EF 300/4,0L IS or EF 400/5,6L

[tommykjensen]

I want a little more reach than I currently got with my 70-200 mm f4L + 1,4x extenter so I am looking at these 2 lenses which cost approx the same:

EF 300/4,0L IS - faster and with IS
EF 400/5,6L - longer but without IS

Since I have the 1,4x extender the 300 could be a 420 mm 5.6 IS as opposed to a 400 5.6 or 560 8? but without IS.

Which lens is sharpest ? Is it at all fair to compare sharpness between to different focal lenghts even when it is primes we talk about?

On one hand I am in favour of the 300 mm because it has IS but on the other hand the 400 with extender has a longer reach but with the lost fstop and no IS I guess I would have to use mono or tripod a lot more.

[minatophase3]

I want a little more reach than I currently got with my 70-200 mm f4L + 1,4x extenter so I am looking at these 2 lenses which cost approx the same:

EF 300/4,0L IS - faster and with IS
EF 400/5,6L - longer but without IS

Since I have the 1,4x extender the 300 could be a 420 mm 5.6 IS as opposed to a 400 5.6 or 560 8? but without IS.

Which lens is sharpest ? Is it at all fair to compare sharpness between to different focal lenghts even when it is primes we talk about?

On one hand I am in favour of the 300 mm because it has IS but on the other hand the 400 with extender has a longer reach but with the lost fstop and no IS I guess I would have to use mono or tripod a lot more.

I have never used the 400mm, but hear that it focuses a little quicker and is a tad bit sharper. I did rent the 300 IS and really liked it. The IS came in very handy and it was plenty fast for me. I personally would go with the 300 becasue you could use the 1.4 tc and get a 420 5.6, so it is a little more versitle. Also, you don't say which body you are using, if it isn't a 1 series you will loose AF with the 400 + 1.4tc.

Here is an example of a picture taken with the 300 IS + 1.4tc, D60 body, hand held, f5.6 @ 1/50th! Without IS this would have been impossible.

http://www.nationphotography.com/images/gallery/lion.jpg

Good luck with your decision, both are supposed to be great lenses!

Tim

[tommykjensen]

It will be used with a 20D, so I know about the lost AF with the extender on a 5.6 lens :(

[IanD]

Tommy,
I've been using the 400f/5.6 for a while now and love it. It is wicked sharp and the AF is second to none in speed. I am always amazed at the images this lens records. I've used it several times with the Canon 1.4 TC and AF is still very fast (MKII body)
I was concerned at first about lack of IS but keeping the shutter speed up around 1/500th keeps my images nice and sharp. Remember I'm an old man and prone to the shakes :)
If you want the most reach for the money with the sharpest images, go for the 400. If you are shooting mostly in low light situations then maybe the 300 f/4 IS is the ticket but remember with the TC behind it there may be a slight degrading in image quality.
The 400 gets my vote every time as a first choice wildlife lens.

[tommykjensen]

Did You shoot any of the owl photos with the 400 5.6 ?

[pturton]

If you figure 400mm will be the most reach you need, go for the 300 + Canon 1.4x TC. I see very little if any difference in picture quality between the 400 f/5.6 and the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC. Even using the 300 + Canon 2x TC gives a very reasonable image. The 300 with its close focus capability, IS, light weight and crisp images is a bit more versatile than the 400.

But I suspect that you too will find that 400mm is often far too short. Just last week I found 800mm can be too short at times. A sharp shinned hawk (slightly smaller than a crow) at 70 feet only fills half the frame.

I would have a difficult time parting with either my 300mm f/4 IS or my 400mm f/5.6.

...get them both ;-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 400mm is hard to beat. All you lose to the 300mm is IS ands closer focus distance...
You gain faster AF for tracking moving subjects,. and sharper images at a longer focal length.

