Upgrading 300mm and 400mm lenses.

I currently have the Canon 300mm F/4.0 and 400mm f/5.6 lenses. I am thinking of getting rid of both of them. and purchasing a 300 f/2.8 IS II, OR, a 400 f/4.0 DO IS II lens. I cannot afford both, and think that I only need one of them. They were purchased in 2010/2011. I also have the 1.4 extender III to use on them. What experience do you have with either one, and which one would you recommend. I currently shoot local College games (lacrosse/football). Thank you in advance for your responses. nick

300 II hands down is probably the way to go.

The 400 DO is a nice lens and is smaller, lighter than other 400's. But it can't do F2.8 and sometimes you need F2.8, so when doing a purchase like this for this purpose, I would think you'd want the best versatility of options, including F2.8. You can always throw an extender on it and have F4 and F5.6 at two other long focal lengths if needed. Also, you can always extend the 300mm and it handles TC's very, very well.

Very best,

Thanks for the response. I have been leaning toward the 300, but, wanted someone else's opinion. Thanks.

If I were in this position, I'd get the 300. You can crop a 300 to 400 FOV. The opposite is not true.

Never been a fan of 300. But to be fair, I don't shoot college games.
I love 400+ for wildlife, and the few times I need 300-ish it's 200mm + 1.4x, which works fine.
Then again, it really depends on which FL you need most.

Finally, I would not get rid of the 400/5.6. It is a unique walk-around ultra-compact ultra-light no-excuse-you-dont-have-it-in-the-bag 400mm lens

I'd recommend the 300mm f/2.8 because you can use it with a 1.4X teleconverter as a 420mm f/4 or with a 2X teleconverter as a 600mm f/5.6.

I am not sure about the 400mm f/4 DO "II"... but the first version of the DO didn't work very well with teleconverters. The 300mm, on the other hand, works great with them.

Gentlemen. I am ordering the 300mm f/2.8 today, and putting the f/4.0 up for sale. I am going to hold off selling the 400mm f/5.6 for a few weeks and take it to the next two games, to see if I need it. With my 1.4 extender, it gives me 560mm on my FF camera. With Hawk migration coming up, I may try it for some BIF shots. If it does not work out, I will sell it in late October. Thank you all for your comments. nick.

I use the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (Mk1) with 1.4 and 2x Mk3 extenders. The AF performance on my 1DX and 7D2 is simply excellent. The 1.4 extenders costs little in AF speed and IQ and the 2x on this lens is FAR from shabby in both respects!

Personally I wasn't bowled over by the 300 F2.8 Mk2 - this is not a criticism of the lens in any way! It is just that the Mk1 is so good! However if you think that you will be using extenders a lot then the Mk2 is a bit better in AF and IQ - not a lot but definitely better.

I cannot see you ever using your 400 F5.6 L anymore, yes it is a great lens, but against a 300 F2.8 Mk2? Really it doesn't get much better than this - they drag out every bit of IQ that your sensor can deliver and the do it VERY quickly and accurately!

The 400 F5.6 will give you 560mm F8 with a 1.4 extender, but the 300 F2.8 will give you a 600 F5.6 with good af (on my Mk1 - the Mk2 is a touch better) and nice IQ

You will love this lens!

johnf3f wrote in post #18455169
I cannot see you ever using your 400 F5.6 L anymore, yes it is a great lens, but against a 300 F2.8 Mk2?

Yet the 400/5.6 crushes the 300/2.8 + TC as far as size and weight.
The 300/2.8 has way worse image quality if it is not in the bag

CheshireCat wrote in post #18455194
Yet the 400/5.6 crushes the 300/2.8 + TC as far as size and weight.
The 300/2.8 has way worse image quality if it is not in the bag

Why wouldn't a 300 F2.8 be "in the bag"? Yes it is heavier than the 400 F5.6 but it is hardly an onerous task to carry one.

Note I am a hopelessly unfit, overweight, arthritic, Diabetic getting close to 60 and I can carry my 300 F2.8 for about 2 miles or so - along with a 1DX, 7D2, 800 F5.6 L IS, Winberley 2, Gitzo 4 series tripod, big backpack and a liter of Tea (most important bit!). The 300 F2.8 + a camera body on my home made shoulder strap hardly registers!

Well, then I am definitely a slacker compared to you
You don't know how many times I reach for the 2.8, and then I say: "well, I think the 5.6 will do".
Must be said, the 400/2.8 is quite a different beast than the 300/2.8.

I will be on the side lines this Saturday, but, will use the 400mm f/5.6 some. You mentioned the 400mm f/2.8. Wish I could afford it, but, maybe in a few years. Wish I was 60 again. To be young. Haha. Thanks for the comments.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18456333
Well, then I am definitely a slacker compared to you
You don't know how many times I reach for the 2.8, and then I say: "well, I think the 5.6 will do".
Must be said, the 400/2.8 is quite a different beast than the 300/2.8.

Sorry! I was mucking about, yes I do carry those sort of loads - but I don't enjoy it

The Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 + a body on a good shoulder strap is not a problem unless one has other issues.

I totally agree about the 400 F2.8! My first "Big White" was the EF 400 F2.8 L - it was only 6.1 Kilos + hood - what joy. Very nice lens but soo heavy. The current version is about 2 kilos lighter, that's progress for you.

I don't have any of them, but i do comparing them each other (owners testimonial, pics).

From what I've read, most of the owners of both lenses are satisfied with the image quality that their lens provide. AF was quick and spot on with any of them. Both works very well with TC 1.4x III, and good with the TC 2x III. So the discussion between these lens mostly ended with which range you use the most.

My personal opinion, the images from the 400mm f4 DO II looks underexpose, less contrast, and the bokeh was not as smooth compared to the 300mm f2.8L II. But yeah, this is just a non user opinion.

The 300mm f/2.8 is great. Had to use it on the monopod. A little heavier than the 300mm f/4.0. Did not use the 400mm f/5.6. Was not needed. Will use it on 14Oct17. Thanks again to everyone who commented. Nick.