Looking into a longer lens... suggestions?

I have been doing some work where a longer lens would be kind of nice. Namely, I shoot some gigapixel panoramics and would like to get nice and sharp close images of far away things.

I do (not often) shoot outdoor action type stuff, some birds, maybe a sport type thing once in a great while.

I currently have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II lens, along with the 1.4x and 2X extenders. Using the 2X I can of course get to an F5.6 400mm lens, but with the loss of sharpness.

Given I already have the extenders, I was thinking of a longer lens in the Canon lineup. At first I thought of the 100-400, but there is quite a bit of overlap in the focal length with the already great 70-200 F2.8 that I have.

That lead me to the 300 F4, and the 400mm F5.6. The prices are somewhat similar (within a few hundred). Of course, the 400 is stop slower, and also doesn't have IS.

For my gigapixel work, I of course use a tripod with a pano-head. So IS probably isn't totally required, but when I do go handheld, it might be nice.

So which should I lean to? The extra reach of 100mm for the 400mm lens, or the image stablization and 1 stop of light with the 300mm lens?

Also, which works better with the extenders? I know that for the F5.6 400mm lens, the 2X will basically eliminate the ability to autofocus. This is sort of leaning me more towards the 300mm.

Any other input is very welcome!

I don't know what you define as "far away things", but the distance alone may hinder your ability to get sharp images with ANY lens. When the sun is beating on the ground between you and the subject, you will get movement of the air - mirage - that acts like a crazy lens refracting the light from elements of the scene in the distance.

I would forget the 2X extender as well. Every test I have seen or read about with the Canon 2X extenders reports less than stellar results. There is some image degradation with the Canon 1.4X extenders as well, but not to the degree of the 2X units.

SkipD wrote in post #16306214
I don't know what you define as "far away things", but the distance alone may hinder your ability to get sharp images with ANY lens. When the sun is beating on the ground between you and the subject, you will get movement of the air - mirage - that acts like a crazy lens refracting the light from elements of the scene in the distance.

I would forget the 2X extender as well. Every test I have seen or read about with the Canon 2X extenders reports less than stellar results. There is some image degradation with the Canon 1.4X extenders as well, but not to the degree of the 2X units.

Ha, yes I know, I didn't mean too much by that other than "things you'd use a super telephoto for".

I already have the 2X. I actually shot this pano this past weekend using the 70-200 and the 2X. It is pretty good... but I think I could do better. It was a nice crisp cool morning:

http://gigapan.com/gig​apans/140266

I shot the whole thing at F8, at around 278mm (due to the pano head I was using, I couldn't get the degree of rotation low enough to allow the proper 25-30% of overlap at any higher FL).

Given that the Mk3 will AF at f8 using centre point ( I seem to have read somewhere) then if you want to retain AF its either a 400f5.6 with your 1.4 or a 300 f4 with your 1.4 and 2*TC, giving you 560 with the 400+1.4 or 420+600 with the 300+1.4 and the 2*.
What the IQ loss is like for your purpose I have no idea, would a reasonable small investment be to hire/beg/borrow or steal both and find out which gives you the best results but all things being equal the 300f4 is more flexible

I've used my 400 5.6 to get some close up shots of waterfalls. I also own the 300 f4 and it takes the 1.4tc quite well and is versatile with the IS. Also, when you do decide to photograph some birdies, the 400 is worthwile for sure.

I was evaluating the two as well; not too long ago. I went with the 300 f4 IS. My thoughts were the f/4 would work ok at nite for FB and the IS was a big thing on my side. During the day the 300 could be used with 1.4 extender and give me more reach.

I do think the 300 might be the more versatile lens...

Is it significantly sharper than the 100-400?

Some overlap in these products....

Fred, the OP is looking at the 300 f4 lens.

I've had great results with the 300mm f/4 IS shooting a city scene across about a mile or two of water. Not sure if I've used my 2x with it then, but I have had good results with the 2x + 300mm combo. Just a little more work in post is all it needs.

The 300mm f4 is a great lens. Super sharp and light weight. The IS is a bit noisy though. Probably one of my favorite features is its quasi macro ability. It is a great dragonfly / hummingbird lens.

I sold it because I was grabbing the 100-400 more, but there are times when I wish I still had it.

I went to the store and checked these out, and ended up picking up a 400 F5.6. It was an expensive afternoon.

I figured that with the 70-200 F2.8 I already have, the 300mm would be too close to that range, and that if I really want 400mm, I should buy a 400mm lens and not count on using the 1.4X TC to get 400mm.

The lens is very well made, and much lighter than I would have expected.

Can't wait to get out and use it this weekend! Maybe I'll get into birding next too!

Ryan0751 wrote in post #16306192
...
For my gigapixel work, I of course use a tripod with a pano-head. So IS probably isn't totally required,..

You need to turn the IS off for better / sharper shoot as using tripod.

So 400 f/5.6 is the right choice

x_tan wrote in post #16307843
You need to turn the IS off for better / sharper shoot as using tripod.

So 400 f/5.6 is the right choice

I actually took the canon eos immersion seminar last weekend. That topic came up, and the canon instructor said all of the newer IS stabilized lenses didn't have that issue when using a tripod, and to just leave IS on.

Ryan0751 wrote in post #16307901
I actually took the canon eos immersion seminar last weekend. That topic came up, and the canon instructor said all of the newer IS stabilized lenses didn't have that issue when using a tripod, and to just leave IS on.

The 300/4L IS is a 16 year old lens.

Ah