300 f4? 400 f5.6?

This lens is for Bird/Wildlife photography. (with some outdoor sports)

OK, so this is a variation on the common 100-400 vs 400 5.6 arguement. I have completely ruled out the 100-400 and was going to get the 400/5.6 until i noticed that the 300/4 was in my price range also(and had IS).

So I have four questions:

#1 Which is better overall for the above uses?

#2 Would the 300/4 have as good IQ with a canon TC than a 400/5.6?

#3 Would the 300/4 still retain its AF with a canon TC on a non-pro body?

#4 Which do you think I should get?

Thanks,
BB

I have been going through this same question, here is what i can come up with.

1- The 400mm is primarily a birding lens, the 300mm can double up as a sort of marco, and general long prime lens. As your username is BirdBoy i am going to assume this is the primary use, and for that reason i say that the 400mm would be the better choice here.

2- According to what i read the IQ is not as good when the TC (1.4x) is attached, drops slightly but still lots of people use this combo.

3- It will retain auto focus with a 1.4x converter.

4- Depends on your usage, 400mm 5.6 if its going to be for birding almost exclusively, if you need something a bit more versatile then the 300mm will be the better option.

I am going to go with the 400mm 5.6 because my primary use if birding, and as always gets said in here "Alway go for the longer glasss even if its slower for birding". I have never used an IS lens so far, i am sure it would be useful, but i want to go for a focal length as long as i can.

I am also going to get the 1.4x conveter for it, it might auto focus with the pin taping trick, if not i would have to manual focus, but its the cheapest way i know to get to 560, and apparently it drops very little in IQ.

Hope this helps a little bit with your decision.

I have both these lenses and use thwm both together on different bodies.

First your questions.

#1 Which is better overall for the above uses?

a. For birds in flight the f/5.6 hands down, it has the range not to need a 1.4X and it's focus speed and IQ is unsurpassed.

#2 Would the 300/4 have as good IQ with a canon TC than a 400/5.6?
a. No

#3 Would the 300/4 still retain its AF with a canon TC on a non-pro body?

a. Yes but your AF will be noticably slower but IQ is retained.

#4 Which do you think I should get?

a. Both

I keep my f/5.6 on my 1D MKIII and my 300 f/4 on my 5D MKII, once you get used to tracking BIFs with the MKIII and 400 f/5.6 it is a stunning combo in good light.

I use the 300 f/4 on my 5D MKII for wider shots and without the 1.4X and on the 5D MKII the results are stunning but you only have 3.9 FPS compared to the MKIII 10 FPS but the f/4 shines on the 5D MKII and at 21 MP you can crop to your hearts content. it is also a semi macro with IS and can focus down to 3 feet or less with Macro rings whereas the 400 needs at least 11 feet to focus.

Both are my favorite lenses apart from my trusty 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4X which lives on a 30D body and that lens loses no AF speed or IQ with the 1.4X attached. Stick a Thrifty 50 in your pocket and a monopod and you can disappear into the bush for days.

I've owned both and sold both...

#1 Which is better overall for the above uses? As a birding lens the 400 f5.6 probably has the edge, the AF speed make it ideal for flight shots. However the significantly closer focus of the 300 f4 make it better for close up work and also for butterlfies/dragonflie​s.

#2 Would the 300/4 have as good IQ with a canon TC than a 400/5.6? no not quite, but there really isn't much in it.

#3 Would the 300/4 still retain its AF with a canon TC on a non-pro body? Yes it does but the AF slows down a bit.

#4 Which do you think I should get? As a pure birding lens the 400 f5.6, as an all round wildlife lens the 300 f4 (with a 1.4x)...

Both have advantages and disadvantages, both are excellent and both can deliver outstanding results.

I think you should rent each one first ( lensrentals.com ) and see for yourself. I rented the 100-400 and the 400 and went with the 400. My G/F has the 300, while I'm using a tripod all the time She is hand holding Her shots. Sometimes Her's look better and sometimes Mine do...you just have to see what works for you...

[QUOTE=rupek;8450741]I have been going through this same question, here is what i can come up with.

1- The 400mm is primarily a birding lens, the 300mm can double up as a sort of marco, and general long prime lens. As your username is BirdBoy i am going to assume this is the primary use, and for that reason i say that the 400mm would be the better choice here.

2- According to what i read the IQ is not as good when the TC (1.4x) is attached, drops slightly but still lots of people use this combo.

3- It will retain auto focus with a 1.4x converter.

4- Depends on your usage, 400mm 5.6 if its going to be for birding almost exclusively, if you need something a bit more versatile then the 300mm will be the better option.quote]

perfect answer!

I went through the samething a few months back, except I was looking at the sigma 150-500 also. After trying them all, the 400 5.6L was the clear winner. The sigma had the plus of a zoom and IS but after that it got smoked in AF speed and IQ. Between the 300 and 400 it was a close call. The 300 had the advantage of IS and ability to shoot at F4, however I was buying the lens for wildlife and I knew a 1.4x would be living on it most of the time if I got it. The 400 beat them all in AF speed and IQ, although the the 300 was close, and the 400mm was native 400 without the use of a TC which is what I was looking for in the first place.

I ended up getting a used 400 in like new condition and haven't looked back since. I love everything about the lens and I used handheld with no problems 95% of the time. I have thought about adding a monopod to my collection for lower light conditions but thats about the only thing I would change.

Note that I didn't need the closer focusing of the 300 as I have my 70-200 mounted to a second body. 400 on one body and 70-200 on another makes for a painless wildlife setup.

#1 Which is better overall for the above uses?
400mm

#2 Would the 300/4 have as good IQ with a canon TC than a 400/5.6?
No

#3 Would the 300/4 still retain its AF with a canon TC on a non-pro body?
Yes, but AF speed and IQ are reduced

#4 Which do you think I should get?
400mm

Yes, 400/5.6.

In a pinch the 100-400 isn't bad as a birding lens. I also use the 300 f/4 IS with 1.4 converter but as noted it isn't the best for birds in flight. Saving up for the 400 F5.6 as a birding lens (birds in flight).

Birding, more reach so between the two, 400mm f5.6. And it has better quality and AF. Want to shoot close by subjects, get set of 3 kenko extension tubes.

Go for the 400. Fast focus, build quality, IQ are great. It takes a TC well and is light for a supertele.

What about a 300mm f/2.8 IS that will focus very fast with and without a 1.4x and image quality is outstanding!

The f/2.8 also costs about $3000 more and is much more heavier....

butterfly2937 wrote in post #8456132
What about a 300mm f/2.8 IS that will focus very fast with and without a 1.4x and image quality is outstanding!

Not much difference between the AF speed when you put 1.4xTC on the 300mm f2.8 IS. And picture quality is quite similar as 400mm f5.6 is very sharp wide open at f5.6.

Now if one had 300mm f2.8 IS then I owuld say go use 1.4xTC on it than buy 400mm f5.6. Otherwise 400mm f5.6 all the way unless you need IS.

BTW - I say this as a 300mm f2.8 IS owner who used 100-400L and 400mm f5.6 for a long time before moving to 500mm f4 IS.