[zach]

Lots of similar posts about these lenses. I'm in the process of making the same choice, adding in the 100-400 f/5.6L IS. Right now I'm leaning in the direction of the 400 f/5.6. I've seen some amazing pics with this lens, even with the 1.4 TC.

[Scottes]

I've got the 400mm and love it. As Ian said the AF speed is astounding.
With birds you can never have enough length.
The 300mm would be better at the zoo - but you get some amazing shots with the 70-200 already.
And the 70-200 + 1.4 gives you 280mm... 300mm isn't that much more.
Sure you can get 420mm with the 300mm + 1.4, but this means the 300mm is much less useful at 300mm.
While I love the sharpness of the 400mm I've seen some images lately from the 300mm - they seem to have more "pop" than the 400mm.
The IS is very nice, I'll give you that.
How much low-light shooting do you do? Both the f4 and IS are very helpful in low-light.
The 400mm is not shabby at low-light though. Not at all. It's a hell of a lot better than the 100-400.

It would be a hard choice for me - though this just may be a case of lens lust.

But, in the end, get the 400 for reach. You'll always want reach. The AF is wicked for birds in flight.


PS: You should buy a monopod anyway.

[scottbergerphoto]

I bought the 300 to use with the 1.4X and was very disappointed with the image quality. I returned the 300 to B&H for the 400 f/5.6 and I am very happy. It focuses very fast and the pictures are very sharp. I find that I need to keep my shutter speed at least 1/500 to hand hold it, especially after my morning coffee.
Scott

[phili1]

OK, my 2 cents. I have the 100-400 L and I bought it over the 400 F 5.6 becuase of the IS and guess what I do not use the IS that much. I always have it on a tripod with a gimble head and my shots are very sharp. Now I know you can't auto focus with the 1.4 but you almost have a 600mm lens and 50% of bird shots are stationary. Now this lens is so sharp I am considering it myself, in addtiopn to my 100-400 L, becuse I was questioning the sharpeness of it but recently I found that it is sharp and that most of my problems was my technique. The 400 is sharper no doubt about it.

[scottbergerphoto]

The 100-400 is a great lens but can't auto focus for sh*t in low light or low contrast situations. The 400 f/5.6 does well in both those situations. I found the simple solution. I bought both. :D
Regards,
Scott

[raylks]

The 300mm f4L is a great lens. It is very sharp and auto focus is lightning fast (and so 400mm f5.6L).
I prefer 300mm f4L to 400mm f5.6L because it has IS function with it. With IS, you can handhold the lens at 3 stop lower than the "safety shutter speed", allowing me to shoot at lower ISO value and slower shutter, which is particularly useful for panning and shooting in low light.
I don't like using tripod to shoot bird because the it hinders my lens movement. I always use monopod instead, and the IS would definitely help me to get sharp image.
With a crop factor of 1.6x on common Canon DSLR, you may extend the focal length to 480mm which is a very reasonable focal length for birding. And you can pan a moving bird with assistance from IS function!.
Well whether or not to get the IS, is only a matter of shooting habit. I like using monopod so I prefer 300mm IS but if you always use a tripod or simply you don't like monopod and handholding a large lens (actually both 300mm and 400mm are not big), then go for 400mm f5.6L.

[Scottes]

I bought both.

Same here, and also named Scott.
:-)

I wrote a long review comparing the 100-400 and the 400 - they're two completely different lenses which happen to be able to shoot at 400mm. I love having both.

[tommykjensen]

This is going to be a difficult decision.

I appreciate all the opinions, thanks.

[Scottes]

Your upcoming trip to Florida will have a lot of unknowns since you have never shot there. This would lean me towards the versatility of a zoom...

But yes, a tough decision.

[Anders Östberg]

As always, it depends on what you shoot... for Zoos a 400 will often be too long, for wildlife and especially birds you can't seem to get a lens that's long enough...

I have not tried either lens but would choose the 300 + 1.4x provided the image quality is good with the teleconverter. Both lenses are very good from what I've read though, difficult decision.

