300mm or 400mm prime?

Just read this in a buyer's review on B&H for the Kenko extension tube set:

"These work fine with all my Canon lenses. AF is a little slower but not too bad at all. I haven't used the canon version, but I'm willing to bet they slow AF a little as well.

I've mostly used the 36mm tube only on my Canon 400 f5.6. It nearly cuts my MFD in half...perfect for shooting little birds from a blind."

Interesting.

Meanwhile, from other threads it seems that you can get these sets cheaper on Ebay. Wish I could buy just a 12mm one (not Canon).

twoshadows, . . I wasn't happy with the IQ hit with the 1.4 III TC combined with the 70-200 MK II and never use it, that being said I concure with the 300s ability to play extra nice with the TC ~ the under loved 300L is no Birder's Paradise but it is a fun, versital (moreso with a good TC) optic that won't fill up a travel bag.

I've never used the 300 F/4, but am a 400 F/5.6 owner.

Firstly, the MFD - I've never actually hit the MFD on my 400. I know it depends on what you shoot, and the MFD sounds long when you compare it to other lenses, but consider this: on an APS-C sensored camera with 400mm @ 3.5m subject distance, you're looking at capturing an area as small as 20cm*13cm I believe.

IS, yeah it is worth considering. I don't NEED it, but I would appreciate it having owned IS lenses previously.

AF is extremely fast. If you're shooting distance stuff and switch the limiter to 8.5m-infinity it will go end-to-end (assuming it cannot find a lock) in almost an instant. IMO that's when AF speed matters the most - I doubt there are many lenses out there that cannot track a bird once a lock is achieved and kept centred in the viewfinder.

IQ wise, I doubt the 300+TC will match it. If you're filling your frames I'd be willing to bet that a 300+TC will be more than acceptable wide open, but if you're cropping the images heavily then the 400 shines. In terms of bokeh, I've never noticed anything from the 400 that I'd consider "harsh", it is all very smooth. I've not used the 300, but I do use TCs and find that introduce some "doubling" bokeh which is not ideal when the shot includes leaves/branches/grass/​etc.

FYI my 400 mostly has a 1.4x attached and is used on a 7D, and generally they're cropped anywhere from a little to quite a bit.

If you can push the budget up a step, consider the sigma 120-300 OS.
Af is capable for bifs even with a 2x tc and you still have a zoom.
Downsides so far - weight.

doc.paradox wrote in post #12972693
and on the 7D with 1.4 you have a 672mm f/5.6 with reliable fast AF.

No, you don't. You have 420mm f/5.6 with IS... sigh

TwoShadows, here is a link to the blog of one of the World's foremost professional Bird Photographers...Arthur Morris.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/

He uses Canon equipment, and has written many great reviews, and taken many wonderful images with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I.S. II lens combined with either of the new Canon series III 1.4x, or 2x T.C.

A small excerpt of one of his "reviews", or "comments" about the combination(s):

"Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens. Man, I am loving this lens on my shoulder with the 2X III teleconverter. I also use it a lot with the 1.4X III TC which is designed to work best with the new Series II super-telephoto lenses."

So if one of the world's most renowned bird photographers has no hesitation in using either of the new series III tele converters with the 70-200 f/2.8L I.S. II lens to take images which he not only publishes, but also sells, I think that's a pretty good "endorsement".

Of course that is just HIS opinion, and every one is different. Just giving you some food for thought.

Yet another option that I have been flogging a lot lately, but unlike a dead horse it's great to use and the results are pretty to look at (maybe that wasn't the most stylish soft sell opening): $3199 USD Sigma 120-300mm OS + $500-ish Canon EF Extender 2X III (or the 1.4X III).

A bit more expensive than the 70-200mm II + TC combination, but you get that extra 100mm at the end which the 70-200mm will never match up with (the MTF chart shows the 120-300 is actually optimized for the 300mm end, which is great - it's actually sharper there). Seems plenty sharp to me with great rendering of fur and hairs through the frame on APS-C (though Photozone rated it rather poorly optically apparently based solely on their slightly lower measurements at frame edges on full-frame - not their smartest review actually).

Only concerns: Close focus distance of the bare lens is 1.5m for 120mm setting, and 2.5m for the 300mm; autofocus is slower with the Extender 2X III (intentionally) but potentially still very accurate, yet cheaper AF systems (T1i anyway) will struggle with that combination, and metering isn't always reliable either (though it usually gets close enough). With the 2X extender I have gotten lots of closeups, though these are a bit tougher to do than scenes at normal ranges. Also, it's not a light lens, but I handhold it for half-hour to hour periods all the time. The front element doesn't seem to have any of that fancy Canon coating to keep smudges off (though I've gotten nothing on it so far).

Of course, with the 2X teleconverter it is a 240-600mm f/5.6 lens. The wider portion of that range almost makes you wish it was a variable zoom, but this is more or less in line with the upcoming 200-400mm f/4 Extender 1.4X, except with the whole range available right away. If you just want the 240-400mm range, it will of course be available at f/4, same as the Canon lens. The integrated TC of the Canon lens will be a great boost but I am happier for the extra stop on this lens, and otherwise it probably will be too similar to warrant my worrying about it.

