Canon 300mm f/4 IS or Canon 400mm f/5.6 non IS?

I started with a Tokina 80-400mm...moved up to a Canon 300 F4 with a 1.4 Tc...had a Sigma 150-500, borrowed a canon 100-400 and now have the 400 5.6.

The 5.6 is the best birding lens of the pack with the 100-400 behind it. The reason i am not in favor of the 100-400 is that when birding, you are always at 400mm to begin with so why pay the extra $400-$500 for that lens when the 400mm is less.

The 300 with 1.4 is just slow AF..period. I like the lens and you can go to 300 or have 420 with a 1.4. But usually when you want to take off the TC 1.4 you are in the field and that is not a wise idea to continually be opening the camera to the elements as you change the lens. besides, since AF is slower, it then becomes less than a BIF lens too....

The Sigma 150-500 is slow AF, has more reach but from what I understand the 500 is not a true 500, more like 470 or so... It is bulky, just not a sharp all around.

Clear winner of choice for me is the 400mm and wow, get the 7D if you want fantastic results... jim

Vixen89 wrote in post #14594885
I know this is a redundant question for yah guys but I've been researching both lenses over the past weekend on POTN and just wanted to ask the experts here before I go purchasing one. I've been lurking in the bird photography forum for quite awhile now and still undecided. Is the 400mm strictly only a BIF lens? I don't think I will get to see much birds where I live in the suburbs of Texas. I barely see flying critter now...sadly. I know the 300mm is more versatile as it is but I also shoot car events, drifting competitions, drag races, and a lot of STATIONARY cars. lol

I own a 70-200 II now with a 1.4x and when I even used that during my family's graduations ceremony it was still a bit too short for my liking. I simply envy all the photos here in this archive..so here's the poll.

You don't say where in "D-Town, Texas" you are, if you mean Dallas, then you are surrounded by places to go and shoot birds. If not, then I don't have an opinion. (I also live in the suburbs, of Dallas, Irving, and there are a BUNCH of places to get all of the birds shots you need)

I have the 100-400mm L IS zoom, I have used it for almost 4 years in shooting wildlife, and to me, especially when learning 'birds', it's one of the best ways to get it done. I am sure the 400mm's can be sharper, although I don't have experience with them, but they are not as versatile as the 100-400 L. When I was learning BiF, andf just 'birds' in general, I wouldn't have ever traded my 100-400L for the 400mm because I would've missed a LOT of shots. Now, I have a 400mm L IS USM 2.8 lens, I don't have any experience with it yet, but as soon as I get my ducks in a row, I'll get as much experience as I can. heheh (It's a HUGE, heavy monster!)

I also think that the 100-400mm L will help you out a lot for the fast cars you mention, and it should be almost, if not as sharp as the 400mm, at least super close, at least from what I have seen. I went through the exact decision making that you are presently going through back when I decided on the 100-400mm L. I have to admit, as soon as I bought the zoom, I started seeing MANY posts about the 400mm's being way better, I had buyer's remorse, but that later subsided after I used it more. Somebody told me this when I was looking around, "If you don't like what you bought, you won't lose any money, just sell it and buy the other lens that you want"... So I did buy what I wanted, and I was happy enough, for years actually, but I do realize that you and I may have entirely different tastes too.
I'd just buy what you want most, in your heart, then if you are dissatisfied, sell it, and start over, you can sell that stuff on Craigslist (or here on the forum too) if you want to, it's easy and quick. (For safety's sake, I'd recommend buying here on the forum, it's safer, and you can still get really good deals too)

Anyway, I didn't vote due to me not being able to actually test all of the lenses you have in the poll, but I just wanted to put in a few words about the zoom.

Randy

if she was doing birds only with the lens I would say 400 5.6 but in her first post she specifically said some birds and mostly other stuff.
that lead me to the 100-400 hands down.

hey Randy, I do live in Duncanville, and it's pretty dead here where I live. My boyfriend suggested that I find some parks and wildlife areas to photograph birds..or at least start too since he read this thread just awhile go. He wasn't aware I liked shooting more than just cars. I went through my current lens setup with him and said to stick solely the 70-200 II + 1.4x lens as far as cars go. So I guess now this is now a strictly a bird lens ...:O

One more thing, IS doesn't matter if I shoot at the minimum of 1/500 with no tripod right? I do suffer from lots of shaking cause of my hypoglycemia ..tends to get the best of me when I do photography. I do appreciate all the insight you guys have given me though, I was seriously about to go buy the 100-400 and Jeremy's flickr is very amazing; love the bird photos by the way! I can't afford a 7D right now but in the future plan to upgrade to the 5D3 or is the 7D still better? 5D3 being at 6fps..I assume it's worse than 7D. I'm going to try out the 100-400L tomorrow at the store and the 400mm...I should be able to tell from there..hopefully.