Personally I chose the 100-400 first as it's a great lens provided you have decent light, and then started saving towards longer and faster glass from there.

[tommykjensen]

Yeah, sigh.... I just finished reading Your comparison of the zoom and the prime.

But I think I will go for a prime because I have my 70-200 and the extender. I am leaning slighty towards the 400 but the IS really draws me towards the 300. So currently I think the score is 51% for the 400 and 49% for the 300.


Your upcoming trip to Florida will have a lot of unknowns since you have never shot there.

Actually not. I have been to Florida 3 times and have on all three occations taken a lot of photos with an old film slr. So for the majority of the time I have a pretty good idea which lens I want to use.

[IanD]

Did You shoot any of the owl photos with the 400 5.6 ?
Tommy,
Every owl photo was taken with the 400 f/5.6
It has not been off the MKII for 2 weeks. :) :)

[IanD]

Same here, and also named Scott.
:-)

Same here but my name isn't Scott but I have Scottish blood flowing through my veins. Close enough....... :) :) :) :) :)

[Scottes]

Sounds like the 300 then (even though I voted for the 400)

You've shot enough to know if the 300mm will do for you. I have to guess that you know it will be fine for Florida. The 300mm kicks butt.

[tommykjensen]

Yeah I think it will be the 300 mainly because of the IS and the extra stop.

The action I will be photographing in Orlando will be a lot of this type

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=usa1996_scan0263.jpg

This was shot with a film camera and a tokina 100-300 mm f 5.6-6.7 on 300 mm so I should be well equipped with the 300 IS, in a tight spot I can always add the extender and still have a great combo and better reach than on the first trip.


But then again I have 2 whole months to decide so I can change my mind many times before I go :lol:

[Scottes]

But then again I have 2 whole months to decide so I can change my mind many times before I go :lol:

I'm amazed that you could even say this, let alone actually mean it. :-) Your willpower is exemplary.

[tommykjensen]

You mean changing my mind or having two months to decide :lol: I have to wait at least 2 months because if I buy either of them now in Denmark it will cost me around $1800 and then I can't go on holiday or at least I will have to stay in a tent all 3 weeks :lol:

[Scottes]

Basically that you have agreed to not yet make a decision and order it immediately.

[tommykjensen]

Ohh my willpower is not stronger than anyone elses. If I had the extra money lying around I was not sitting here typing I was down in the local photo shop to order the lens :lol:

[tommykjensen]

The more I read reviews and opinions around the net the more I lean towards to 400 5.6.

But that give me some trouble because I plan to buy the new lens when I visit Florida and I got a store recommended in Orlando http://www.colonialphotohobby.com/ but they could not find the 400 5.6 lens listed anywhere so they would not be able to get that lens.

[IanD]

The more I read reviews and opinions around the net the more I lean towards to 400 5.6.

But that give me some trouble because I plan to buy the new lens when I visit Florida and I got a store recommended in Orlando http://www.colonialphotohobby.com/ but they could not find the 400 5.6 lens listed anywhere so they would not be able to get that lens.
Get them to order it for you. Or better yet if you know anyone in FLA. have them order it from B&H and pick it up when you arrive.

[tommykjensen]

Unfortunately I don't know anybody well enough in Orlando to do this for me.

[tommykjensen]

Does anybody have experience good/bad with Ritz/Wolf Camera (may even in Orlando).

[Scottes]

Don't expect much help or knowledge, don't expect great prices, but they're a big firm and fine to deal with. Trustworthy, etc.

[tommykjensen]

Ok, think I will go for Colonial Photo and Hobby then, I just learned that they are the main Canon agent in Florida so they should be able to get either lens.

[tommykjensen]

I am very close to a decision now. Following photos tipped me more against the 300 IS

http://www.pbase.com/image/38908587/original/
http://www.pbase.com/image/28957649/original/

They are both shot with the extender.

