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

Vixen89 wrote in post #14602090
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 definitely understand about "second thoughts" on any of the expensive stuff we want! heheh

I really wasn't saying that the 400mm 5.6 needs a monopod, but in BiF, it helps, and if you're shaky, well, that might really come in handy for you. I really hand-held my 100-400mm, but I can't for my new (to me) 400mm 2.8, it weighs around 12 lbs or so, not the one you're looking at, so don't feel as though you need to buy it, but it may be something that you might consider. I can hand-hold the 100-400mm all day long without tiring out too much, and I do too. Some people thinks it's too heavy, and it might be compared to some lenses, but I think it's fine.
The lens I just bought is about twice the size of a 100-400mm lens, it makes it look dinky, that's why I need to use a monopod and the gimbal head.

Randy

Randy has the 400 2.8
its HEAVY (like he said 12 lbs)

the 400 5.6 is nice and light just under 3 lbs I think.

I use a monopod too. I bought a cheap Canon brand one for about $40 and put a ballhead on it.
I only use it for about 1/3 of my shots but at least I have it if I need it. I often hook my 100-400 to it right when I get out of the car and dont extend the leg til I need it.

I would take Randy's offer and go use his 100-400 out in the field. I used my friend Chris' 400 5.6 and 300 f4 before I bought my 100-400.
heck I used my 100-400 for a month before I bought it from a good friend of mine. It was an easy decision. I hope my examples above show you that (as randy said too) the zoom "pays for itself" in not missing wonderful opportunities. At 400mm I would have gotten one eye or just a head or whatever.

the 400 may be a little sharper though and a little faster focusing (the 100-400 can focus quickly if you turn the focus limiter to 6m-infinity).

Buying a $1000+ lens is no small decision, Its good youre asking questions.

This also just dawned on me as I thought about it a bit more, I noticed that no matter what zoom I got I always ended up buying a prime in the end anyways. On those casual type days where it don't matter what I carry around and need to fully get that shot. You know how I have a 70-200 II but I still bought a 135L ..and that my 50mm is so close in FL when I was gonna buy a 24-70 instead. Going off the basis of this trend, I think in the end I will still ultimately own a prime telephoto, but also most likely buy a 100-400 as a versatile walk around. This sounds like..

my lens hoarding problem all over again when I sold all 10 lenses and told myself no more...here I am branching into a different type of photography. xD

ahahah.
youre in trouble.:p

jhayesvw wrote in post #14602364
ahahah.
youre in trouble.:p

I've been in trouble since day one I got a hold of a Canon XSi..LOL T_T

I guess I can try out the 100-400 first, and see if I should move to a prime from there ..and here I am again second thinking the 300 f/4 IS right after I saw a image my friend just posted on his flickr...GRRRRRR

EDIT:

So I was told that trying out a 1.4x and 2x tele would be a better choice than to spend on buying a prime or a 100-400.

Vixen89 wrote in post #14602374
EDIT:

So I was told that trying out a 1.4x and 2x tele would be a better choice than to spend on buying a prime or a 100-400.

On what lens?

Duane N wrote in post #14602655
On what lens?

On my 70-200 II.

Reading your very first post I thought you already knew the answer about the 1.4 on the 70-200mm. No way I would use a 2X on an f/4 lens....not consistent quality using that combo...on a f/2.8 lens then yes but not on an f/4 lens.

Duane N wrote in post #14602753
Reading your very first post I thought you already knew the answer about the 1.4 on the 70-200mm. No way I would use a 2X on an f/4 lens....not consistent quality using that combo...on a f/2.8 lens then yes but not on an f/4 lens.

I do know bout the 1.4x on my 70-200 II which makes it ultimately a 98-280mm lens on my 5D and possibly a 156-448mm lens on my 60D ? (Hopefully I'm doing the math right) // ugh if this is the scenario maybe my friend Jim is right bout me not buying another lens. lol

Here's a quote from my friend I've been talking over in the local forums:

Jim:

The three lenses you list are all nice. Which one would be best for you depends on what your intended use would be, whether you what a zoom or prime, weight, focal length, and whether you want IS or not. The 400 f/5.6L and 100-400 both go to 400mm with the latter having IS and the versatility of a zoom from 100-400 but it is heavy. The 300 f/4L IS has IS and takes a TC well and gets you to 420mm. It is the lightest of the group and has the shortest MFD. Both the 300 f/4L IS and 100-400 have an older IS system that is good for only 2 stops. Ths 400 f/5.6L has no IS, has the longest MFD, but focuses faster, primarily due to no IS and a longer MFD.

I have found the 400 f/5.6L to be great for BIF because shutter speeds help negate the need for IS but for a general use long tele you have to have good handholding technique or the use of a tripod to get sharp shots. Although I can handhold the weight of the 100-400 with no problems it may be too much for some especially for long periods. The IQ is comparable to the primes but copy to copy IQ varies. The 300 f/4L IS is lighter, has the ability to go to 420mm with a 1.4xTC, and has the shortest MFD. Ths latter is great for shooting flowers, dragonflys, and butterflys.

Me:

Thanks a lot for the replies Jim and you have very nice captures as well! Do you still own any of the lenses? I'm leaning towards the 100-400 only because I think I can use the lens for other things like automotive and general wildlife photography.

Jim:

I have the 300 f/4L IS and the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS that you didn't mention. Other than the fact the 70-300 only goes to 300mm it is a much better lens than the 100-400. It is sharper, weather proofed, lighter, and has a newer IS system. I also have a 500 f/4L IS and 600 f/4L IS so these other telephotos, especailly the zooms, don't get used much . I prefer using primes.

