My first tele L lens

I'm going to buy my first telephoto lens in the L-series, but now the hard part.
I will photograph birds and wildlife and has an EOS 7D. I adapt myself pretty much for the weather and light so ljustarka lens is not a must but it would be very helpful.

I've always thought about the Canon EF 400 / 5.6 L USM but for a few days looking into a used 300 / 2.8 L USM and as I understand it, you can use the x2 converter with good results but still get to have AF remains.

What do you think?
A new 400/5.6 vs used 300/2.8

I understand and share your dilemma. I think you have already stated the benefits of the 300mm 2.8, but surely there is a substantial difference in cost, even used?

Go for the 400 and stay away from the converter. That 400 for birds and the 7D should be pretty stellar!. I loved the 100-400 on my 7D and it was sharp...prime only better at 400..take you out to 640
might want to think about the 100-400??...

IanW wrote in post #14847142
I understand and share your dilemma. I think you have already stated the benefits of the 300mm 2.8, but surely there is a substantial difference in cost, even used?

I find a 300/2.8 for the same price as a new 400/5.6 =)

NG8JGFX wrote in post #14847148
Go for the 400 and stay away from the converter. That 400 for birds and the 7D should be pretty stellar!. I loved the 100-400 on my 7D and it was sharp...prime only better at 400..take you out to 640
might want to think about the 100-400??...

7D + 400/5.6 seems to be a tough combination to beat, I've thought a lot about whether I should have zoom or 400 but I've decided that if I should have a 400 mm, it will be 400/5.6

300/2.8 + converters is going to weight over double the weight of the 400/5.6!

After using a 300 f/2.8 (the oldest version) for a year, I will only say there is nothing like it. I could just imagine the new ver with the IS... I am sure you would find the 300 more usefull...

tunin wrote in post #14847246
After using a 300 f/2.8 (the oldest version) for a year, I will only say there is nothing like it. I could just imagine the new ver with the IS... I am sure you would find the 300 more usefull...

Yeah I think so too but I don't know yet, it's used and maybe don't work as it should? but it's weather sealed I think? or is it just the new one that is weather sealed?

For flexibility, I would choose 100-400. The 300 is a super lens, but you'll be restricted to using a tripod.

notimetochill wrote in post #14847308
Yeah I think so too but I don't know yet, it's used and maybe don't work as it should? but it's weather sealed I think? or is it just the new one that is weather sealed?

Yes it's weather-sealed. All of their "super-teles" that have a front element bigger than 77mm, are weather-sealed. Well, at least in EF mount..not 100% on FD or FL mounts.

I wish I could afford a dilemma like that.

I am pretty sure it is weather sealed... I had it out in the rain a few times with my 1d Mark III (before I sold it)... never had any trouble...

notimetochill wrote in post #14847308
Yeah I think so too but I don't know yet, it's used and maybe don't work as it should? but it's weather sealed I think? or is it just the new one that is weather sealed?

Miki G wrote in post #14847321
For flexibility, I would choose 100-400. The 300 is a super lens, but you'll be restricted to using a tripod.

This may be true, but you won't need a tripod with the 400mm 5.6.

nightcat wrote in post #14847527
This may be true, but you won't need a tripod with the 400mm 5.6.

I've heard that this lens is very nice to handheld and that's positive

Miki G wrote in post #14847321
For flexibility, I would choose 100-400. The 300 is a super lens, but you'll be restricted to using a tripod.

100-400 is not included in this choice only 300 and 400mm.