[Jon]

Bearing in mind that that's not the "pure" 300, but one that's been adulterated with a teleconverter, and that you've previously at least implied that the 300 on the 20D would be enough range for most of your work, absent comparable 400 f/5.6 +TC shots to compare those to, what makes you say this?

Your options would give you:
70-200 f/4
98-280 f/5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x TC)
300 f/4 IS
420 f/5.6 IS (300 + 1.4 TC)

or
70-200 f/4
98-280 f/5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x TC)
400 f/5.6
640 f/8 (400 + 1.4x TC)

I see slow lenses past 200 mm and no compensating IS, although a longer ultimate reach, with the 400 vs. the 300. I'd think that the better support for low-light hand-holding would give the 300 the edge.

[tommykjensen]

Jon I agree and I think I may have frased this

I am very close to a decision now. Following photos tipped me more against the 300 IS

wrong.

What I meant was the photos made me more in favour of the 300 IS because of the extra reach with the extender and still having IS. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jon]

Thanks - it's good to know I'm not losing my marbles (yet).

[tommykjensen]

IanD is doing a really good job of making my decision even more difficult with all his fantastic owl pictures (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58402) taken with the 400 5.6 :)

[IanD]

IanD is doing a really good job of making my decision even more difficult with all his fantastic owl pictures (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58402) taken with the 400 5.6 :)
Tommy, you know you want the 400, go for it:):)
Keep the shutter up with higher ISO under bad lighting cobditions and you will not notice the lack of IS. Do you want to see an image taken with the 400 +TC 1.4? I have a couple of owl images (suprise) that I can post for you if you like. They were taken using a tripod, but are very sharp.

[tommykjensen]

Tommy, you know you want the 400, go for it:):)
Keep the shutter up with higher ISO under bad lighting cobditions and you will not notice the lack of IS. Do you want to see an image taken with the 400 +TC 1.4? I have a couple of owl images (suprise) that I can post for you if you like. They were taken using a tripod, but are very sharp.

I think You have posted a few samples but I can't get enough of those owl photos :) So go ahead thanks.

[IanD]

http://www.pbase.com/giant001/image/39893217.jpg

Tommy,
Here you go. This guy was a longggg way off and decided to try it anyway with the 400 and 1.4 A lot of branchs around him.

[tommykjensen]

Excellent.

The past few days I actually started to consider buying the 400 5.6 now. Then later this year I could by the 200 2.8 prime to supplement my 70-200 f4 because I almost always use my 70-200 on 200 mm and often with the 1,4x extender. But this would still mean I have no long lens with IS.

[tommykjensen]

Finally.. I made up my mind. I am off to get the 300 mm f4L IS :D :D :D


Thank You to all for the input and sample photos. Maybe I will also buy the 400 5.6L someday ....

[Europa]

and especially birds you can't seem to get a lens that's long enough...
Not even the Canon 1200 mm is long enough?!? :):)

Personally I'd buy the 300mm with IS.

[Persian-Rice]

I would say buy the 400, that way you can make your 200 almost 300 and also have a 400 which can be a 600.........

[tommykjensen]

I would say buy the 400, that way you can make your 200 almost 300 and also have a 400 which can be a 600.........

That have to wait because I have just picked up the 300 f4l IS :D

[Medic1]

I bought the 300 to use with the 1.4X and was very disappointed with the image quality. I returned the 300 to B&H for the 400 f/5.6 and I am very happy. It focuses very fast and the pictures are very sharp. I find that I need to keep my shutter speed at least 1/500 to hand hold it, especially after my morning coffee.
Scott


This is the first I have heard of someone disliking this lens so much as to return it. I have just decided on this lens, and now I hear this complaint about it.......I guess I will have to search some more to see if any similar dislikes come up.

[dale65bama]

Wow! Food for thought about a long lens. Sold my old 4x4 truck to buy a really good lens for my 300D. You have all helped fill the info hopper.

