Help choose betw: 300mm 4.L IS & 70-200mm2.8L IS to complement the 400mm 5.6L

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2132746
70-200, the 300 is too close.

Now, that's a good one...I was wondering about that...the 400mm should cover my long distance needs...thanks again...

the 300 F4 is a great lens with IS and the like. but not quite good enough for indoors shots. and its too close in stats to the 400 5.6. whereas the 70-200 gives you a full telephoto range to complement the 400. it can be used indoors, for sports, and with the TC it becomes even more usable with the 400. a great companion. i generally walk around for birds with the 400 on my 1D and 70-200 on the 20D. for when i need a wider view.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2132758
the 300 F4 is a great lens with IS and the like. but not quite good enough for indoors shots. and its too close in stats to the 400 5.6. whereas the 70-200 gives you a full telephoto range to complement the 400. it can be used indoors, for sports, and with the TC it becomes even more usable with the 400. a great companion. i generally walk around for birds with the 400 on my 1D and 70-200 on the 20D. for when i need a wider view.

You can understand why I need the F2.8 too...here in Pennsylvania, we don't get all that much sunlight all the time...it's probably in proportions of 1//3 sun days, 1/3 partially to cloudy days and 1/3 partial precipitation days...

I appreciate you candid and directly applicable personal experience to both lenses...great feedback for me...

johnstoy wrote in post #2132508
Thanks Juan...
Positive feedback is always appreciated, especially from a lens owner's first hand experience...

I figure the sunny climate of Spain is great for the lenses you have...I'm in cloudy and sometimes sunny Pennsylvania...

It Depends on which part of the country you are, but basically we are a sunny country. The thing about take photos from the birds, specially in flight, is that the chance to get the best shoots are many times at sun rise or sunset, and then the light is dim. I was afraid about that with the f/5.6, but there are many reports/reviews about this lens as the excelence one for birds. Anyhow I took the decission for the 300 f/4 L IS, the next natural step in my focal lenght progression.

I can tell you also that with my 350D, this lens (300 mm) it´s good enough for lets say "big birds" like storks, vultures or seaguls. But for small birds, the 400 mm it´s a must, you will need it. At least that´s is my short experience until now.

In the background is the economic question. I can not efford one of the f/2.8 lenses, at least for the moment (unless I can get one used at good price). If you can, I think I should go ....

Double Negative wrote in post #2132532
I think 400mm is way, way too long for that...

Opps, really too long

The 70-200 IS is an amazing lens. Extremely sharp and fast. It is, however, underpowered for wildlife. The 300 f4 is also a great lens, and perhaps one of the best macro lenses made. Stunning photos can be had with the 300 f4 with or without extension tubes. If your target is deer and bear, I'm thinking the 300 and 400 will suit you well. If you want the flexibility of the great 70-200 f2.8 IS, then you won't be disappointed with its performance for people shots, but again 200mm ain't usually enough for wildlife. / ~Sam

How bout this for a twist....sell the 400 and get a 70-200 and the 300....the 70-200 with a 2x tc gives you a 400 f/5.6 with IS too boot. The 300 is fantastic for macro work and general photography....it does suffer a bit in low light..but not as much as the 400 f5.6 does....the 300 also works well with a 1.4 TC...giving you a 420 f/5.6 with IS...

johnstoy wrote in post #2132756
Now, that's a good one...I was wondering about that...the 400mm should cover my long distance needs...thanks again...

As long as not have IS is not an issue, however if that were the case you should have got the 300 instead of the 400 possibly.

The 70-200/2.8 should be OK with a 1.4X from what folks say thus filling that gap as long as you can deal with the wieght of the zoom. For me its too much so I use primes in this region (100 maco and 200 2.8 ).

Woolburr wrote in post #2135489
How bout this for a twist....sell the 400 and get a 70-200 and the 300....the 70-200 with a 2x tc gives you a 400 f/5.6 with IS too boot. The 300 is fantastic for macro work and general photography....it does suffer a bit in low light..but not as much as the 400 f5.6 does....the 300 also works well with a 1.4 TC...giving you a 420 f/5.6 with IS...

Agreed if IS is essential. BTW the 300/4 also works very well with the 2X although you loose AF on the non-pro bodies. I find it quite easy to manual focus with however, but I am used to doing a lot of macro work.

Thanks to; Juan Zas, abigailandsam, Woolburr, Lester Wareham...

Your responses are greatly appreciated...This situation is unique, because I have substantial store credit at two different vendors...the one vendor doesn't have either lens in stock for a few more days...

In the mean time I could consider the 300mm lens into the equation...I am into macro photography too...However, getting all three, would be stretching my budget, and is just wishful thinking on my part...I therefore must consider the TC potential...however, to shoot small birds and get optimal IQ would more than likely be reserved for the 400mm...

There is a good chance that I will know by the end of the day, today, regarding lens availability from the one vendor...The other vendor has all the lenses in stock...So were are in great shape here...

Double Negative wrote in post #2132083
IMO, you're better off with the 70-200mm and the 400mm, skipping over the 300mm. If you needed to, you could always toss the 1.4x on the 70-200mm for 280mm f/4.

That would be my suggestion also.

rklepper wrote in post #2136154
That would be my suggestion also.

It's great, getting a vote either way...


Now, it's getting down to the wire with the order going in, possibly as early as this afternoon...I'll know what's in stock at the end of the day...however, I could always wait for the better preferrence...

I must say, getting a good L lens is optimistically exciting....