Canon 300 f4 is vs 400 5.6 vs Canon 7d ii

Not sure if I'm in the right place for this post or not. I do portraits, sports (outdoor photography, mostly football), and wildlife photography (particular looking for birding, but everything in between). Currently I have a Canon 6d, Canon 70-200 2.8 is ii, Canon 24-70 2.8 ii, flash gear, tripod, and other essential accessories. The gear I currently own is fantastic for the portrait side but still short for sports and well short for wildlife. I have about a $1,000 budget to beef up some gear for sports/wildlife. Obviously both require mostly different kinds of gear but I'm trying to at least get something that will be good for both. Clearly getting very wide open aperture glass is out of the question with this budget. Currently I've been looking between the Canon 300 f4 is and Canon 400 5.6. I know the wider aperture f4 would be better for sports photography (outside mostly little league football), also if used with the 1.4 tc would be effectively 420mm, but image quality with the tc would not match the 400 5.6. The 400 5.6 would add the extra focal length for wildlife but not sure how well this will help for the sports being at 5.6. My other thought is to forgo the lens option and pick up the Canon 7d Mark ii. This would turn my 70-200 into a 320mm and while the image quality/iso capability would not match the full frame 6d it would give me a secondary camera for everything as well. Also giving the higher 10 fps burst, better af sensor, but sacrificing iso capability. What are some suggestions for this instance. I am looking at used gear to stick within the budget and I've had good luck with used gear in the past.

If you don't find the speed or AF of the 6D to be holding you back, I would skip the 7D2 and just get glass. A second body is a great thing, as I have a 6D and bought a 7D2 and it makes me way more confident, but in all honesty, if it wasn't for my 6D dying one day before a vacation, I wouldn't have ever bought the 7D2. Now that I have it I hate the 6D for everything but image quality. The 7D2 with my 70-200 II is amazing at lower ISO, so if you don't shoot much at 6400, then it's probably going to be great and more flexible, but 6400 is getting iffy on it, and I would take a 6D with a 300 if I didn't think the flexibility of the zoom would be an issue. The 400 5.6 I have only ever used on an old crop XSi, and that was really good looking.
Can't provide an answer per say, but Glass will last longer, and the 7D2 is getting long in the tooth now for the sensor if you want Hi ISO or Black recovery. Maybe an 80D for the sensor tech?

I'd get the 400/5.6 which is superb for wildlife. I've even tried the new 100-400 Version 2 and stuck with my prime, believe it or not. For sports, put a TC on your 70-200/2.8 when needed and it will almost get you to 300/4 (but unlike the actual 300/4 lens you can still zoom).

A one-stop slower lens is really not a big deal with modern cameras, as it is easily compensated with ISO.
Similarly, a crop sensor won't affect noise performance so much.

Just focus on what you really need.
For sports and especially birds, you definitely need a very good AF. This means 7D2 or 5D3.

What I would do is:

- Sell the 6D.
- Get a 5D3 (used prices are going down due to 5D4).
- Get a used 400/5.6. You may also be happy with your 70-200/2.8 v2 + 2x TC, depending on copy variation, but the 400/5.6 is a more solid performer.

When unsure, give priority to lenses vs bodies. Bodies depreciate much faster.

IS won't help much with sports and wildlife in motion. Get the longest tele lens you can afford.

Thanks for the responses. As far as the 6d goes I don't miss the faster af because I've never used any of the faster af cameras. I am leaning towards the 400 5.6 and then adding the 1.4 tc for the 70-200 when needed. I definitely have seen the fact that investing in lenses out ways investing in cameras.

I have the 300mm f4 and the 400mm 5.6 and love both. The 300mm is the far more usable lens due to the IS and the shorter focal length. If you are mainly getting this for wildlife & birding, the 400mm might be preferable. For sports, the nod might go to the 300mm due to the f4. Portraits, the 300mm for sure. Forget about the extenders. If you really need 400mm, get the 400. You're wise to buy these lenses used as the used prices have really come down! If you want a crop camera (for reach) on the cheap, there's some incredible deals on used t3i, t4i, 60d, and the other Canon cameras that use that decent old 18mp sensor.

Heya,

Really hard to pin that down really. It's a very personal thing. And it greatly depends on what expectations you have and what kind of images you want to make.

Depending on what sport it is, I'd want faster FPS regardless of a lens. It's not a question of getting an in-focus shot, it's about being able to get a few shots of a moment where you have the FPS to give you the best odds of getting a good composition of the athletes, getting a frame with arms/legs/faces/etc in different positions and picking the best composition out of a few from a moment. This is why 8~14 FPS is a nice thing for sports. This also applies to wildlife, but again, depends on what you're really shooting and want out of it. This is an argument for any camera with faster FPS, and applies to sports & wildlife in a big way.

If you add APS-C to your line up, you can use lighter, faster, shorter glass, and still get pixels on target. This is a big argument for APS-C or even APS-H. Having bigger glass and faster glass costs money, and is heavy and takes up space. If you value lighter setups, you may find the appeal of an APS-C setup with you 70-200 II to be quite good for what you do. I say this because you're not going for 500 F4 glass based on your budget & based on what you've described, you're looking to spend $1000 to get an extra 100mm of focal length--not really significant, or up to +200mm of focal length (double what you have at 200mm, so you get twice the magnification, or twice the pixels on target, with a 400mm, which is starting to become significant). But if all you feel you need is 400mm on full frame, that's not a lot of reach at all, so you really don't need a ton of reach, and using a 70-200 II on APS-C will yield very similar pixels on target, while being F2.8 and with image stabilization, and you already have that glass.

So really, from a sports perspective, since you're not aiming for longer glass than 400mm, I think a fast FPS APS-C is actually the way to go, with your current setup.

Wildlife is where you really will have to make a distinction from the above, because what you're shooting, how you're shooting it, and what goals you have and expectations you have will greatly effect what kind of glass you need to get you there. So I won't even begin to get into the glass section for this without more information.

Overall though, I think a 7D2 (or 1DIV) and a 1.4x TC would be a better way to go at this time for what you're doing.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18119852
double what you have at 200mm, so you get twice the magnification, or twice the pixels on target, with a 400mm

That is actually double the horizontal and double the vertical resolution, so quadruple the number of pixels on target.

This is what I did. I have both lenses. The 300mm f4 and the 400mm f5.6. Love them both.
But I prefer the ef 300mm f4L with the 1.4x tele converter. And if I could only have one tele this would be it.
Reasoning, the 300mil f4 alone is great and it has IS. Use it all the time. Add the 1.4x and you have a 420mil f5.6 with IS. The 300 is just a tad bit better in the IQ department so adding the 1.4x is no problem. It might ficus a little slower but on my 1D Mk IV it works well.

ebiggs wrote in post #18122306
The 300 is just a tad bit better in the IQ department so adding the 1.4x is no problem.

Probably copy variation. A good copy of the 400/5.6 should be noticeably sharper than the 300 + 1.4x on tight crops.

I use the 400 for BIF, and could use a faster AF
I would never trade AF speed and precision with IS, but then again, I have other lenses for other use cases.

When shooting outdoor sports, (I mainly shoot my daughter's travel softball team) I like the versatility of a zoom. My main combo for most tournaments is my 1D III and a 100-400L. Shooting a long prime at sporting events limits your shot selection, depending on where you're allowed to stand. As long as you have good light, the original 100-400L is a very attractively priced option. You'd have money left over for other stuff.
Once the sun goes down and the field lights come on, the camera gets put away as I don't have any long glass fast enough for low light.
Something to think about anyway.