Which one to get? 300 or 400

I agree with everyone. 300mm f/4L IS is the better choice for me. Shooting flowers works quite well with the 300mm. In my experiance it also takes the 2x mk3 TC well too. MF can be tricky, but doesn't bother me too much.

Lovely use of the 300/4 Alan. Liked the pictures.

Oscardog, As I said I am not 100% into birding.

watt100, I had given some consideration to the 100-400 but I already have the 70-200/4L and so would prefer a prime lens to add to the range. Good sharp image - the first one especially.

200-400 would be ideal if only I could win a huge lottery!!!

I'll go through the images posted in the lens section by lenses and see what I like.

Here's one taken with 70-200 f/4 on 5D3 at 173mm f/6.3 1/500 ISO 800. The image is cropped.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …88503568@N00/10​850521753/

I have both and agree that the 300 is the way to go for what you asked. Along with a 1.4x
type of tc I also use a 500D closeup lens (like a filter type of lens) on the 300 and 400 for
more variety. The mfd on the 300 allows me to take nice bee photos leaving enough room between me and the bee!

I love my 300 4 IS. The best feature is MFD. Throw extension tubes on and you're set for pretty much any kind of insect. My favorite subject with the lens is dragonflies. It does BIF fairly well too as long as you can get close. IMHO the 300 feels more like a medium focal length lens. It's sweet spot is definitely up close. I was never very happy with a 1.4x attached as the AF speed and accuracy were so negatively impacted. It also loses the wide-open sharpness of the bare lens.

Had it for almost 4 years now, don't know if I'll ever get rid of it as long as I'm shooting a Canon. Maybe for a Mk II?

riverdog1, kiwikat,
Thanks for the inputs. Your views reinforces my own inclination towards 300/f4.
Thanks.

I have a similar dilemma.

Sold my 100-400 as very bad copy (was bought used..I now know why it was for sale))

I am using my 28-300 a lot now, and feel, in my case, getting the 300 F4 (even with 1.4x) may be duplicating too much.

The 5d3 has just had an upgrade to AF at f8, so I could use the 400 F5.6 with a TC.......but still not sure.

Any further opinions?

Using the 300f4 + 1.4x + 7D gives me a bigger reach (672) than 400 f5.6 + 1.4 + 5D3 (560), but 7D a lot noisier at high Iso.

I went with the 400, but haven't been able to get out with it much, yet. The AF is pretty ridiculous on it, though.

I know for me personally, my next wildlife lens will be a 400/5.6L unless a long lost relative dies and gives me a ton of money, in which case it will be the 500.

For the uses you're talking about, it sounds like the 300 f/4 is the lens you're looking for. Closer MFD, decent IS, good and sharp, light and can add the 1.4x TC, readily, with minimal impact to the overall image.

I had a 300 and now own a 400. for my use the 400 is perfect, but from the sound of it you should get the 300!

After much deliberation I finally got the 400 f/5.6 L. The lens rocks. The AF is very very fast. It's only been 2 days since I got it. But am already loving it.

Congratulations, herculeorama!! The 400/5.6 is a great lens.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17016206
Congratulations, herculeorama!! The 400/5.6 is a great lens.

Thanks Levina.