300mm or 400mm prime?

Hi,

I'm considering selling the 100-400 and getting either the 300mm or 400mm.

I love the flexibility of the 100-400 but want something with quicker AF and sharper images without breaking the bank so am looking to swap pretty much - this rules out the 2.8's

My longer term thinking is I could get the Tamron 70-300 VC (I used to have one and it was very good) - that fills in that gap and frees me up to get one of the primes, now I also have a Kenko 1.4 TC, so my thoughts are either:

1) 300mm + 1.4 TC - keeps the versatility and gives me a 300mm & a 420mm, but will I loose too much AF speed?
2) 400mm - at 5.6 already I'm stuck there - I think my TC will actually let me go longer and keep AF as its non-reporting.

What do you guys think?

Ta,

John

I've never had trouble with sharpness from my 100-400.

Have a look in the sample archives to be sure you want a 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 in lieu of that zoom, and compare to the sample archive of the 100-400 to make sure you are getting the most from what you have now.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406

If so, I would generally take the longer reach in the 400 vs. the 300 + TC.

I love my 300 (recently chose it over the 100-400 that I wanted forever and never looked back) it takes the 1.4 very well. Where I don't like the IQ loss using the 1.4 with the 70-200 MK II, . . the 300 results very minimal negative effect.

My reasons for chosing it over the 400 5.6: Lighter, it has IS, and a closer MFD. Also beyond sports and birding, the 300 L is a smokin' tight portriat lens, has almost no vignetteing on my full frame, and on the 7D with 1.4 you have a 672mm f/5.6 with reliable fast AF. The colour and contrast is remarkable and of course it's prime sharp to the edge of frame.

Small, sexy (built in lens hood), fast(-ish), sharp, sharp, SHARP and fun, . . this has quickly become one of my favorite optics.

Ooo, that makes things hard - I've now as good as sold the lens and seem to be leaning to the 400mm for the extra AF speed for BiF etc. I don't forsee the 300-400 gap being an issue, however the minimum distance... how much of an issue is that?

It depends what you plan to use it for (I plan to utilize mine often as a portrait lens), . . the 300's MFD is 1.5m for a .24x maximum magnification. Ain't no Macro but it's a bucket of fun.

For me, I like hand-hold-ability in my urban jungle safari kit. I personally would miss IS in the 400 5.6

Everyone is extra fond of glass they own and will naturally sing its praises (as I am now) often it is colored by the need for justifications of the line of thinking we use in the decision process and our eventual choices, . . but all of that aside, I think the 300 4.0 is an often under noticed, overachiever, . . versatile, sharp, light, convenient and clever.

IMO: Anyone needing to get to 300 4.0 on FF, 480 4.0 on a 1.6 crop, and with the 1.4 extender achieve a still sweet IQ: 420 5.6 on FF and a stellar (relatively) 672mm 5.6 on your crop, . . in a high performing, convenient package would do well to look at or rent a 300L

I'd use it for BiF mostly I guess but thats usually pottering about with the family and often snap down to get a picture of my kids, thats where th e100-400 shone, but I find the AF a little slow.

Now I'd always want more reach, but I'm worried about the minimum focus distance, that and with the TC on (which I would no doubt have) would I just end up with just as slow an AF speed after all that?

Ah, now I am planning on getting the Tammy 70-300 VC again, so should I get the 400mm for when I'm likely to get BiF shots and have the Tammy as a walkabout - oddly enough the high reach shouldn't be a problem as I seem to be using the 85mm most of the time at the mo anyway!!

"I'd use it for BiF mostly . . "

(one score for the 400)

Now I'd always want more reach, but I'm worried about the minimum focus distance, that and with the TC on (which I would no doubt have) would I just end up with just as slow an AF speed after all that?

A: yes (point scored for the 300)

"now I am planning on getting the Tammy 70-300 VC again, so should I get the 400mm for when I'm likely to get BiF shots and have the Tammy as a walkabout . . "

A: yes (400 team scores another goal) but some here might question the Tammy for your walkabout

400 wins 2 to 1, . . as a prize we are throwing in a monopod

I'm sure ther is a member here with both lenses that could give you more feedback for your particular needs, . . I too would be interested as the 400 is still on my list

lol, thanks

The reason I want the Tammy is I used to have one and really wish I'd kept it - the IQ was as good as the 100-400 and the VC outstanding, now knowing my luck I got the best one ever made and let it slip through my fingers!

I chose the 300mm f/4L IS for reasons similar to doc.paradox. For me a faster, lighter lens with a closer mfd and IS made more sense. I too think it makes a great portrait lens. Having said that, though, I have found that every mm counts when out shooting wildlife. If you are after birds, do consider the 400mm f/5.6 carefully. I don't regret my purchase a bit, but there are times when an extra 100mm helps.

I have a Tamron 70-300, and I just bought a used 400 5.6, which I haven't received yet. So that's what my choice was. I agree that the minimum focal distance of the 400 is worrisome, but I am going to give it a try. You can add an extension tube to cut that down, but then you are limited to how far out you can focus. It will be interesting to experiment.

