300mm f4 is w/TC or 400mm f5.6

I am at a crossroad and im trying to make a decision on one of these two lenses. I currently shoot a 5d mark iii with a 100-400 L is. I will be using this lens for birds in flight mostly but when I turned is off on my current lens my images were not as sharp when cropped so I was a little worried about getting a lens that I cant perform with.I feel that my hand holding technique is good but who knows.. i was also thinking of putting the 1.4 TC on the 300mm. Any help with my dilemma would be appreciated.

well the 100-400 is perfectly capable of taking insanely sharp images.

Can you post any of your images? what was your shutter speed like? at 400 and a BIF you will need a bit faster shutter speed.

..don't turn IS off, then.

I have the 300mm and 1.4x TC and I love it, versatile and you can always attach the TC if you want. But I suggest check out the 400mm f5.6 also.or the new Tamron 150-600mm if you want more reach.

I was shooting at 1/1000 at 5.6. I was trying without the IS to see if the 400mm would be an option for me. I was speaking with wildlife photographer Kristofer Rowe and he said usually at that shutter speed the images should be fairly sharp.Will the image quality of the 300 f4 with 1.4 TC be atleast as good as the 100-400mm.Im selling the 100-400 for something a little lighter.http://www.flickr.com/​groups/2532949@N22/
there is a shot of a juvenile bald eagle taken without IS.. all the other photos was with IS on.

Well I will tell you. I have the 100-400 and the 400 5.6 prime. The 100-400 is very very good. The prime is better at AF and slightly sharper. but the pump is no slouch.

I would try and figure out why your pump wasn't giving you the same results as when you had IS on.

I know for me, a lot can go into bad image quality. weather, gear, filters, ETC.

I would try again tomorrow before trying to dump it for another lens.

canonguy77 wrote in post #16622874
I am at a crossroad and im trying to make a decision on one of these two lenses. I currently shoot a 5d mark iii with a 100-400 L is. I will be using this lens for birds in flight mostly but when I turned is off on my current lens my images were not as sharp when cropped so I was a little worried about getting a lens that I cant perform with.I feel that my hand holding technique is good but who knows.. i was also thinking of putting the 1.4 TC on the 300mm. Any help with my dilemma would be appreciated.

I shoot a lot of motorsport, and never really got on with the 7d & 100-400 combo. At one race meet in one of the support races I put the 100-400 on one of my 5d3 bodies and WOW was amazed how good the lens is. I now often use that combo

canonguy77 wrote in post #16622874
I am at a crossroad and im trying to make a decision on one of these two lenses. I currently shoot a 5d mark iii with a 100-400 L is. I will be using this lens for birds in flight mostly but when I turned is off on my current lens my images were not as sharp when cropped so I was a little worried about getting a lens that I cant perform with.I feel that my hand holding technique is good but who knows.. i was also thinking of putting the 1.4 TC on the 300mm. Any help with my dilemma would be appreciated.

Heya,

Learn to take sharp photos with the 400L before spending more money. Not trying to be rude. But the autofocus of your 5D3 combined with any sharp `L glass should result in very good sharp images. So instead of spending money, how about describe to us how you use the camera, what settings you're using, what autofocus method you're using, how you track/pan when birding, etc. Methodology and settings matter here, because any glass can look soft when it's used incorrectly for a task. The 100-400L is a superb piece of glass and produces very sharp images of birds in flight--if you use it right. You'll have the same problem with a 300mm with 1.4TC. The 300mm+1.4TC reach is really not much more than the 400mm anyways, and the stop is the same in terms of aperture with the TC in place. So you're not gaining anything doing this.

Frankly if you want more reach you're better off getting a refurb 7D and combine that with the 100-400L.

As for shooting, what is your shutter speed? What aperture? ISO? AI Servo AF or single shot?

Can you post an example of your birds that you think are soft?

I do these at 200mm with a 70-200 F4L (non IS), hand held with a junk rebel:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/12060​635653/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/12060​724374/

1/1000s on a FF body should result in a reasonably good keeper rate. Even if you decide to stick with an IS lens, if you're struggling to get sharp images at 1/1000s without IS then it's worth the practice/improvement in your technique as it will still bring benefits when you have IS enabled.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the 400 has a much nicer balance than a 100-400 stuck at 400mm. That's also true when using a monopod with the tripod collar nicely located etc. As a result you may find you can get better results with the 400 than the 100-400 without IS.