Dale in FL

[highsidenz]

I shoot lots of motorsport, mainly motorcycles, and have been using a 70-200 F2.8 IS and 1.4 Extender up until I got hold of the 300 F4 IS. This lens is great. Nice and sharp and so easy to handle.
I agree with the other posters, you can make it a 400+ lens with the 1.4 without any noticably loss of quality, so I'd go for the 300.

[Lester Wareham]

Also, you don't say which body you are using, if it isn't a 1 series you will loose AF with the 400 + 1.4tc.

Tim

At f5.6 he should still be able to use the centre af point on a 20D AFAIK.

[GMCPhotographics]

Another thing to consider is what aperture you are intending to use. Sure the 400L is sharper wide open than the 300L with a 1.4tc. But drop a stop to f8 and there is little between them.
personally, i chose a 400mm f5.6L. But I can see the need for a 300L as well.
At the moment, i'm using a 200mm f2.8 and a 1.4x tc. Which is producing sharp images at 280mm f4 with a min focus distance of 1.5m. The only thing this little rig lacks is an IS system.

[tommykjensen]

Hehe what an old thread ;)

Any way I now have both lenses.

[John_TX]

Hehe what an old thread ;)

Any way I now have both lenses.

Since you bumped it and now own both, which do you prefer and for what reasons? I'm stuck trying to decide which I want for an upcoming trip to Yellowstone.
Also, have you shot the 400 + 1.4x TC combo?

[tommykjensen]

Since you bumped it and now own both, which do you prefer and for what reasons? I'm stuck trying to decide which I want for an upcoming trip to Yellowstone.

Obviously it depends on what I want to shoot. Lately I have used my 400 the most due to the length. If the subject is closer I would use the 300 due to IS.

I have actually not tried the 400 + 1.4x yet on my 1D MK III.

[HYBEagle]

You have both 300 IS and 400 5.6 now ? Which one do you use more often in the wild ?

[Tom W]

Is it too late to change my vote?
:D

[malcolm027]

Since you already have the 1.4 TC, for for the 300
-oops, I see you've got them:P

[Janika]

Hmmm, I just found this thread. After selling my 100-400 iS 4 months ago, which I had for over three years, I realized I need something sharper, better IQ and faster AF, so I researched and researched like the OP of this thread and I ended up buying the 300 f/4L iS back in March.
Guess what, I just sold it last weekend after 3-months of use. The EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM is on order. It all comes down to what you need it for and although I loved the 300, it was way too short for birds, which I need it for. I was also thinking of getting a 1.4 TC, but then I would lose the most important advantage of this lens, which is the fast, f/4 aperture. iS did little to nothing while shooting birds in flight, The TC will also slow your AF down. For any sort of sports, I would still get a zoom lens. The 300 f/4 is a great lens and I can recommend it, but for birds n wildlife, I'd go for the 400mm prime. Good luck!

[tommykjensen]

You have both 300 IS and 400 5.6 now ? Which one do you use more often in the wild ?

The 400.

[Gino17]

I voted for the 300mm f4L IS, even adding the 1.4x extender you're still able to take photos with the IS feature on, in which the 400mm f5.6 doesn't.

[RPCrowe]

The 400mm f/4L IS lens is a bit faster in autofocus than a 1.4x TC equipped 300mm f/4L IS lens and it has a bit better IQ but, it is not lacking by a whole lot. It is certainly a viable combination. In fact, I carried this to Alaska last year along with a 1.4x TC and my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. Unfortunately I didn't use them much because it rained like heck every day I was up there. The locals claimed that it was the wettest summer ever.

Obviously, you can use the 300mm f/4L IS lens with the 1.4x TC which results in a 420mm f/5.6 lens that has full autofocus capability on a 1.6x camera. The 400mm f/5.6 doesn't retain autofocus capability with the 400mm f/5.6L lens and 1.4x TC when using a 1.6x body. However,it does maintain degraded autofocus with a 1.6x camera if you use a third party TC or if you tape the pins of the Canon TC.