Me:

I prefer primes as well over zoom of course, just to the sheer sharpness of what they can get. I saw the 70-300 you listed, but I already own the 70-200 II, so I didn't even think about it really. My personal preference would be to own all primes, but I don't know how that will be if I "miss that moment" the way Jeremy had told me over on POTN. Is that much of a difference? I always wonder bout the 300mm but no one here has them at the local camera stores.

Jim:

There would be no reason for you to get the 70-300 if you have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I sold my 70-200 II because of the fast primes I have in that range. I'm selling my 70-300 because I always grab a prime to use in that range. As far as missing a shot because of a prime over a zoom I disagree with your friend Jeremy. I have been involved in photography professionally for 46 years and 36 of those years I shot film and used primes only. All during those 46 years I have never missed a shot because I was using a prime rather than a zoom. I have missed shots because of the MFD where a subject presented themselves inside of my MFD but it had nothing to do with it being a prime or zoom. I now always carry an additional camera with a lens that has a shorter MFD when my primary has a long MFD.

The only advantage a zoom has over a prime is multiple FL when you can't zoom with your feet. Even with a stellar lens like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II you can't get to f/1.2 like on the 85 f/1.2L II or f/2 like the 135 f/2L. Even the 200 f/2.8L II produces better results at 200mm and f/2.8.

I would suggest you try a 1.4x and 2x TC on your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II rather than spending the money on the 100-400. You may find the results acceptable and less expensive. I have tried that combo and for occasional work in that FL range it is very good.

"All during those 46 years I have never missed a shot because I was using a prime rather than a zoom"

I have to disagree with him on this, like Jeremy, I have had many, that is MANY times that I would not have gotten the shot had I used a prime. I'm not arguing with your friend, I know he has a lot more experience maybe than I do, but I know what I know too. Many times I have been hiding at a pond and I would not have gotten the shot had I used a a prime. Many times... Not just herons, but all kinds of birds, mostly larger, of course.

I do agree with him on one thing though, it's way cheaper to go the route of using a 1.4 or a 2x on the lens that you own first, then go and buy what you want, if you feel the need.
Here's what I have gleaned off of this forum since I have asked about lenses and extender...
The extenders only work best with the 1D series, they work O.K. with cameras such as the 60D, but not if you have a slower lens, it has to be faster than a 5.6... I may have left out some stuff, but that is the gist of it.
I used a 1.4 extender on my XSi, it didn't do well at all, it worked, kind'a, but it was only for emergencies. It fared better on my next camera, the T2i, but still, not really good. I now have a 1DmkIV, I haven't really put it through the tests yet, but I will soon, but supposedly it will work fine. As fine as they work anyway... By "fine", I also mean the IQ, not so much the speed, because that is supposed to be as good as it gets on the extenders, if that makes sense.
I'm not arguing about with Jim about any of this, I just disagree, I know what I have experienced, that's all.

Randy

I won't keep beating it to death but your guy nailed it. Primes are the way to go. You already have the versatility of a zoom in a 70-200, and thats a darn good one. Get the 400, you won't regret it. I had the 100-400 for about 2 weeks and that wasn't long enough to start to like the push/pull design. Plus I was at 400 all the time, and when at 400 the prime feels more comfortable. Add in the faster focus and the built in hood and you have a winner. While people will say "I took this at 310 and would've missed the shot with a 400", I will just simply take a few steps back and get the shot

mileslong24 wrote in post #14603026
I won't keep beating it to death but your guy nailed it. Primes are the way to go. You already have the versatility of a zoom in a 70-200, and thats a darn good one. Get the 400, you won't regret it. I had the 100-400 for about 2 weeks and that wasn't long enough to start to like the push/pull design. Plus I was at 400 all the time, and when at 400 the prime feels more comfortable. Add in the faster focus and the built in hood and you have a winner. While people will say "I took this at 310 and would've missed the shot with a 400", I will just simply take a few steps back and get the shot

This is not like a studio. You cant just step back when youre in a blind and a subject gets in your viewfinder.
also, if youre walking around and just happen upon something, you cant just step back because by the time you do, you've scared it away.

I have agreed that the 400 prime is the sharpest. But my deer photos and other I have are undeniable proof that the zoom is useful. Randy agrees and we CURRENTLY use the lens and like it.

ultimately its up to you. You could absolutely try a 2xIII teleconverter as I have heard they work pretty well on the 70-200 II.

there is no perfect lens for every situation. If you feel that you wont need the zoom then get the prime. I was just trying to help, my points are valid and if you choose not to use them, that is ok.

Mileslong- i just noticed that you have some issue with me posting about my experience. I would like to hear over a private message what your issue with my experience is. Thanks

Back when I played baseball, I was a right-handed batter and I also threw with my right hand... I learned to also bat with my left, then soon after, I started pitching with my left hand... I became ambidextrous... but only in baseball.
That just goes to show you, you can either learn to adjust with what you have, or... not.
I adjusted to my Wacom tablet with no problems, at all, but I hear of people that 'just can't quite get it, it feel unnatural', so like in anything, there are those that can, and those that can't, or don't, for whatever reasons of their own.
I don't have a problem one with my 100-400mm's zoom, some do, I can't shoot like some here, (I wish I could), but I can't, but I can shoot better than others. (Just barely)

My point is, don't let anyone tell you what you want, you have to make up your own mind as to what it is that you need. You may need to listen to a lot of 'stuff' before you can make up your mind, but ultimately, it will, or should be, your decision.

Randy

Is it true that the 100-400 at 400 is not really 400? Compared to lets say the 400mmF5.6

mek501st wrote in post #14615620
Is it true that the 100-400 at 400 is not really 400? Compared to lets say the 400mmF5.6

When I used one and was zoomed out to 400mm the exif data said focal length 400mm.