Me, too. get a sturdy monopod. Even then, you have to be steady at 400and IS helps.

advaitin wrote in post #14598369
Me, too. get a sturdy monopod. Even then, you have to be steady at 400and IS helps.

Tri pod helps...yes... not sure about IS. I at one time thought so when I had it with my 300 IS...but if you have good light, you really do not need it... jim

Sorry to mislead you about the 100-400. I didn't mean you find em at 100 then zoom to 400 and focus would remain, i think another poster cleared that up, I was simply saying that at 100 you could locate a bird faster then zoom in. But the camera will need to re focus.

Vixen89 wrote in post #14598183
hey Randy, I do live in Duncanville, and it's pretty dead here where I live. My boyfriend suggested that I find some parks and wildlife areas to photograph birds..or at least start too since he read this thread just awhile go. He wasn't aware I liked shooting more than just cars. I went through my current lens setup with him and said to stick solely the 70-200 II + 1.4x lens as far as cars go. So I guess now this is now a strictly a bird lens ...:O

One more thing, IS doesn't matter if I shoot at the minimum of 1/500 with no tripod right? I do suffer from lots of shaking cause of my hypoglycemia ..tends to get the best of me when I do photography. I do appreciate all the insight you guys have given me though, I was seriously about to go buy the 100-400 and Jeremy's flickr is very amazing; love the bird photos by the way! I can't afford a 7D right now but in the future plan to upgrade to the 5D3 or is the 7D still better? 5D3 being at 6fps..I assume it's worse than 7D. I'm going to try out the 100-400L tomorrow at the store and the 400mm...I should be able to tell from there..hopefully.

As for the shakiness, I don't know how bad you shake, but a normal "shake" 1/500th should be fine. I always have my IS on, I shoot with my 100-400mm with no tripod, and it's fine, but that is on a bright day, and I mostly shoot a higher ISO due to birds in flight need that.
I'm a diabetic and if I wear myself out, I can shake too, but I haven't seen signs of it in my shots, I've seen signs of a crappy photographer, but not due to shakes. heheh
Here's some links on camera comparisons that could help you out in the future too...
http://snapsort.com/co​mpare/
http://camerasize.com/​compare/#312,154

These are places I like to frequent, they are not far from you at all, so you should be able to get to most of these under 15-20 minutes.
As far as parks n'stuff, you have a place close by, over at this Cedar Hill Preserve, it's best in the Fall and Springtime though, it gets pretty hot in the Summer months.
White Rock Lake at Sunset Point is also a good place to do bird shots too, a LOT of professionals even go there. (Pelicans, in Winter, assorted wild ducks, Kingfishers, Monk parakeets, even a Bobcat, if you are lucky to see it there)
Lots of birds at Lake Joe Pool, and also even at Mountain Creek, plus, a not-so-far drive to Lake Ray Hubbard will also get you some birds, plus they have windsurfers there too. Just drive around the lake(s) and keep your eyes open for an assortment of birds. Of course, in the Fall, the bird assortments gets a LOT better, and goes through the Late Spring, Summer is not as plentiful, at least for me when it gets too hot.
Lone Star Park Trails has a good place to see some birds also, I go there at least once per week. It's very secluded though, so you shouldn't be alone, not that I have seen bad stuff, but you know how it is nowadays. There's hawks, bluebirds, Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets, and Little Blue Herons, plus, I see a Green Night Heron there a lot.
The map linked shows the "B" where you would have to park, then walk South until it veers off to the West all the way to Beltline Road and then back again, about 3 miles round trip. There's a lot of construction going on at Hunter-Ferrell right now though, but it doesn't hurt anything.
Campion Trails Mountain Creek Preserve can be productive too, I go there at least twice a WEEK. There's a long (concrete) path that is about a mile long, it can be productive, not the entire path, but I always see something that is cool. In the cooler months there is a lot of butterflies, honeybees, bluebirds, herons, ducks, and an assortment of birds there. The first time I went I was really disappointed, I didn't see anything, but it was because I really wasn't 'looking' good enough, I now 'see' enough every time I go, it makes a difference when you learn how to open your eyes.
Fritz Park is also a place I go to at least once per week to see what's there that day. I just shot a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck family there about two weeks ago, there were 24 ducklings. In the Springtime, there are hawks, herons, egrets, bluebirds, goldfinch, woodpeckers of all kinds, Cedar Waxwing, and all kinds of birds there.
Centennial Park, my favorite in the Fall and Winter and early Spring, this place has it all, I can't tell you how many species I see at this city park. Hawks, Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets, Little Blue Herons, Tri-Colored Herons, Snowy Egrets, Yellow-Crowned Night Herons, Black-Crowned Night Herons, Wood Ducks, Canada Geese, Bufflehead Ducks, Hooded Mergansers, Red-Breasted Mergansers, Lesser Scaups, Mallards, American Widgeon, and a lot more ducks too, Bluebirds, Kingfishers, (a LOT) woodpeckers, raccoons, and on and on. That is just within an area about the length of a football field too, although the park is a lot longer than that.
These are places that are not that far from my house, so I go there often, of course I like to go on trips too if I can, that is a lot longer list though.