I have done neither. Neither have I used this lens with the 1.4x TC in manual focus mode because manually focusing with an f/8 lens is not exactly my cup of tea. Although perhaps I should do this sometime just to see how it feels. Romy Ocon of the Philippines uses all sorts of tc and lens combinations for his bird photography and does a super job with those combinations.

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone

I tend to use the 400mm f/5.6L on a tripod or monopod but, will hand hold my 300mm f/4L IS with the IS turned on. I don't hand hold the 300mm, even with IS, if I have a 1.4x TC connected because I am getting old and my hand holding ability has been reduced with age.

I like both lenses. Each has something different to offer and they are often a nice combination on a pair of cameras although, I will most often use the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens as a companion to either of my primes.

I love the built-in retracting lens hoods with which both the 300mm and 400mm primes are equipped. I wish that all Canon tele-zooms such as the 70-200mm (series) were so equipped.

Why do I have both the 400mm f/5.6L and the 300mm f/4L IS lenses? Because I got a great deal from a friend who needed quick money to help defray the purchase of a 400mm f/2.8L IS lens which he needed for shooting a night football contract. He sold them as a set and I paid less than the price of a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom.

The 400mm f/5.6L lens is the best bird-in-flight lens there is. It has snap fast IS and fantastic IQ - even wide open. I will most often use this lens wide open. I like it when there is good light or when I can use a support such as a tripod, monopod or even a beanbag. It is also great for motor-sports or hydroplane racing; especially when using a tripod!

I often like the 300mm when I need a wider aperture and I like it for sports such as football and soccer. The 400mm f/2.8L IS lens is the epitome of a sports lens on a 1.3x camera giving you a 520mm f/2.8 lens. However, the 300mm on a 1.6x camera will come close and will give you a 480mm f/4 lens which is pretty darn good; probably not as great as the 400mm f/2.8L IS but, it is a fraction of the cost and weight of the big 400mm f/2.8L IS lens. The 300mm with or without the TC is nice for wildlife but, the 400mm f/5.6L is better for birds in flight.

Here is a great selection of Africa and India wildlife photos by Theodore Mattas who shot using the 400mm f/5.6L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on 1.6x cameras...

http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=2383016

[GMCPhotographics]

Just a slight correction, a 1.6 crop effectively gains another stop of DOF over a full frame and a 1.3 crop gains about 1/2 a stop. So your 300mm f4 becomes effectively a 480mm f5.6 not and f4. It may have the light level of an f4, but you also loose a stop's worth of iso noise against FF, so drop a stop of iso. Likewise, your friends 400mm f2.8 on a 1D series becomes an effective 520mm f3.5(ish). Which is quite a different look to the effective 480mm f5.6 of your 40/50D and 300mm f4 combo. The advantage of the 300mm f4 combo is that it's a hack of a lot cheaper and lighter!

[lmans]

I like the 300mm F4l.....For several reasons...

First I think you have to know how you operate....for instance I like to hike around a lot and the more weight I am carrying, the less I enjoy it!.... With the 400, not only is it a bit heavier but I would also have to lug around either a mono pod or a tri pod to get the results I expect. That extra lugging is not worth it.

I want to have the freedom to pull out my camera and just shoot....not mono or tri pod.

Second...If needed, I can add a 1.4 TC and get 420....and about the same image in quality.

Third....I like the IS....the 400 doesnt come with it and many times I am on boats photographing whales etc... the IS will help...

So,....know what your needs are and not the needs of others. If the 300 fits, buy it.

[CountryBoy]

The 400mm is hard to beat. All you lose to the 300mm is IS ands closer focus distance...
You gain faster AF for tracking moving subjects,. and sharper images at a longer focal length.

You convinced me !