300mm verses 400mm

Hi , i have been using the 300 f/4 is with a 1.4 tc for wildlife and the shots are much less than sharp . wondered if the 400mm 5.6 was a sharper lens or could you guys give any recommendations , no need for IS as all my photography is from a tripod, thanks for any info guys

if you do not need IS, the 400 prime will be a qute sharper than the 300 +1.4tc..

well i have both and the 400mm is sharper than the bare 300mm from the word go - you will notice the diffrence its a super lens one of canon's best.
Rob.

400mm wideopen (5.6)

Agreed ... and you should be able to sell the 300mm IS for the price of a 400mm. Nice exchange.

This information just helped me decide on my lens purchase... since I was actually debating about the 300mm 4.0L IS and the 400mm 5.6L...

The 400 focusing is better than the 300. So comparing a 300 with TC vs 400 without - 400 will be much better.
Try your 300 1.4 combo without IS so you know how much you'll miss the IS.
Do you ever use the close focusing abilities of the 300? 400 will be a let down if you do.
My 400 seems to be just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down.
My 200 2.8 - I can see it getting significantly sharper F2.8 - F5.6 , then slightly sharper to F8.
I consider slight advantage of the 400 ; I use (good quality) filters. The 300 IS has a protective front element. The 400 does not. So I have one less piece of glass doing nothing.

So Choderboy,

If you had to do it all over again, would you still get the 400 5.6L?

I have to consider the sunlight difference...Some of you live in the sun belt...

jerrythesnake wrote in post #2123862
Hi , i have been using the 300 f/4 is with a 1.4 tc for wildlife and the shots are much less than sharp . wondered if the 400mm 5.6 was a sharper lens or could you guys give any recommendations , no need for IS as all my photography is from a tripod, thanks for any info guys

If you are often/always using the TC on your 300, then get the 400. The 400 is easily sharper and more contrasty than the 300+1.4x. The 300 is a great lens, but it has never shown itself (my 2 copies) to beat either the 400 I had or my current 1-4IS at 400mm f5.6.

This is a picture taken with the Canon Zoom EF 75-300mm 4-5.6III at 1/1600s, F 14, ISO 1600, at 300mm...This $150 dollar lens makes a reasonable image...I used Canon's Zoom Browser EX to trim and sharpen the image taken this afternoon...

My question is: will the 300mm or the 400mm produce a considerably higher IQ?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

johnstoy wrote in post #2124232
My question is: will the 300mm or the 400mm produce a considerably higher IQ?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Are you kidding?

LightRules wrote in post #2124253
Are you kidding?

I ask because I'll be spending approx. $1500 for the lens and tripod...As a past microbiology professional, I am used to high resolution, expensive lenses...I've seen some pretty average images praised as good or great on the forum, and prefer to be careful...

johnstoy wrote in post #2124003
So Choderboy,

If you had to do it all over again, would you still get the 400 5.6L?

I have to consider the sunlight difference...Some of you live in the sun belt...

Unquestionably.
If I could afford a 400 F2.8 or 500 F4 I'd have one. I believe I have the next best thing. It's a big jump from a $150 lens, not just in results. Build , autofocus performance and accuracy are all in a different league.

I have my sights on the 400mm 5.6L...am getting enough light in, on today's cloudy day in the NE, into the cheap 75-300mm at 300mm...that's the good news...I just hope that with rebates starting this week, my lens will be in stock...

Yeah, in hind sight, i should have only bought L's from the start...but I like all my lenses so far...the 400mm will be a great addition...

Thanks for the first hand info , it was just that after reading all the reviews they showed the 400mm to be no sharper, this has helped a lot, Jerry