If you need more, let me know, I know these are not at your doorstep, but it could be a good place to start if you aren't familiar with places that can have birds.

If you need to try out a 100-400mm L IS, let me know, you and your boyfriend can meet me at one of these places and I'll let you try out mine, in a store it'd be hard to really try out, I'd think. This way you can try it out for a while, then take your card home and see what you get, this is real-life testing!
Let me know enough in advance so I can make room though if you would, I sure don't mind, but I am kind'a busy lately sometimes, but not always.

Randy

This is an obvious no brainer. You have a 70-200 plus a 1.4, so you have basically a 100-300 already that is sharper without the TC than the 100-400 and nearly as good with it. Then if you will be beyond what that combo offers you use the 400 prime. I had the 100-400 before getting the 400 and it was a great decision, and I didn't even have the combo you already own. Its so easy to handhold, is sharper than the zoom, and its focus speed is super fast. On paper they are much closer than it is when in use. I'm really shocked anyone would recommend the 100-400 with what gear you already own, it seems redundant to me.

lmans wrote in post #14598733
Tri pod helps...yes... not sure about IS. I at one time thought so when I had it with my 300 IS...but if you have good light, you really do not need it... jim

Some of us shake a bit more than others. I speak from experience on that point.

mileslong24 wrote in post #14600739
This is an obvious no brainer. You have a 70-200 plus a 1.4, so you have basically a 100-300 already that is sharper without the TC than the 100-400 and nearly as good with it. Then if you will be beyond what that combo offers you use the 400 prime. I had the 100-400 before getting the 400 and it was a great decision, and I didn't even have the combo you already own. Its so easy to handhold, is sharper than the zoom, and its focus speed is super fast. On paper they are much closer than it is when in use. I'm really shocked anyone would recommend the 100-400 with what gear you already own, it seems redundant to me.

its not nearly as clear if you consider that she originally said it would be an occasional bird lens and that she shoots mostly cars and other things. To me the purchase of a $1200 lens that will be used a few times a year is a waste of money.

also, the 70-200 does her no good if its in her bag when she needs in on her camera. The 30 seconds or so it takes to take out the lens and put away the other lens will easily be enough time for her subject to disappear. Also the movement can easily scare the subject away.

With the new info that this will be a bird only lens for the most part the 400 5.6 becomes a more clear winner. However, there are many people with the 100-400 that get results as good or better than people with the 400 5.6. Technique plays a big role in that I'm sure. How close you get to the subject is the single most important thing that I have found to give the detail we all like to see.
Both lenses are great but as a bird only lens, I would go with the 400 5.6. I use mine for general wildlife and birds so the 100-400 is a no brainer.

Thanks for the locations Randy, I didn't know any of those locations were near me, I only live in Duncanville but most of my daily activities are done in Grand Prairie to Ft. Worth (I work in Downtown) and don't know a thing bout my local area. I tried the 100-400L in the store a little bit just now and thought the lens was super awkward to use. I guess cause it's so new to me and different it made me go ..what in the world am I doing? One of the professionals there who shoot baseball photography said that it'll go away in a week after I use it and become accustomed to the lens. They also had a 400mm f/5.6L but refused to let me try it out cause it was their last one and since I wasn't purchasing any lens I couldn't test it out without paying for it first. Which was a bummer cause on the 100-400L I was stuck at the 400mm end and liked how far the reach was. The guys also in the store kept telling me you better get IS over anything if you're going to a telephoto. Yes it's true I can use the 70-200 II w/ 1.4x and that's what I've been doing for awhile. Just as far as it goes right now, the 100-400L is way strange to me, the way the mechanism works. I will have to borrow one sometime and try it out again.

So the 400mm is bad for general wildlife then? Is the MFD so much longer than the 100-400? My other photographer friends are still suggesting I get the 300 f/4 IS over anything even though they have all read this thread.

The 400 5.6 is not a BAD general wildlife lens. The minimum focus distance isnt what makes it not a good as the 100-400. the chance of having something less than 11ft from you is low.(although it happened to me a few days ago with a bridled Titmouse). The thing that hurts the 400 5.6 is that it doesnt zoom back.
Here are a few examples from the last 2 months when 400 was TOO zoomed in. I pulled back to the listed focal lenght.
These photos are not cropped. (im too lazy to post them all the same size and didnt realize I had some medium until this was half written. LOL)

400 will be perfectly fine most of the time.but I hate missing shots and not being able to compose as I want. I dont want a deer head portrait if I can get the whole deer in one shot AND the portrait in the next.

310mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jhayesvw/716203​8897/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jhayesvw/734724​7410/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jhayesvw/715055​6857/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jhayesvw/698825​1736/

Vixen89 wrote in post #14601446
Thanks for the locations Randy, I didn't know any of those locations were near me, I only live in Duncanville but most of my daily activities are done in Grand Prairie to Ft. Worth (I work in Downtown) and don't know a thing bout my local area. I tried the 100-400L in the store a little bit just now and thought the lens was super awkward to use. I guess cause it's so new to me and different it made me go ..what in the world am I doing? One of the professionals there who shoot baseball photography said that it'll go away in a week after I use it and become accustomed to the lens. They also had a 400mm f/5.6L but refused to let me try it out cause it was their last one and since I wasn't purchasing any lens I couldn't test it out without paying for it first. Which was a bummer cause on the 100-400L I was stuck at the 400mm end and liked how far the reach was. The guys also in the store kept telling me you better get IS over anything if you're going to a telephoto. Yes it's true I can use the 70-200 II w/ 1.4x and that's what I've been doing for awhile. Just as far as it goes right now, the 100-400L is way strange to me, the way the mechanism works. I will have to borrow one sometime and try it out again.

So the 400mm is bad for general wildlife then? Is the MFD so much longer than the 100-400? My other photographer friends are still suggesting I get the 300 f/4 IS over anything even though they have all read this thread.

Like Jeremy said, the 400mm prime is not a "bad lens" at all, it has a different use, just like the zoom does, that's all. Most people will say that the prime will be sharper, and if that is what a person wants more than the zoom function, then they may need to get what they feel is the right thing. Personally, I have been in situations where the zoom 'paid for itself' many times when I needed it up close, ducks would be so close to me, or herons, and I would be hiding, so it works for me. Like you, I am, or will be going through the exact same feelings when I use my new 400mm lens, it will be strange to me, and I hope that I like it as much as I like the zoom.

The thing about trying in a store is not easy to do, at least for me, I feel rushed, plus, sometimes the guy behind the counter is telling 'his' version of 'what is what', which I may, or may not care for.
Also, like you said, they won't let you try the 400mm prime lens, I kind'a understand that, but how in the world is a buyer supposed to know what it feels like if they can't hold it? I would not do business with them personally.
As far as the zoom feeling "awkward", that I don't know about, I didn't feel that way at all when I first got mine, but we're all different. I am sure though that IF you decide to go for it, then you will 'adjust' to it, the main complaint I hear is the 'push/pull' part of it, but that has never bothered me at all.
The IS is a thing that depends on what you will do with the lens, if it's something that will only be used for birds, I would get it, but if you always plan on using a tripod, then it doesn't really matter. It helps resale though, just in case that helps, most want IS.
Like I said, I don't mind if you want to try out my zoom lens sometime, y'all would just have to meet me someplace that is a good place to try it out, a place that you feel comfortable at. I am not trying to talk you into it, I'm just letting you know that I really don't mind helping if I can.

I would really suggest that you look into the monopods, I just got a Manfrotto monopod that has legs at the bottom, it makes it VERY easy to use, it's lightweight, and I love it a LOT! My new lens weighs around $12 lbs, so I can't hand-hold that for long, so I needed a monopod, I can't stand tripods personally. I also have a Wimberly-like head on it, meaning, I bought the cheaper knock-off version of the Wimberly, 'cause I was poor at the time. I bought the Flashpoint brand, it gets good reviews, and I like it, but I am not trying to sway you into buying it, I just wanted to let you see there are alternatives, the more popular names might be better, I don't know.
This combination opens up a whole new world as far as comfort when it comes to large lenses and heavy cameras. (Even on a tripod is is good, just because I don't like tripods, doesn't mean they aren't good)
I had a normal monopod and it was O.K., but this 3-legged thing really does the job, I can't say enough good about it!

On the places I mentioned, you might want to save this post so if you feel that is a good idea to go to one of those places. I know that when people helped me out when I was first getting into birds, I didn't save the posts, I wish I had. I had no idea where to go either, then I asked around, read more and more, and soon found out that I was literally surrounded by places. There's a place in Arlington that is a GREAT place to go, I can't remember the name of it right now, but it's an old water treatment place, and the drying beds are now used for wildlife, it's loaded with critters. I still haven't been there yet, I have no idea why, but it yields great pictures to all that go, it seems.

Randy

I was about to purchase the 100-400 but still having second thoughts on it and not even sure why. Randy what lens are you referring too that needs the monopod? The 400mm? I used to have that exact monopod you linked by Manfrotto, and sold it awhile back when I phasing out of doing videography. I really do appreciate the fact you're gonna let me test out the 100-400, which probably I will have to do if I don't make a purchase anytime soon. xD