I am wondering whether the addition of a 12mm tube, which seems about right to cut down the distance, will kill the AF. Perhaps a non-Canon tube will still allow the AF to function, and since you are still almost at 5.6, maybe the focus will still be fast and accurate. See, just the experimentation will get you your money's worth!

Frankly, I didn't think about the 300mm plus TC when I was investigating the 400 (I was thinking at the longer end - Bigma, Bigmos, etc). But seems to me that you compromise quality and probably lose focus speed with the 300 plus 1.4 TC.

Edit - forgot to mention, the Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4 TC does report to the camera correctly but does allow the AF to still work even beyond 5.6. I know because i have tried it with the Tamron 70-300 and the AF functions. But it hunts A LOT and requires a lot of contrast and light to work correctly. How well it works on the 400 will be interesting to see. I don't have very high hopes.

I have a 300 f/4 IS, but am considering a move to the 400/5.6. Considering. The 300 is probably my most versatile prime, with its IS, close MFD, f/4 as opposed to f/5.6 (which is important, since my 1DmkIII is sensitive to f/4 lenses), takes a TC extremely well, has very good IQ (sometimes "nervous" bokeh and PF wide open in high contrast situations, but mostly when overexposing a bit), and very fast AF (still 2nd to the 400/5.6 though). I shoot sports and hummingbirds in flight - the 300 shines with the latter - and really love that this lens will fit in a (Domke) vest pocket or in the case it came with on a belt.

So why move to the 400? I have the 70-200II, so with the tc I already have it is a 98-280mm f/4 with good IQ (although the jury is out on that one - I'll need to shoot more sports with it before I say it's a replacement for my 300 f/4 IS). But if the 70-200II w/TC is as good as everyone is saying, my 300 f/4 IS may become redundant. And since I'm shooting with a 1D I would have no problem coupling the TC with the 400 and retaining AF. Still, I'm having a hard time seeing myself parting with the 300, even if it means shooting it with a 1.4x and 2xTC most of the time...

RAH1861 wrote in post #12973137
I have a Tamron 70-300, and I just bought a used 400 5.6, which I haven't received yet. So that's what my choice was. I agree that the minimum focal distance of the 400 is worrisome, but I am going to give it a try. You can add an extension tube to cut that down, but then you are limited to how far out you can focus. It will be interesting to experiment.

I am wondering whether the addition of a 12mm tube, which seems about right to cut down the distance, will kill the AF. Perhaps a non-Canon tube will still allow the AF to function, and since you are still almost at 5.6, maybe the focus will still be fast and accurate. See, just the experimentation will get you your money's worth!

Frankly, I didn't think about the 300mm plus TC when I was investigating the 400 (I was thinking at the longer end - Bigma, Bigmos, etc). But seems to me that you compromise quality and probably lose focus speed with the 300 plus 1.4 TC.

Edit - forgot to mention, the Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4 TC does report to the camera correctly but does allow the AF to still work even beyond 5.6. I know because i have tried it with the Tamron 70-300 and the AF functions. But it hunts A LOT and requires a lot of contrast and light to work correctly. How well it works on the 400 will be interesting to see. I don't have very high hopes.

In actuality, you don't compromise the AF and IQ much. As an example, the 300 w/TC is still fast enough for DIII soccer and there's nothing wrong with IQ that can't be easily fixed in post (slight contrast boost is pretty much it). Having said that, it's not a rig I would use for smallish BIF.

RAH1861 wrote in post #12973137
Edit - forgot to mention, the Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4 TC does report to the camera correctly but does allow the AF to still work even beyond 5.6. I know because i have tried it with the Tamron 70-300 and the AF functions. But it hunts A LOT and requires a lot of contrast and light to work correctly. How well it works on the 400 will be interesting to see. I don't have very high hopes.

Thats the same model I have and the AF speed is a major factor in the mix, well that and IQ.

Not an easy choice at all - the only thing holding me back is the MFD, it would be interesting to see how it works with a tube, but to be honest I can't really see me using one in the field.

The 400 is seeming more and more likely, coupled with carrying round the Tammy.

By the way how long is the 400mm physically - I know its lighter than the 100-400 but would it still fit in the same slot in my bag?

300 2.8L + 1.4x TC is a little bit faster AF compared to 100-400L. Image quality is very similar, not much difference there.

John_N wrote in post #12973231
it would be interesting to see how it works with a tube, but to be honest I can't really see me using one in the field.
...
By the way how long is the 400mm physically - I know its lighter than the 100-400 but would it still fit in the same slot in my bag?

Attached is a chart I found on an old post, showing the new minimum distances with various tubes. The 13 (12 is commonly available) gives distances of 8ft thru 49 ft. It sounds quite useable in certain situations. So you might be able to use it in the field without removing it, depending on the situation.

As far as the size, I don't have it yet and am also curious. It is aboutt he length of a Bigma, I think (9 or 10 inches).

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.