F/2.8 400mm IS or 300mm IS ?

A few weeks back took the plunge and bought a nice used copy of a 300mm f/2.8L IS. Thought this would be the big prime I always wanted. Then stopped by my local camera store and they pointed out a mint 400mm f/2.8L IS they took in trade and then proceeded to offer me a killer price.

So should I stick with the 300mm which is definitely lighter and I can hand hold on occasion or jump to the big one? I have a 1.4x and 2x teleconverters so I can go longer if I need to. The 400 appears to be extremely heavy and harder to travel with. Share your thoughts.

Forgot to mention that sports from the sideline, wildlife, and hopefully BIF are my future targets.

That'd be a hard decision in your position. I'd find it pretty hard to pass up a real deal on one of the 400 f/2.8s, if it's really that good of a deal But, lighter and easier to travel with would tough to give up if I already had it, too

Do you already have the tripod and gimbal head to support the 400 if you go that route?

Snydremark wrote in post #14903179
Do you already have the tripod and gimbal head to support the 400 if you go that route?

Happens I do, originally picked up a GT3530LS tripod and planned to go with a Markins Q20 ball head and a Wimberley Sidekick for the 300mm f/2.8. Then when I stopped by to review the 400mm the same store had a used Wimberley WH-200 that came in with a 500mm f/4.5 non-IS. Getting that, at a price of $300 was a no brainer so I grabbed that. Now I have to figure out what to do with the Sidekick. Not sure I will return the Q20 though. Will hold on to that to use and sell the Q10 I have.

Heh...that makes it even tougher then

Nice score on the WH-200, though; what sort of a deal are you willing to cut on the Sidekick?

I would go with the 400. I loved my 300, but always found it was just a tad short especially for being a "larger" lens. I got the 500, if the 400 was 8lbs I would have gone for instead. Do you have a 70-200? If so just use the 1.4 on it, then you have 200, 300 (almost), 400 and a 580. That would be really versatile.

Bif need at least 400. Get both

Had a 300 and sold it to get the 400 but after 6 months of carrying it round a race track every weekend have sold to go back to the 300.The weight of the old 400 means you have to plan your shooting really where as i could get away with walking round for a day with the 300 plus it worked great with both the 1.4 MKII and 3xMKIII tc's i had.

Used the funds from the 400 to get a 1DX and a secondhand 400 f5.6 for now while i save up to get the newer 300 f2.8.

get the 400 imo. For sports I find my 300 always a bit short. I am a younger guy so the weight of the 400 doesn't bother me so much and if I could find a used one in good condition like I did my 300 for a good price I'd be all over it.

The 400 is the gold standard for shooting sports from the sideline. I occasionally shoot Big Ten football from the sidelines and have used both lenses. Now the newer bodies with excellent high ISO capabilities make the 300 & 1.4X a good alternative.

If you think you are going to shoot wildlife and birds you want all the reach you can afford.

Both are great lenses and since you have a good gimbal and tripod that is a non factor, some people forget about that and soon realize they now need a new tripod and gimbal to support the weight. To me the biggest factor is the weight, I had a 400mm f2.8 and it got too heavy to carry, I do a lot of hiking and snowshoeing and with the 400mm it was almost impossible to carry any other lenses. I even quit carrying it for awhile because of the weight, so it wasn't doing me any good to own it and leave it home so I sold it. So if you don't need to carry far the 400mm might be the way to go, just remember that thing is a beast to try and handhold. In a perfect world you would own both to give them both a good tryout and then sell the one you don't need.

Talaska wrote in post #14907516
Both are great lenses and since you have a good gimbal and tripod that is a non factor, some people forget about that and soon realize they now need a new tripod and gimbal to support the weight. To me the biggest factor is the weight

And the extra weight, not just of the lens but the tripod and gimbal head - which are essential, is the killer factor for me. (My experiences are with a 500 f4 - a similar weight). I find that most of the birds I might want to shoot aren't kind enough to hang around with a few hundred meters of my car. I have to get out and walk - often several km - to where the birds are. The 300 f2.8 (normally with a 1.4x TC) is easy to carry around all day.

The other problem is that the birds don't always hang around and pose. Very often they appear suddenly, fly past in a few seconds, and are gone. Or you turn a corner, spot something perched in a nearby tree and have a few seconds before it sees you and flys off. With the 300 I can swing the camera into position and shoot immediately. By the time the 500 had been set up on the tripod the bird was some miles away thumbing its beak at me.

So, if you're shooting birds within a short walk of a car park, or you're built like Schwarzenegger then I'd go for the 400.

I sold my 300 2.8 non is to get the 400 2.8 is version yes its heavy but you get used to it, hand held at airshow but used with a monopod and a whimberley wh 200 for cricket shots. wouldnt sell it unless i had to buy myself a new kidney its awesome