300/4 IS or 400/5.6 - which one? [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

View Full Version : 300/4 IS or 400/5.6 - which one?

timmy0101

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 03:19

Hi there,
I want to buy a telelens for bird photography. I own 20D and budget allows me for something like ~1200$. I also have Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC. The choice is 300/4L IS or 400/5.6L. 400 is the great lens for flight shots, but is missing IS in low light situations. Attaching 1.4x to 400/5.6 will result in missing AF unless You tap the pins, but it will only work in good light. As for the 300/4L IS - it has aslo unique macro abilities and can be used with 1.4x, resulting in 420mm/5.6 with working AF and IS. However people say quality of 300/4L IS + 1.4x combo is not that good as 400/5.6L naked. I've actually seen great 400/5.6 bird photos with 1.4x attached. I can't make up my mind. What do You suggest?

Thanks a lot,
timmy

lomond

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 03:34

Hi Timmy, and welcome to the forum.

This is a question that is often asked and one I pondered recently/
I decided on the 300 because I think it is a more versatile lens due to the IS and close focus ability. The 1.4 TC increases that versatility.
If the conditions were right the 400 would probably result in a sharper image.
I live in Scotland and conditions are often dull.
Here is an example of an image on a dull day that was hand held on the 100-400 at a slow shutter speed. It was only possible with IS.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/lomond/The-fisher-king--MK17.jpg

timmy0101

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 03:46

Thanks for Your reply!
Nice pic, btw :)
What about bumping up the ISO - 20D greatly reduces noise on high ISOs - this would allow for slower shutter speed without IS. Birds are usually moving so fast, high shutter speed is needed anyways. However for some of them, that are not moving in particular moment, You are right indeed. How about in-flight photos? You got some experiences with 300/4L IS with birds in flight? Do You use TC with 300/4L IS?

Thanks

malla1962

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 03:48

IanD

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 04:01

Timmy,
I own both lenses, the 300 being a recent acquirement(?) I have shot 90% of my owl images with the 400. Wicked fast AF and razor sharp as other owners will attest to. With a 1.4 TC mounted behind it, it is still very fast in acquiring AF, on a MKII body, and remains very sharp. On really dull flat days, I mounted the combo on a tripod.
I bought the 300 because there were times that the 400 was just too long for flight shooting. From the first shots I've taken, it too is very sharp and jut a wee bit slower in AF. The real beauty of the 300 is it's ability to focus a lot closer than the 400. The min focus distance for the 400 is 11.5' and the 300 is 4.9'. My first choice would be the 400 as you can never be too long in most cases.
Your Kenko 1.4 TC "might" AF with the 400 without the tape trick. Not too sure about image quality with the Kenko though. Might be worth while to try before you buy.

lomond

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 04:02

I hope to get this lens by the end of the month.
I should say that I will not use this lens solely for bird shooting. If that was the case I may have chosen the 400.

Regarding the 20D and high ISO. Yes, the 20D is cleaner regarding noise at higher ISO. I would guess you would be shooting around the 400 to 800 ISO mark with the 20D and 400 5.6
If you're looking for a lens to shoot birds then length is everything.
Check some of Scottes posts, he uses that lens and has pasted some impressive shots with it.

lomond

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 04:10

Hi Malcom,
Just checked the Exif data, not as slow as I first thought.

10D, 100-400L @ 400, 1/200, f8, ISO 200.

It was shot at Skelwith Force, I'm sure you know it. :)

malla1962

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 04:44

Hi Malcom,
Just checked the Exif data, not as slow as I first thought.

10D, 100-400L @ 400, 1/200, f8, ISO 200.

It was shot at Skelwith Force, I'm sure you know it. :)
thats pretty good mate,i hope to get that lens next month when i go to the us,how do you find the push pull zoom? is there any sharpening on that image?
malcolm

tommykjensen

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 04:52

I asked that same question not long ago. You can read about it here as well as my decision

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56149

lomond

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 05:00

thats pretty good mate,i hope to get that lens next month when i go to the us,how do you find the push pull zoom? is there any sharpening on that image?
malcolm

I don't mind the push pull zoom. I know some hate it.
The lens is probably on the camera more than any other, I'm very pleased with it.

Regarding the image, yes the image has been sharpened. I almost always apply some USM. It's also a heavy crop. It was an opportunistic shot, I had the 17-40 on the camera at the time. I just had time to swap lenses and take a few shots before he flew off.

timmy0101

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 05:41

Tommy!
Starting reading that post You pasted, I was almost sure You will choose the 400! Damn I was wrong :) I think I will go for the 400 anyways.... Btw. How is Your 300 doing ?

robertwgross

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 09:42

The lens choice might depend on the type of bird you are going after.

Large birds (e.g. Blue Heron) are one thing. Small birds (e.g. hummingbird) are quite another story. Birds "on the wing" require a fast autofocus, which might rule out a teleconverter. Stationary birds are easier, and manual focus can work. Wading birds are easier, since they don't move that fast, and often you can get closer to them to shoot.

---Bob Gross---

tommykjensen

15th of March 2005 (Tue), 09:52

Tommy!
Starting reading that post You pasted, I was almost sure You will choose the 400! Damn I was wrong :) I think I will go for the 400 anyways.... Btw. How is Your 300 doing ?

It is doing great. Have look at some of my latest threads in Nature.

As for the 400. I might get that too later this summer maybe :lol: