared to the 300mm f4IS + 1.4x.. & you say that 300mm won't do much for you, then you don't need a 300mm,...you need a 400mm,...and not a zoom, because the 100-400 IS L is soft at the long end..and doesn't compare to the prime..

JP

JP

[convergent]

JP, he said he had a $1400 limit, so I think the 400 f/2.8 might be a tad out of that range.

One lens that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. You could probably get one used close to that range. Its a good lens and takes a TC1.4 pretty well, which would get you to 420mm f/4. I would either go with that or the 300 f/4, over the 400.

[basroil]

i refuse to buy used though, sure it's cheaper, and a lot are in great condition, but insurance/extended warrentee for the lens is a mess, and no original warrentee. hopefully by the time i save enough money there will be some new and amazing lens, maybe an ef-s 400mm f4 IS( hopefully lighter than even the 400DO)

[John Lloyd]

I faced this exact problem a few months ago. I really like the 70-200 f2.8IS, but sometimes you need more reach for wildlife pictures. A friend of mine has the 100-400 f5.6 and I thought it was a nice lens. However, I noticed that she used it at 400mm most of the time. I decided that the 400mm f5.6 would be a good choice for me but I worried about not having IS. I went ahead and got it.

On my trip to Alaska in June, I got some nice results with my new lens! It would be nicer if it had IS, but I kept the shutter speed up and rarely wished I did have it.

[snappa]

Another vote for the 400mm f5.6. Were this lens to have IS then it would be outside your budget ! It is light, sharp and nearly $400 US cheaper than the zoom you are considering.