Can be rented online if you're on the fence.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #12976354
Of course that is just HIS opinion, and every one is different. Just giving you some food for thought.

It's also worth considering that he has access to, well, anything basically. If he is shooting with 300mm it probably means he is framing his shot to fill the frame @ 300mm, because if it needs 600mm then he can use his 600mm.

Most of us don't shoot with 300mm or 400mm because it's ideal, especially not birds. Must of us shoot with the longest we have and crop as necessary. And most of us shoot with APS-C too. That means our demands on lens sharpness is very high.

Something to keep in mind.

JonK wrote in post #12976347
No, you don't. You have 420mm f/5.6 with IS... sigh

300 mm + 1.4 is a 420 lens, we get it JonK, it will always be a 420mm lens. . bolt that 420 on a 1.6 crop and you have an effect due to 1.6 crop of "like having" a 672 5.6 . . there, better for you?

We know, we know: utilizing a smaller amount of the lens image does not make a lens any longer, . . every time some one multiplies by 1.6 around here people freak out . . . sigh

doc.paradox wrote in post #12976800
300 mm + 1.4 is a 420 lens, we get it JonK, it will always be a 420mm lens. . bolt that 420 on a 1.6 crop and you have an effect due to 1.6 crop of "like having" a 672 5.6 . . there, better for you?

But any other lens you compare it to will have the same "crop factor" applied anyway, basically cancelling it out. So why bother bringing it into the equation?

I have the 300mm f4 and the 400mm 5.6. The 300mm + the 1.4 extender doesn't focus as fast as the 400mm and of course the IQ ins't as good. To combat the poor MFD of the 400mm, extension tubes work well. For BIF, the 400mm is much better than the 300mm. The length of the 400mm is 10 5/16 inches.

phreeky wrote in post #12974417
FYI my 400 mostly has a 1.4x attached and is used on a 7D, and generally they're cropped anywhere from a little to quite a bit.

We've talked recently about my problems using the Tamron 70-300 with the Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4 TC - it allows AF but is poor at achieving focus (hunts). In your experience, is the 400 5.6 with the TC better in this regard? It sounds like it, but it would be so cool if this is the case that I'd like to know specifically.

Also, is it the case that Canon extension tubes with the 400 5.6 lose AF immediately (because they drop below the magic 5.6 mark), therefore pretty much meaning you need to get 3rd-party like Kenko to retain it? I think Canon markets a 12mm tube (by itself) which I might get, but I do want to retain AF.

I've never used the Tamron 70-300. Furthermore and probably more importantly I've never used a 60D at all, let alone with that combination.

On the 7D I use that combo using centre-zone AF and AI servo, as one of those points is much more likely to get a lock than a single particular point. When I used that combo on a 20D I actually found the single centre-point better than the 7D single point (just for this particular combo). I don't know whether it was more lenient/inclusive about what it considered a lock or if there was a more complex issue at play, and I'm also not sure which system the 60Ds is more closely related.

That probably doesn't help much I'm sorry. I'd certainly consider it a risk that it will be no good for AF, unless of course you can find someone using that exact combo.

Regarding extension tubes, I really don't know. I have Kenko tubes, though I'm not sure the tubes report their presence anyway so electronically (and of course optically!) there may be no difference. I'll go put a tube on that combo now and let you know, but it's night time here anyway so it may not be a useful test.

OK I just put a full set of Kenko tubes on - 68mm by my calculations - and AF worked fine. Dark indoors too, F/5.6 ISO12800 and shutter speed was 1/15s (i.e. way too dark to take a steady shot), so AF is still more than capable. Range like that is limited though,the chart someone posted above appears more or less correct.

phreeky wrote in post #12976828
But any other lens you compare it to will have the same "crop factor" applied anyway, basically cancelling it out. So why bother bringing it into the equation?

Because it is part of the equation (420 x 1.6) and is relative to those of us that keep a crop in the line up handy for extra (simulated) reach, . . heck I wish I had a 1Ds MK III with a 600 4.0 and a Super Model to carry the big glass, but that's a few years down the line For those who can't afford, or don't want to carry the big white ones, that phony x 1.6 number is a salve to help pacify us as to accepting what we are missing.

There are a million toasty threads that beat this 1.6 crop/lens equivalent subject to death and I thought I was clear enough in my verbiage to not fan the flames, (sigh). . the OP was interested in 300-400 decision and has chosen for the 400 for his needs.

I still hope a member that has owned both will add more insight to the OPs topic as we don't get much chatter here about these in-between prime telephotos.

Now, . . if I were to show bad form and hijack this thread it would be to hear more opinions of the EF 1.4 III in combination with the 70-200 MK II, . . as stated, I personaly found it very usable but to much a molestation of the 70-200's sweetness for my taste, . . and thus the 300 came into my life and it's just one big (actually rather compact) happy family.