Between these 3 lenses-which one???

I'm going nuts trying to decide between (among?) these 3 lenses. All in the same price range. I have a 20D and a 200L 2.8 non IS and a Sigma 24-70 2.8.
(and a Kenko Pro 1.4 extender). The 3 lenses are:
400 f/5.6L
70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS
300 f/4.0 L IS
Seems like with the 70-300's small size it would be the ideal lens to carry anywhere and could use with the extender to get beyond 400mm...and it has IS.
Lots of great comments on the forum about how great the 400 is...
Ditto the 300 and it has IS also.
I have a monopod and tripod and find them both awkward to use.

I want to get close to birds and animals, birds in flight, etc. I can't recall reading much about the 70-300 DO IS--is it not a good lens???

HELP!

300mm with extender?

400mm L ... you need length and AF speed.

It all depends on what you want to shoot. If it's for travel, then one of the 70-300IS lenses. If it's primarily birding, get the 400f5.6. If 300mm is mainly what you want plus the ability to focus closer than the 400 and have IS, get the 300f4IS. There's also the very good 100-400IS.

the 70-300 is a great travel lens, if you want to pack really light. it is well built, and the ringUSM does not rotate the lens barrel. but apart from that it is a mediocre performer in any way, especailly compaired to the above primes. the 400 5.6 is one of the best birding lenses out there, but if you want something more versitale, then the 300 F4 is also farily good for sports, and with tubes can be a good psuedo macro lens. both of the lenses, after some time of getting used to larger lenses, can be used easily without a monopod.

I love my 200L prime-so have been leaning towards the 400L. But no IS, but then neither does my 200L and I can keep it fairly steady. The only negative I have about the 100-400 is that at 400 it isn't as sharp as the prime.

sounds like you have made the decision then. order the 400 5.6 before you have any second thoughts haha. its a great lens. you wont regret it.

why not go with the 300 f4 IS and add the 1.4x TC? That'd give you 420 f5.6 IS. Effectively two IS lenses in one with prime sharpness.

Breakdown goes like this: (assuming you're going for most reach possible)
70-300 Versatility 1st, IQ 3rd
300 Versatility 2nd, IQ 1.5st (lower IQ w/1.4tc)
400 Versatility 3rd, IQ 1st
If you shoot on a tripod all day with cable release, 400 would be my top choice. Otherwise, IS is helpful.

I'm in the same ball park...It is difficult for me to see the 400mm prime, used without a pod all the time...

If I could get used to hand holding it steady enough, I'd jump on it right away...

While the 300mm has IS, it doesn't reach small birds...If it looses IQ with the 1.4TC, it will be worse with the 2.0 TC...

So the best bet is the 400mm 5.6L on a mono or tri pod...

Or is there another combination? how about the 70-200mm 2.8L with IS and a 1.4 TC or 2.0 TC?

mxwphoto wrote in post #2117398
If you shoot on a tripod all day with cable release, 400 would be my top choice. Otherwise, IS is helpful.

the 400 isnt that heavy of a lens. and is designed to be light enough to be hand held to track flying birds. Its really not a big deal with good light. and for birds you need a high shutter speed, so IS is a moot point here.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2117911
the 400 isnt that heavy of a lens. and is designed to be light enough to be hand held to track flying birds. Its really not a big deal with good light. and for birds you need a high shutter speed, so IS is a moot point here.

The IS helps tremendously hand held, especially when you're shooting at steep angles. If one follows the standard convention with 1/mm as the safe shooting speed ie 1/400sec for 400mm to get sharp pictures, you will either have to crank up the ISO and introduce noise or have sunlight shine directly on your subject. Besides, when you shoot birds, you usually don't shoot them while they're flying, thus steadiness helps. Maybe you have incredible tracking abilities and are able to get such great shots, but I certainly can't keep a small bird in the viewfinder and click the shutter as it flies off for another perch.

johnstoy wrote in post #2117596
I'm in the same ball park...It is difficult for me to see the 400mm prime, used without a pod all the time...

If I could get used to hand holding it steady enough, I'd jump on it right away...

While the 300mm has IS, it doesn't reach small birds...If it looses IQ with the 1.4TC, it will be worse with the 2.0 TC...

So the best bet is the 400mm 5.6L on a mono or tri pod...

Or is there another combination? how about the 70-200mm 2.8L with IS and a 1.4 TC or 2.0 TC?

The 1.4TC mated to a 300 might not be as sharp as the 400, but that's if you're pixel peeping. In absolute terms, yes, 400 is sharper. But with a little post processing, 300 +1.4TC can be just about the same for most purposes. Anything with a 2xTC though will yield lower quality than with the actual length lens by a noticable margin (comparing to the primes that is). Lens purchase from what I see has to be a careful balancing between money, versatility, and IQ. Each person has to decide for themselves which is the most and least important attribute.

pttenn wrote in post #2116491
I want to get close to birds and animals, birds in flight, etc. I can't recall reading much about the 70-300 DO IS--is it not a good lens???

HELP!

The DO lens is fine. it gets bad press from people that cant or wont learn to use it.

go for the 400 for birds and animals. you want the reach.