300 on Mk4 vs 400 on mkIII

[friesr]

I posted this in the sports section not the lens section as my question pertains specificaly to this combo in regards to sprots photography.

I am curious if a 300/2.8 on a mk4 would produce the similar results cropped as a the 400/2.8 on a mk3

The 300 is 8 deg 15min
The 400 is 6 deg 10min

The Mk4 you got 4896x3264 and the mk3 you got 3888x2592

The mk4 has 58% more MP than the mk3 and the 400mm is 33% more mm than the 300mm.

4796/3888 results in a 23% more pixels on the width of the sensor. So, looking at the width, for the 300 on the mk4 would need 5171x3505 pixels to equal the 400 on the mk 3 or approx 18.1mp. We only got 16mp.

With that said, do you see the value added of the 400mm over the 300mm diminishing? Can you say the increased cost of the 400 over the 300 is justified if shooting with the mk4? I know some will say it depends just looking for your take on the situation.

[BenJohnson]

You also have to take into account the fact that (for the same framing) the distance to the subject is going to be very different with the 300mm vs. the 400mm. This will have a big effect on how the shots will look. The 400mm will provide a much greater level of background blur and shallower DOF. Sure you could stand in the same spot and then crop the image taken with the 300mm, but the DOF will be much greater and background blur will be much less. I don't think pixel counting is the right way to make this decision.

[AdamLewis]

No. It will not be close. Cropping is doing NOTHING but blowing up a picture. If sensor size is the same, number of pictures is irrelevant to how the pictures will look. The 400 on a MkIII will always provide more compression and shorter DOF than a 300 on a MkIV even if you crop it.

I dont see any value diminishing. All I see is fuzzy math manipulating numbers that dont really have any correlation to what actually happens.

[eigga]

Dont you have to multiply the weight and size as a factor? ..................Seriously I have no clue

BUT, I do know the Mark III and 400 2.8 work wonderful for me and I know if someone offered an Mark IV and 300 for my combo they would get a laugh...YMMV

[sulla]

Originally Posted by BenJohnson

You also have to take into account the fact that (for the same framing) the distance to the subject is going to be very different with the 300mm vs. the 400mm. This will have a big effect on how the shots will look. The 400mm will provide a much greater level of background blur and shallower DOF. Sure you could stand in the same spot and then crop the image taken with the 300mm, but the DOF will be much greater and background blur will be much less. I don't think pixel counting is the right way to make this decision.

Ben has it right. It is basically an issue of only DOF when it comes to the two lenses.

[friesr]

Obviously, some will say the difference is well worth the extra cash. I have looked at a lot of examples images between the two lenses. None were a direct comparison so feel free to post some examples if you are inclined. From the images I have seen, both lenses are very sharp and I was hard pressed to decide if “I” could see a $$$$ difference between the two.

That said, I have to restructure my kit after some housing issues required the selling of most of my gear. I am hoping in the next 6mo to be able to reestablish my kit and be back in business for next school year. So, to go with a 300 or 400 is going to be a big part of the kit budget.

[eigga]

Obviously, some will say the difference is well worth the extra cash. I have looked at a lot of examples images between the two lenses. None were a direct comparison so feel free to post some examples if you are inclined. From the images I have seen, both lenses are very sharp and I was hard pressed to decide if “I” could see a $$$$ difference between the two.

As far as sharpness, color contrast, and focus speed are concerned they are basically identical (300 vs 400 2.8). If that is the question then it's not worth the $$. The extra $$ is for reach and DOF.

[barryvj171]

I have both the 300 and the 400 2.8's. They are both very sharp, but it has to be said that the 300 lens is definitely sharper (noticeably) than the 400 2.8. The 300 I have is an EF300mm f/2.8 L (non-IS) USM series III, which is the last lens brought out by Canon before the IS version. It is in fact sharper than the IS lens as well, and well worth the money I spent on it. It also focuses quicker than the 400, reason being the glass is probably lighter and can turn quicker. I get a lot more 'in-focus' shots with the 300 than I do the 400. Depending on which sports, there is no better lens. Having the IS on the 400 is no real benefit either, as I never use it. My shutter speeds used are always over 1/1000sec. and therefore not really effective with IS lenses.

The DoF in both lenses are the same, both 2.8 and unmatched bokeh.

In getting back to the reason for this thread, there is no substitute for the extra 100mm of glass. By cropping the MkIV image, it is basically the same as 'digital zooming' which is a big no-no photographically. The highest quality image will come from the 400 every time, being closer to the action will win every time...

[friesr]

Originally Posted by barryvj171

In getting back to the reason for this thread, there is no substitute for the extra 100mm of glass. By cropping the MkIV image, it is basically the same as 'digital zooming' which is a big no-no photographically. The highest quality image will come from the 400 every time, being closer to the action will win every time...

Thanks for responding. I do understand that that 'digital zooming' is far inferior to optics. My question was not if the 400mm could produce a superior image when compared to a 300mm cropped image. It was a bit more to do with the final image. I am sure we could agree that on a 5x7 print there will be little difference between the 9mp and the 10mp image. So I extrapolated that idea to utilizing the higher pixel count of the mk4 to take advantage of shorter lenses and comparing the end result with a mk3 and a longer lens.

[eigga]

I have both the 300 and the 400 2.8's. They are both very sharp, but it has to be said that the 300 lens is definitely sharper (noticeably) than the 400 2.8. The 300 I have is an EF300mm f/2.8 L (non-IS) USM series III

very interesting... I didnt notice any difference in quality between the IS versions I have had.

The DoF in both lenses are the same

Well not true if you are comparing them side by side...the extra 100mm changes the DoF a lot. As compared by f/stop alone then I agree...but DoF has several factors with focal length being a big part

[barryvj171]

Well not true if you are comparing them side by side...the extra 100mm changes the DoF a lot. As compared by f/stop alone then I agree...but DoF has several factors with focal length being a big part[/quote]

Very true, but not a lot; the difference at 10 metres @ f/2.8 is 6 cms (3cms either side of the focus point) which will change according to distance...the further the distance the greater the difference....
Actually, what I should have said (and meant to say) in the previous statement is the bokeh on both lenses are the same, and equally impressive to say the least; but thanks for pointing that out...

Barry

[barryvj171]

[quote=eigga;9867748]very interesting... I didnt notice any difference in quality between the IS versions I have had.

No, I doubt there is any difference between IS versions. I am comparing the NON-iS version to the IS version. The NON-IS version (series III), is noticeably sharper than the IS versions. It is a well known fact, and stands to reason because there is less glass for the image or light to travel through.
Not all lenses are equal. The f/4 non IS version of the 70-200 Canon lenses is the sharpest of all of them, including all the non and IS versions of the f/2.8's etc...

[slimenta]

Difficult question since I think what you are shooting is also relevant. I have the 400, 2.8, the 300, 2.8 and the 200 2.0. Wednesday night I shot the 400 and 200 both on Mark IVs. One advantage of the 200 is that I can hand hold it.

http://www.sportsactiondigital.com/S...19501013_MGxKw

[eigga]

Couldn't see the forest for the trees.... there's your answer. Buy all three !

[friesr]

LOL... Since i have to justify buying just one lens. Not sure how i am going to sell the idea of all three until i get some funds flowing in