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

Thank you for the info.. I would love to get the 400L simply because like you said it is hard to beat and all reviews on it say the same thing. The only reason I worry about the non IS is because again when I turned off my IS on the 100-400 my shots werent near as good as with IS on. I shot a few twitchy perched birds a little while ago at 400mm and 1/1000 and aside from crappy weather conditions most shots were sharp.So I think for static birds I should be ok. but I also realize that at 400mm without is on a perched bird far away I may have my work cut out for me.

As far as lens build and performance. Should the 400L be easier to get sharp image with as apposed to the 100-400L with the IS off or is one the same as the other? And what is everyones opinion on AF performance with a 2x converter on the 300 or 400 compared to the 100-400 alone. would it be about the same or worse?

with a 2X on the 400 you will lose some speed on the AF.

The IQ will still be pretty good. (my flickr has a lot of examples of a 2X on the 400 over the last couple days)

My 400 with a 2X on a 1D body performs like my 7D performed without a TC attached to the 7D.

the 300 f4 plus 1.4x will be the worst choice, but optically and focus speed for your bif applicaton. the 400 5.6 will have the best focus tracking of the options you said, and for bif thats important. it is also slightly and I mean only slightly sharper than a good copy of 100-400L.
the 400 prime has much longer MFD, so least magnification, not as good for hummers and insects. also no IS and no zoom. the 300 f4 has the shortest mfd, and the most magnification, further aided with a tc, and has IS, but with a tc, the focus will be slow for bif, and the lens not very sharp.
On a 5d3, if you have a proper functioning 100-400L, and focus speed is not an issue to you, you simply could not do better by switching lens, so you will be disappointed if you get another lens. the IS can be helpful in framing and tracking. make sure you are in Mode 2, as the IS can actually degrade image quality.
I am far from a birder, but the 100-400L, on 5d3, has been very good to me.
400 f 5.6

My next question would be this.. Does anyone think there would be a major loss in image quality going from a 5d mark iii to a 7D? I know that the mark iii image quality is better but will it be a difference that is very noticeable. I used to shoot a 60d and got some great images as im sure other do also. But will I look at an image from the 7d and be dissappointed comparing it to the mark iii or are we talking minor differences. I shoot alot of everything but wildlife is my favorite.. any info would help.

I have 300mm and 400mm, I'd recommend the 400mm.

Great pics Kevindar

canonguy77 wrote in post #16639247
My next question would be this.. Does anyone think there would be a major loss in image quality going from a 5d mark iii to a 7D? I know that the mark iii image quality is better but will it be a difference that is very noticeable. I used to shoot a 60d and got some great images as im sure other do also. But will I look at an image from the 7d and be dissappointed comparing it to the mark iii or are we talking minor differences. I shoot alot of everything but wildlife is my favorite.. any info would help.

If you are focal length limited, I.E, have to crop the 5d3 shot to match 7D, 7d will be better. this very often is the case. if not focal length limited, meaning you can zoom further with your lens, then yes, there is a visible difference, even at iso 100 in detail rendered, and much more so as you go to higher iso.

5dIII also has better focusing. with a busy background, it is much less likely to loose focus. however, 7D has the faster fps.

both cameras are quite capable of producing excellent images of course. good luck, and thanks for the compliment.

For what it's worth I want to add that my 300F4 doesn't take the TC (version I) well. Fast (enough) AF and sharp (enough) images but they lack contrast, they are pretty blend and I don't like them. Maybe there's a better story to be told with the II-version but I'm not buying it!
That beeing said I never felt the need to replace the 300 with a 400. The 300 is sharp enough to crop if necessary.
For your type of shooting I would go for the 100-400 and certainly wait for the new version to arrive (somewhere this year).
In the meantime Tamron (what's in a name) came up with a cheap alternative with a 150-600 that won't lick the heels of the 100-400 but - according to the comments - comes pretty close.
Just saying for letting all options in the open.
Good luck on your choises.
Greetings
Alain,

I saw some mtf charts comparing the new Tamron and the 100-400 canon and it was indeed close. I might pick one up later on to check it out. I did rent the 400 last week and although I did gets a few sharp images my percentage was nowhere near as good as it was with IS.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16623995
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,

The best advice of the thread ( no offence to anyone else ). Spend $40 and get a monopod to try to see if you get on with one. I carry my birding lens on my monopod, what a difference it made to me. If you like it then get a tilting head too ( I haven't got one but don't do BIF really ).
I use mine with IS on. As for the 300/4 and 400/5.6 they're all good, each has slightly different benefits. The zooms versatility makes it the best all rounder, the 300 is a good dragonfly/insect lens ( a short MFD ) whilst the 400 prime ( very fast AF ) is the BIF master. If anyone can't get great shots with any of these 3 then go home. There's no right or wrong answer..........

canonguy77 wrote in post #16639247
My next question would be this.. Does anyone think there would be a major loss in image quality going from a 5d mark iii to a 7D? I know that the mark iii image quality is better but will it be a difference that is very noticeable. I used to shoot a 60d and got some great images as im sure other do also. But will I look at an image from the 7d and be dissappointed comparing it to the mark iii or are we talking minor differences. I shoot alot of everything but wildlife is my favorite.. any info would help.

Check this thread on that very topic. As you no doubt will be cropping very heavily it's highly relevant

https://photography-on-the.net …127&highlight=m​ini-review

456 for bif

MalVeauX wrote in post #16623339
Heya,
I do these at 200mm with a 70-200 F4L (non IS), hand held with a junk rebel:

No offense, but what a lame statement.

Leon

Hi,

I have 400mm 5.6 L that I like very much when my feet are on solid ground but I want a zoom with IS that goes to 400 to use from my kayak as about 40 % of my spring through fall tele shots are taken from the water.

I just tried a 300mm F4.0 IS with a Canon 1.4 Mark II converter on my 70D with the idea of selling my 456 if I liked it. Well the 300mm and tele went back as I didn't like the focus at 420 mm for BIF.

Now I'm about to try a used 100-400L with the idea of selling my 400 5.6 if I like it. I believe the used price of the 100-400L has taken a hit lately although the new price is very high. It is possible that I'll keep both but I'd like to free the money up for things not photo related.