Canon 300/4 IS or 400/5.6?

[danielr]

hey all, you've all helped me out a lot in the last couple of days, thanks for that. there are so many options for lens line ups and every time i think i'm there and it's all finished i find a new range to decide on lol:D you all know what it's like! so if you could help me out with this new decision then i'd be really thankful.

ok, (all of this is for on a 20D) so i'm pretty decided on the 50mm f1.4 to go in an underwater housing for the surf and to wait for an EF-S fisheye for a while, hopefully not too long.

i've then decided almost definately i will get the 70-200mm f2.8 for pulled back shots from the land and possibly a housing port to be able to take it out in the water for when i have to sit far away.

Now here comes the real problem, lol, for land shots - on a tripod - most surf photographers use a 600mm f4 but obviously thats a little out of my league so i've been looking at the 300mm IS f4 and the 400mm f5.6 non-IS. This is pretty much a decision between wider aperture + IS to length. With the crop factor these lenses will seem something like a 480mm and 640mm respectively. oh and they a both pretty similar price so it isn't really too much of an issue! Have i missed any lenses? Thanks a heap

Danny.

ps. i've related everything to surf photography because thats whats most important to me but i will use them for landscapes, portraits, other sports etc etc

[danielr]

hmmm searched a little deeper on the net and have decided the prime 400 f5.6 is better as long as there is decent light, i think?

[mdr]

Had the same dilemma, although different subjects. I decided on the 300mm f4 L IS. This gives me IS and more versatility than the 400mm f5.6 L. This gives me 300mm at f4 and 420mm at f5.6 with my 1.4x TC, slightly longer than the 400mm at the same apperture. From previous threads and reviews, the quality of the 400mm has the edge, albeit very slightly.

[foxbat]

As you're going to be using a tripod IS becomes a non-issue. If the pro's are using the 600mm then it makes sense for you to get the 400mm. I've got it and I reckon in another 10 years I'll still have it, it's that good. You can always bump the ISO up a level to compensate for f/5.6 vs. f/4, by all accounts the 20D has superb high ISO performance.

[lomond]

hmmm searched a little deeper on the net and have decided the prime 400 f5.6 is better as long as there is decent light, i think?

I think you've answered your own question.

I bought the 300 for the same reason Marc did.
In my case I'm sure it was the right decision, however in your case, I think the 400 would be the best choice.

[karusel]

I think so too. Shooting surfers, there'll be plenty of light for the 5.6 hole.

[primoz]

For surfing 400mm is most of times way too short. Before you spend bunch of money and later find out it's useless since it's too short get 2x converter and try it on 70-200. You will get 400/5.6 lens so you will see what it's about. But as I said for surfing 400mm is no go.

[karusel]

You do realize when you say 'spend bunch of money' its about $1000, and the next alternative is priced at $5500 and it's a 500mm f/4? :D 400mm surf shooting is still doable, it is true however that with more focal length one would be better off, but from 400 to 500mm is not much increase really.. the 600mm at $7200 is actually a bit pricey, so the next best option I see would be 500mm f/4 + 1.4 TC. Oh wait, there is also the sigma 500mm f/4.5... if you're lucky you can get it for a little over $2000 on ebay.

[SurfKahakai]

400mm really is short but it all depends on where you're shooting. If you're at Waiamea then it will be too short but if you're shooting most of the Southern CA breaks like me, then it won't be too bad. I'm currently using my junk 100-300mm and it's just not enough so I'm upgrading to the 100-400mm with a 1.4X TC. I know that's not as good as a 600mm but at $1500 for the combo, it's all I can afford without having to eat leaves and insects for the next 3 years.

[danielr]

yeah i hear you all - i know 400mm isn't that long but it'll crop to 640mm equivelent on a 20D, thats longer than what pros that are still using film are getting with the 600f4. Or am i missing something?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Please take the time to look at the -=TOP 10=- lens thread at the top of this forum. the one that says READ FIRST.

You'll see a link in there to last weeks debate regarding these same two lenses. ;)

[SurfKahakai]

I think the only thing you're missing is that they're using teleconverters too so they're 600mm might become a 840-1200mm.