400L 5.6 vs 300L IS 4 on a 7D

which would you choose to buy first?

this is just a hobby for me, i would rather buy my gear versus renting

i'm going to be shooting cricket next summer, probably do some nature walks and beach activities which would include shooting babes huh i mean beach-volleyball

my current longest lens is a 70-200L IS 2.8 II

i'm asking for help in deciding because they're so close mostly in pricing BUT for those of you that shoot regualrly with either or both of these what would you suggest, i'm open to all opinins/suggestions and i draw the line at $2K per lens purchase.

thanks in advance to all who put in their suggestions and opinions.

400 5.6. Extremely quick AF and excellent IQ wide open. Easy to handhold as well. If you want a little more versatility than the 300 plus an extender would work but at the sacrifice of quality and AF speed.

auto-clicker wrote in post #14978254
i'm going to be shooting cricket next summer, probably do some nature walks and beach activities which would include shooting babes huh i mean beach-volleyball

my current longest lens is a 70-200L IS 2.8 II

i'm asking for help in deciding because they're so close mostly in pricing BUT for those of you that shoot regualrly with either or both of these what would you suggest, i'm open to all opinins/suggestions and i draw the line at $2K per lens purchase.

thanks in advance to all who put in their suggestions and opinions.

I shoot beach volleyball, nature and beach, I use to own the 400mm, now I have the 100-400 --- unbeatable in versatility

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400
100mm
1/2500

For you, I might the 1.4x converter an then see if you need more. I did that, and then I got the 400mm 5.6. I find the quality of my 1.4xTC and my 70-200mm 2.8 (nonIS) to be pretty good.

I remember once I went to the zoo and have my 70-200 and 400, and shot the entire day with the 400. I love that lens.

I agree with the 1.4x TC. I was recently comparing different variations on the-digital-picture.com and the 70-200 2.8 IS II with 1.4x II was as good or better than the 300/4 IS. The 400/5.6 was still noticably sharper than the 70-200 II with the new 2x III.

Bob

1.4xTC for now.

Get the 400 5.6 Its a really sharp lens - the lack of IS is fine for daylight shooting and the 7D has good noise performance so turning her up to 800, 1000, 1600 is viable.

Snapped from today in chest deep water!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67031861@N08/7​977561801/

I would say on the 7d, the 400mm , you need the best lens IQ to get the best out of the sensor.
That being said the 300 f/4 with canon 1.4x TC is very good as well

Hot Bob wrote in post #14978500
I agree with the 1.4x TC. I was recently comparing different variations on the-digital-picture.com and the 70-200 2.8 IS II with 1.4x II was as good or better than the 300/4 IS.

hehe.

The 7D is a little noise monkey. Not good for jacking the ISO. Stick with IS lenses or faster ones.

interesting thread, as I was looking at both.
The 400L5.6 is better than the 300L4.0is if I understand the replies then??

colintf wrote in post #14980465
interesting thread, as I was looking at both.
The 400L5.6 is better than the 300L4.0is if I understand the replies then??

"Better" is subjective - depends on how you'll use it. The 400 is known for it's quick AF and sharpness. Although the 400 is easy to handhold, some people may like the benefit of IS instead of lugging around a tripod/monopod for the 400 in lower light. The 300 also has a closer MFD which some people like. So in the end it depends on your shooting style.

Mike55 wrote in post #14980145
hehe.

The 7D is a little noise monkey. Not good for jacking the ISO. Stick with IS lenses or faster ones.

colintf wrote in post #14980465
interesting thread, as I was looking at both.
The 400L5.6 is better than the 300L4.0is if I understand the replies then??

As g-limited wrote, it depends. I've owned the 300, 400 and 70-200II and in the end I sold all but the 300 f/4 IS. The 400 is slightly better in the IQ and AF dept, but it can't do f/4, doesn't have IS, doesn't have the great MFD of the 300 and can't shoot inside for things like concerts/plays.

The 300 is my most versatile prime (I own 6). Having said that, I agree with others that since you own the 70-200 II, save the $$$ and get a 1.4xTC II or III.

That 300 F4 looks pretty sharp to me , comparable to the 400 .
300 f4 + 1.4x is about the 400 f5.6 mark ..... can't take off the 1.4 from a 400 to get to 300 F4 !

I have the 400 , but I hike about looking for wildlife .

400mm f5.6 looks a bit sharper than my 300mm f2.8 IS I with 1.4xTC. So not sure why some folks say 300mm f4 with 1.4xTC = 400mm f5.6.

Buy based on focal length you using. For what OP plans to use, for now 1.4xTC on his 70-200mmf 2.8 IS II should be OK. Another option for OP is 100-400L.

For what you're talking about shooting, I'd go with either the 300 f/4 (+1.4 TC, if needed) or the 100-400. The long, non-IS lenses are harder to handhold when you can't keep your shutter speeds up, appropriately.