You have tried a monopod haven't you?

wow,,beautiful captures..Im sorry if there is some confusion. I get excellent images with the 100-400L with the IS on. Im selling the Lens for something a little lighter.When I thought about the 400f5.6 I turned the IS of my 100-400 off to see how I performed without stabilization. Not bad but not great. I keep elbows tucked, I usually shoot BIF with 1/1000, f5.6 auto iso with AI servo, single focus point and spot metering.http://www.flickr.com/​groups/2532949@N22/
The first image of the Juvenile hawk was without IS. The adult next was with IS on. All of the juvenile pics I had Taken were without IS and that one was as good as It got.

I have not tried a mono pod yet. I take bird pics anywhere there are birds and alot of times I find them flying at me and over my head. So I hadnt tried a monopod because I was worried about whippin a stick around when the bird was over me..lol

canonguy77 wrote in post #16623744
wow,,beautiful captures..Im sorry if there is some confusion. I get excellent images with the 100-400L with the IS on. Im selling the Lens for something a little lighter.When I thought about the 400f5.6 I turned the IS of my 100-400 off to see how I performed without stabilization. Not bad but not great. I keep elbows tucked, I usually shoot BIF with 1/1000, f5.6 auto iso with AI servo, single focus point and spot metering.http://www.flickr.com/​groups/2532949@N22/
The first image of the Juvenile hawk was without IS. The adult next was with IS on. All of the juvenile pics I had Taken were without IS and that one was as good as It got.

Heya,

I would also keep in mind that you may want to continue with a zoom, not a prime. Reason being, if you are going out and taking opportunity shots, if framing up and they're coming at you, you may find you need to back up a touch to get focus and get a composition that doesn't clip a feature or clip background feature (like water reflection, etc). A zoom really is important for versatility when it's all opportunity shots. Pretty different if you're going to areas where it's fairly guaranteed to get certain shots at certain ranges of specific targets (like reserves, rehab facilities, hawk shows, etc).

Very best,

I agree with you.. the versatility of the zoom is great. But i have been having some issues with my elbow which is why I was looking to lighten the load a little.lol. I would say that most of the Wildlife shots I have taken have been at 400mm and ive been lucky a few times and have filled the frame and the rest have been cropped.

canonguy77 wrote in post #16623930
I agree with you.. the versatility of the zoom is great. But i have been having some issues with my elbow which is why I was looking to lighten the load a little.lol. I would say that most of the Wildlife shots I have taken have been at 400mm and ive been lucky a few times and have filled the frame and the rest have been cropped.

Heya,

Try a monopod. It's an inexpensive way to take the load off. You use a quick release ballhead for the moments when you think you need to move the camera to a point that would be wild to have a stick attached. Also helps steady the camera when using the monopod to help get the sharpest you can to reduce shake.

Very best,

canonguy77, your pics on Flickr look very nice, so you obviously have a good idea about what you're doing. I've owned both combos you're considering and find both are nice with obvious advantages for each:

(this is all assuming you definitely want something smaller/lighter than the 100-400L)

400 5.6 is a very sharp lens wide open. It acquires AF very quickly and tracks birds in flight extremely well. The obvious disadvantage is no IS for more static birds (perched or wading).

300 f/4 IS plus TC is also pretty sharp and has good AF. Those both are a little below the level of the 400 5.6, but it adds the benefits of IS and the flexibility to take the TC off and shoot a highly impressive 300 f/4 for situations that don't quite need 400mm.

Over the years, I've seen incredible photos by both setups you are considering. If you think you need IS for some situations, I'd lean towards the 300 + TC. If you end up not wanting IS and are ONLY using the lens for birds further away, the naked 400 5.6 is tough to beat (if you don't need IS).

On last thing to consider is that you can add a 1.4x TC to the 400 5.6, giving you 560mm f/8 that works pretty well on a bright day. Your 5D3 and 1D series cameras will AF with f/8 and actually gives good results if you're able to avoid motion blur. A monopod/tripod and very high shutter speeds would be your best friends in that situation.