Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Aug 2016 (Friday) 22:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-300 F/4.5-5.6 L vs 300 F/4L at the 300mm end ???

 
St ­ Bernard
Member
149 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2013
     
Aug 12, 2016 22:14 |  #1

I am considering either one of these lenses in the future how do they compare at the 300mm? I would think the prime would have a little advantage. I do all around photography like birding and wildlife zoo"s etc. I will soon have a 80D with the 18-135 nano lens. I know with the 300mm I can use the 1.4III TC with no problems. The 70-300mm with the cameras crop factor would probably work also. I would like the 100-400LmkII but its out of my price range. I thought about the original 100-400 which can be had for a fairly good price but I would like to keep the weight down. Feedback appreciated Thanks Bill




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
St ­ Bernard
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2013
Post edited over 1 year ago by St Bernard.
     
Aug 13, 2016 11:41 |  #2

HELLO ANYDODY HOME ??????? I sure would like an answer Thank you Bill




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kurtru
Member
Avatar
96 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Seattle Washington
     
Aug 13, 2016 14:46 as a reply to  @ St Bernard's post |  #3

Patience, grasshopper....


Canon 5d Mark III
16-35 f/4 L IS | 24-105 L IS | 70-200 f/4 L IS | 100-400 L MK II L IS | 35 f/2 IS |
40 f/2.8 | 100 f/2.8 | Tamron 150-600 VC
Canon G15 | Canon S90 |
http://www.kurtspics.s​mugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 1 year ago by CheshireCat. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 13, 2016 17:29 |  #4

St Bernard wrote in post #18094462 (external link)
HELLO ANYDODY HOME ??????? I sure would like an answer Thank you Bill

Send me both lenses, and you will have your answer ! :)

Jokes apart, consider also the 400/5.6. It is relatively cheap used. It has no IS, which is not much of a requirement for birding, but can be helpful for other subjects.
The 300/4 (newer version) has IS, old technology, but still useful.

That said, I have only used the 70-300L once and own the 400/5.6. For birding, there's no doubt I'd get the longer FL.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,828 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1672
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 13, 2016 17:46 |  #5

what are you using now? personally i like to have a zoom for wildlife/birding...but there are probably tons of others that prefer the primes

what are you shooting wildlife wise? if you're in a blind 300mm would work...but it'd be pretty short for a lot of other situations...and for cheaper price you could look at one of the 150-600mm offerings from tamron or sigma...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
St ­ Bernard
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2013
Post edited over 1 year ago by St Bernard. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 13, 2016 18:26 |  #6

I will have the camera in about 2 months an 80D. I just sold a 60D about 6 months ago due to health problems. I did have a 100-400 for it. I like to do wildlife deer etc and birding also. I was also looking at the Tamron & Sigma 150-600. I think to get the reach I would like to have either of those would work. I do most on a Mono Pod and Tripod with a RSS ball head. The 150-600 lens will also save a little money. Thanks to all for responding the feedback is greatly appreciated. Bill




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,729 posts
Gallery: 1114 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8155
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 1 year ago by MalVeauX.
     
Aug 14, 2016 20:19 |  #7

Hi Bill,

Really depends on how you shoot.

I use APS-C & full frame with a 150-600 and a 300 F4L. I do tons of birding, weekly pretty much. I go about it several ways, sometimes from a blind up and close, sometimes it's from trails, stalking and walking, sometimes I'm just scouring the shore line, sometimes I just go out to a location in the marsh early and wait for them to come to me. But from my own experience, I went from the 150-600 to the 300 F4L, because my habits shifted me towards using the shorter lens because I found myself working to be closer to the subjects more and more, and so I didn't need the extra reach. Lately I've been using just a 7D (APS-C) and 300F4L IS and that's it. I find it's plenty of reach. A full frame equivalent would be a full frame camera and a 500 F4 to get the approximate field of view and same aperture speed, and that would cost a lot more money. So for budget, I've kept it simple with APS-C and 300mm. I was using APS-C & 600mm from the 150-600 and I loved having all that reach, but I found I was too close after changing my approach to birding/wildlife, and so I didn't need as much reach, so I started using my full frame with the 150-600. I realized I was doing that just so I could still shoot at 600mm for the sake of shooting my 150-600 at 600. Kind of silly, but upon reflection that is what I was doing--justifying the 600mm basically to myself. So I started shooting with a 200mm & a 1.4x TC (280mm). I used it a bunch and found I really liked it on APS-C. So I picked up the 300 F4L IS. And now it's basically all I shoot and my 150-600 hasn't been out in a long time. The beauty of the 300 F4L IS is that it can focus so closely, so I'm not "too close" for use, yet still lighting fast on focus, F4 for speed, sharp wide open, and has image stabilization. If I want more pixels on target, I can throw a TC in there for a 420mm F5.6 with image stabilization as well. And on APS-C, that's a lot of reach. I bought my 300 F4L IS for $550 used from KEH.com with a warranty.

