Which one to get? 300 or 400

Hi

This has been a very informative forum and have learnt a lot from here. I have gone through the many discussions on 300 f/4 vs 400 f/5.6. My dilemma is a bit different.

I can only afford one lens. Which one of the two? I am aware that for BIF it has to be 400 f/5.6. However when I looked back on my images from last couple of years, I find that I only occasionally do BIF. More often it is perched birds. Then I also do wild-life, macros and landscapes. I need to know which of the 2 lenses can be used more creatively? I am more inclined towards 300 f/4 for i) IS ii) Less MF distance iii) Hence can be used for close-ups of butterflies and insects. I can later get the 1.4x TC to get to 420 f/5.6.

The keyword for me is "creativity". Your opinions please.

Thanks.

Do you shoot sports or anything? You can kind of get away with using f4 for low light stuff but 5.6 might be too low.

No I don't shoot sports. I am mainly outdoors for my photography walks.

It's a hobby and a passion. Not a profession.

herculeorama wrote in post #16447500
No I don't shoot sports. I am mainly outdoors for my photography walks.

It's a hobby and a passion. Not a profession.

In that case you could always get the 300 f4 and then later get a 1.4 extender to give you extra reach.

Or the 100-400 might be worth a look at too.

300/4 IS. I use it a lot for creative shots.. nice shallow DOF combined with short MFD and 2-stop IS, make this a very versatile lens. Throw on a 1.4x TC, and it gets more fun.

Thanks. I was leaning towards the 300/4 but wanted to be sure about it.

F4 is vs F5.6 non is

At least with the 300 you can add a teleconverter so you can have 300 and almost 400 anytime you want.

I have both and agree with the others that the 300/4 is your best option. A great lens and very versatile. Plus it takes a 1.4xTC very well for if you need a bit more reach. Go for it.

300 f4 all the way for me. It's a stand-alone classic in terms of sharpness and at f4 the extra stop is ideal. Even with the x1.4 added, it's a fabulous f5.6 combination. I love mine.

Thanks again everyone for the quick responses. 300/4 it will be but may take a couple of months before I get it.

Consider getting that 300/4 IS used. A lot of people buy these longer lenses but rarely use them. That's how I got mine... Off Craigslist, the seller claimed he'd bought two or three years earlier for an Alaskan trip and only used it a few times afterward.

If memory serves, I paid $900 US and it looked like new (doesn't anymore!), was complete with case, caps and everything... even had a high quality 72mm B+W filter on it (which I promptly removed, but keep for occasional use when needed). I use it a lot with Canon 1.4X Mark II teleconverter, which can be found used for around $250 US. That TC has minimal effect on focus speed and image quality. And the combined cost if you can find them used might be less than the lens alone, bought new.

I use it extensively with and without the teleconverter... for wildlife:

I recommend the 100-400L.

If that is too much, then the 300/4L + 1.4X TC is second best. You get both 300mm focal lenght plus 420mm focal length, and the lens has IS with is very useful at these kinds of long lenses.

The 400/5.6 is a nice lens, but I would only use it if I was totally sure that I would never want 300mm too, and also if I was totally sure that IS would not be a benefit. To me, that is a narrow set of requirments.

The 300/4L IS takes the TC very well, so while the 400/5.6 might be a little better compared to the 300 with TC, the difference isn't worth worrying about and isn't generally worth losing IS and the flexibility of two focal lengths.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16448721
I recommend the 100-400L.

If that is too much, then the 300/4L + 1.4X TC is second best. You get both 300mm focal lenght plus 420mm focal length, and the lens has IS with is very useful at these kinds of long lenses.

The 400/5.6 is a nice lens, but I would only use it if I was totally sure that I would never want 300mm too, and also if I was totally sure that IS would not be a benefit. To me, that is a narrow set of requirments.

The 300/4L IS takes the TC very well, so while the 400/5.6 might be a little better compared to the 300 with TC, the difference isn't worth worrying about and isn't generally worth losing IS and the flexibility of two focal lengths.

the 400L is only for very good light or tripod. ie, it is a specialty lens. the 300L is a very good lens but with TC it becomes just okay and you lose AF speed. if you need 400 the zoom is the one to get.

I agree with the post above by Ed rader. I have had both lenses and i bought the 400 after i was using the 300 with a tc all the time. If you need the 400 then get it, but it sounds like you could really use the extra versatility of the 300. I thought i would like the close MFD and IS but with my style of shooting i needed more reach and didnt need as fast of a lens.

herculeorama wrote in post #16447407
Hi

This has been a very informative forum and have learnt a lot from here. I have gone through the many discussions on 300 f/4 vs 400 f/5.6. My dilemma is a bit different.

I can only afford one lens. Which one of the two? I am aware that for BIF it has to be 400 f/5.6. However when I looked back on my images from last couple of years, I find that I only occasionally do BIF. More often it is perched birds. Then I also do wild-life, macros and landscapes. I need to know which of the 2 lenses can be used more creatively? I am more inclined towards 300 f/4 for i) IS ii) Less MF distance iii) Hence can be used for close-ups of butterflies and insects. I can later get the 1.4x TC to get to 420 f/5.6.

The keyword for me is "creativity". Your opinions please.

Thanks.

I wrestled with the same thing and owned the 400mm 5.6 prime but eventually found that the 100-400 was more versatile in wildlife, sports, butterflies even portraits

60D
100-400
cropped