Ready for a prime

Ok, my mint 100-400 iS is being sold and I love it dearly, however I need a Real sharp, fast focusing, light weight lens for mainly birds, without investing a price of a used car in it.
It came down to two options for me, both below $1500- and both are light and sharp, and both have their advantage and disadvantage over the other and here is where your experience comes in, (if any). So we came down to these two fellows:

EF 300mm f/4.0L IS Is USM - or - EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM

I performed an extensive research on both and cannot decide. I know the trombone is a zoom, but also planning to re-buy my 70-200 f/4 L in the near future, so Air shows, and model shoots are covered with that. Any word / input is appreciated.

John

For mainly birds, you need reach, no doubt about it. I've seen samples of the 300L and it's an amazing lens, but the 400 5.6L is prefered for many birders and I love mine as well.

Some will probably suggest the 300 f/4 plus a 1.4TC. They would argue that would net you nearly the same end result as the 400 f/5.6.( And then it would give you a nice 300 for those times when you don't need the reach ). That is quite possibly true, however I have heard that the TC on the 300 slows the AF speed noticibly. Maybe someone can weigh in on that point. I know the AF on my 400 5.6 is very quick.....so I will say that I really do enjoy using it.....if.....I have enough light.....

regards, george w

For birds - 400 5.6L, hands down, absolutely no question about it. For many other things the 300 might be the better choice, but for birds there is no contest.

....there 'ya go....Perry thus spoke !

BTW Perry....where's the shots from the new one series

george w

perryge wrote in post #7100768
For birds - 400 5.6L, hands down, absolutely no question about it. For many other things the 300 might be the better choice, but for birds there is no contest.

Agreed

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

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

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

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

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

george m w wrote in post #7100779
....there 'ya go....Perry thus spoke !

BTW Perry....where's the shots from the new one series

george w

Here's one: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=7099182&pos​tcount=405

As for the 400 5.6L, here's some recent stuff:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=619403

george m w wrote in post #7100751
Some will probably suggest the 300 f/4 plus a 1.4TC. They would argue that would net you nearly the same end result as the 400 f/5.6.( And then it would give you a nice 300 for those times when you don't need the reach ). That is quite possibly true, however I have heard that the TC on the 300 slows the AF speed noticibly. Maybe someone can weigh in on that point. I know the AF on my 400 5.6 is very quick.....so I will say that I really do enjoy using it.....if.....I have enough light.....

regards, george w

My copy of the 300 4IS with the 1.4x is a killer combo (for me) and I don't notice any fall off in focus speed -though technically there must be some impact, especially in more challenging shooting environments.

Check the Imatest resolution charts at Photozone. They have one for the 300 with 1.4. I can't recall what the difference is between 300/1.4 and 400 naked.

If you're sure you'll always be at 400, the experienced hands here say get the 400. I haven't shot the 400, but I keep hearing good things about it.

The thing I like about my setup is I can have 300@F4 or 420@f5.6, and sometimes 420 is just too tight.

Get the 400 5.6

george m w wrote in post #7100751
Some will probably suggest the 300 f/4 plus a 1.4TC. They would argue that would net you nearly the same end result as the 400 f/5.6.( And then it would give you a nice 300 for those times when you don't need the reach ). That is quite possibly true, however I have heard that the TC on the 300 slows the AF speed noticibly. Maybe someone can weigh in on that point. I know the AF on my 400 5.6 is very quick.....so I will say that I really do enjoy using it.....if.....I have enough light.....

regards, george w

Having owned both, and 2 or 3 copies of the 400mm actually, I would agree with this. The AF does slow and IQ dips but the combo is still very nice and certainly usable. It's a very common query about which to get. An advantage downstream is if you get a 1D series body then the 400mm will take a 1.4x very well ... you can get SH pro bodies at good prices and add a monopod and you have good length and quality for birds. A 70-200mm will pick up shorter range needs. In fact, a 70-200 IS or 70-300mm IS and 400mm has been my favoured safari combo using two bodies.

I think you've got wanderlust. It would seem that you've got the perfect lens right now.

Thanks guys, I find myself using the 100-400 @ 400mm most of the time and the zoom lens is sometimes convenient, but I need that IQ, sharpness and the lighter weight, especially cause I don't use tripod or mono-pod much. Understand the 300 f/4L has twice the magnification too, even tho it's not a macro lens, this comes handy when taking shots of small things like flowers, butterflies, etc.

Janika wrote in post #7102526
...especially cause I don't use tripod or mono-pod much....

The 300/4 has IS (as did your 100-400).

The 400/5.6 doesn't.

It's going to be very hard to handhold sharp shots with a 400mm lens that lacks IS on a 30D cropper. Plan on using 1/600 and faster shutter speed.

Or start using a monopod and tripod a lot more.

Thanks Alan, I might have to start using a mono pod, even with the iS sometimes helps and easier to carry around than a tripod. Many birders go thru dense bush n mud.

I went for the 300mm and 1.4x TC.
IQ is excellent as a 300 and is certainly good with the TC. But I do find that the AF is noticeably slower with the TC fitted. As I'm not into birding and wildlife then it doesn't really matter and the solution works fine for me.
But if you really do want 400mm more often then 300mm then I think the choice is obvious... go for the 400