Feel free to look at my image gallery or flickr to see what kind of birding I get, as an amateur.

There are days I think to myself, "I really should have brought my 600mm today." But, then I think about it, and it's so infrequently that I don't really think it matters to me much. So I will eventually probably just sell my 600mm. As much as I want a long lens from time to time, I also don't want to deal with carrying it. The 150-600's are really nice in that they are light weight and small for what they are, so I keep mine around for that reason. Ideally I want a 400 F2.8 for my "big lens." I can always feed it TC's and get a 560 F4 or a 800 F5.6, and I'd rather have that speed for focus purposes. That's the rub with the 150-600, the aperture is f6.3 wide open at 600mm, so it's going to not have the best AF performance in poor light. F2.8 will focus better. When it comes to flight, I put all the emphasis on focus. So a shorter, faster lens is what I'd want.

Ideally, if I had a big budget, I'd want a 5DSR and a 500F4L (no need for IS for me on that one, it would be for in flight, otherwise, on a gimbal anyways). The 5DSR because the resolution lets you have the pixel density of an APS-C, but with a wide field of view thanks to being full frame, along with no AA filter, for more details. The lenses because they're of the best quality you can get and perform great with TC's (700 F5.6 being a great setup). But, heavy setup, big, bulky, and costly.

One thing for sure, I rarely need 70mm or 100mm when I'm birding or looking at wildlife. Personally, I always take a 2nd camera with a wide lens on it. My dedicated birding setup is a prime. I take a minor 2nd body with me with a wide lens for the moments I want to capture something huge or very close. I generally take my EOS-M + 22mm F2 as my sidekick (so small, light, compact, and wide and fast).

Again, it's all about what you do, how you do it, and what your experiences are. I went backwards from 600mm to 300mm to have a smaller, lighter, faster setup. But that's because I get so close now. I'm sure the moment I went to Washington in April to do Eagles, I'd be begging for a 500mm or 600mm and my 300 would sit in a bag, since you can't get near them across a river!

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
puttick
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Mar 2002
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
     
Aug 15, 2016 16:10 |  #8

FWIW I have a 5d3 and an 80d body, and the 100-400 ii, 70-300L and 300/4 L. I can see very little difference in IQ between any of those at 300mm, though I haven't attempted a systematic evaluation on identical subjects. My impression is that the 100-400 ii has the fastest AF. The 300/4 prime has one big disadvantage in that it is a fixed FL, which makes it much less versatile. In practice this means I use it less often.

YMMV

Nigel


Nigel Puttick
North Yorkshire, UK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
St ­ Bernard
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2013
Post edited over 1 year ago by St Bernard.
     
Aug 16, 2016 14:27 |  #9

Thanks for all the feedback it was greatly appreciated. I am pretty sure I will go now with the 300L and later get a 1.4 III TC for it That will do everything I am sure I want to do. Most all of it will be walking and a lot of woods and lakes. Plus I to do not care to deal with long lenses in the woods. I also have about 4 nice zoo"s in the area and they are always fun with a good lens and camera. Again thanks to all Bill :mrgreen:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,802 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-300 F/4.5-5.6 L vs 300 F/4L at the 300mm end ???
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Roc2000
389 guests, 314 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.