Buying advice - 300 2.8 is vs 400 do

I have researched this backwards and upside down..

300 2.8 is vs 400 do

99% of my photography is birds (both in-flight and perched), I a fair amount of hiking (maybe 5 miles or so each outing) so I am a bit concerned with weight. I have the the 400 5.6 and love it for size and sharpness, but in the duller days of winter the non IS can become a bit of a pinch. I also have both the 1.4 and 2x viii extenders I would like to put to use after spending hard earned bucks on over the past couple of years.

Not interested in the 100-400.

I am sitting right around the 3000 CAD price range.

Any insight you experienced users of these first gen IS lenses would share I would be much appreciated.

Lee

I have the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and have trialled three 400 F4 DO Mk1 lenses. The weight difference is not much on paper but it makes a difference in the field.

Like you I have been fascinated by the 400 DO for quite a while but I couldn't find one that was sensibly priced and sharp. I tried two from the same camera shop that were, possibly, the sharpest telephotos that I have used but they were asking far too much. The other was in very nice/excellent condition and sensible money but the results were disappointing. I did get the opportunity to briefly try a 4th example which was brand new - the owner was on her way home from the camera shop! This one was great as a bare lens and decent with the 1.4 Mk2/3 extender but not so hot with the 2 x Mk3. You can condense that lot down to - they are variable!

The 300 F2.8 will add 600+ grams (not to be sneezed at for hiking) lose you 100mm but give you more light to play with. My 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 is superb as a bare lens, very nearly as good with the 1.4 Mk3 (little AF speed loss) and surprisingly good with the 2 x Mk3 extender - though you need decent light with the 2 x.

If you can find a really sharp example of the 400 DO Mk1 that plays well with extenders that would be my choice - but I would be careful on price as, due to their mixed reputation, they may not have great re-sale value. I could well be wrong but bear this in mind. Canon 300 F2.8 lenses are always wanted and hold their value quite well.

Just my thoughts!

Pity you didn't post this in July as I was in your fine city for my sisters BIG birthday and you could have given my 300 a try! I did have a day trip to Elk Island but the Buffalo were not playing and were determined to be back-lit whatever I did!

Hey!

First thankyou very much for taking the time to respond. These 2 lenses seem to compare very closely on paper, I have read all about the pros and cons of each and I am attracted to the faster glass, but not keen on the shorter lens. I don't see a large concen with the 300 as far a image quality goes bare and with the 1.4, I read it is good (but not excellent) with the 2x when lighting is good. I use the 7d mark ii so that all points autofocus comes into the senario for the 300 as well. The 400 is...well 100mm longer! I have read that the image quality produce is inconsistant from copy to copy and that is does not recieve the extenders very well.

My 'gut' says if there were some way I could find a 'sharp' copy of the original DO this is the way I would go.

Everything I know about these lenses is only from what I have read, that is why I was/am reaching out for some 'real world' feedback.

Sidenote; Elk Island is a great place to eat up free time, I have spent many many mornings there.

Lee

If I had to chose between version 1 copies, I would choose the 300mm. If I had to choose between the latest copies (version 2), I would choose the 400mm DO.

I choose the 300 F/2.8

the extra stop comes in handy later in the day or early morning.....even on a new sensor

i had the same choice years ago and picked the 300 f2.8 based on better pics from the 300 plus 1.4x con over the native 400 f4 do.

I sold my 300 f/2.8L IS to help finance my 500. I miss it but if the reach/weigh is the more important than the speed (f/2.8 is amazing) the DO might be the better choice for you.
I know you ruled out the 100-400, but I have been very happy with mine. (Version II) It pairs extremely well with my 500II.

For what it's worth this is either the 4th or 6th frame that I took with My Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and the Canon 2 x Mk3:

https://www.flickr.com …15589472150/in/​datetaken/

Should give you some idea as this is a RAW file just scaled (and JPEGed) for the web.

Thanks for taking the time to respond folks, this is just the input I am looking for (real world).

300mm with the 1.4 TC is still sharper than the 400 DO. I don't understand why people still want that 400 DO Lens. Of course Version 2 is much better but Version one is a complete waste of money in my opinion. get the 300mm f2.8 Version 1 and a 1.4 TC III if you want a bit more reach. otherwise stay with the 400 5.6L.

Edit: Noticed you have a Crop Body, Me personally I would always want f2.8's over f4 or f5.6 just to have that option when light goes to crap. 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 TC is an easy choice.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The Exif for that image says 800mm f/5.6

Gungnir wrote in post #18167478
The Exif for that image says 800mm f/5.6

OOPS!!!!!

I meant to post this one! You can see why I made the mistake!
Taken with a 1D4, 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and Canon 2 x Mk3 - I checked this time!

Thank you for taking the time to repost your pic (based on feedback I am swayed to look for a 300 2.8)

Lee

I have both of these lenses and the 300/2.8 is noticeably superior. The 400 DO isn't bad when there's some sparkle in the light but it can look very uninspiring when it's overcast and subdued.

Bob