300/4?

I am thinking about the 300/4 versus the 400/5.6, i know its been asked before. If i was to use a tc on the 300 would the quility take much of a hit? + it has IS. (WILDLIFE/BIRD)

EDIT
I forgot to mention that most of the time i would like to handhold since i hike a lot. Is the 400/5.6 fairly easy to handhold?

-BB

I do not think the IQ takes much if a hit. What takes the largest drop is AF speed and that is a major part of a birding lens. The 300f4 has older IS that is only good for 1.5 stops. Although this nice it will more than likey be improved on in the future. Not to mention I have not found IS very useful with birds. You most often need a faster SS to freeze them and that makes the IS useless.
For birding would go 400. Never buy a lens knowing it will have a TC on it most times. Especially if the other longer one is the same price.

BirdBoy wrote in post #9205291
I am thinking about the 300/4 versus the 400/5.6, i know its been asked before. If i was to use a tc on the 300 would the quility take much of a hit? + it has IS. (WILDLIFE/BIRD)

I think you find the 400mm f5.6 is the lens of choice for birding and wildlife.

I agree with midnight rider. I was very happy with the quality of my 300/4 + 1.4 TC. However, for birds, I always had the TC on. The lens was the right choice for me because birding was only a secondary use for the lens. I would go with the longer 400 5.6 if wildlife and birds are your main focus.

The IS on the 300 F4L is useful for wildlife/birds that don't move much or too dramatically. I've gotten very nice shots in low light of herons, ducks, geese, cormorants, etc that are not feasible with the 400 f/5.6L. You could also get nice shots of turtles, rabbits, squirrels, and similar.

As m_r noted, the biggest difference you will see is in the AF speed with the 1.4x TC - the quality is still quite good, though it improves if you stop down a bit.

If your primary area of interest is smaller birds or birds in flight, the 400 5.6L is the lens to get - it's probably the best birds in flight lens in the world, from any manufacturer.

I have both and I find that I do not use the IS on the 300 often anymore; it gets in my way, plus the IS is not tripod friendly. The 400 is sharp wide open. Don't know what kind of camera you have but if it's a 1 series, you can add the 1.4 for 560mm and still autofocus and still be sharp wide open. As mention it's brilliant for BIFs; did all my Osprey Bifs with it. I was a bit concerned when I was about to purchase the 400 (no IS) but quickly got over it and I've never looked back. Although I have the 500 f4 now, the 400 5.6 sits on the other camera body connected to an R strap and it is my side arm now. It took the place of the 300. I use the 300 for the backyard birds with my perches for close up shots as it focuses within 5 ft.

Don't believe the 300mm f4 plus the extender has a similar IQ to the 400mm 5.6. The straight 400mm will have better IQ. If you're perfectly happy with a 300mm focal length, and once in a great while need some extra reach, get the 300mm f4. Its a great lens. If you figure you'll be wanting to mainly shoot at 400mm, then by all means get the 400mm 5.6.

From what I gather the 300 has better IQ at f4 than the 400 does at 5.6 but then again, the 400 does give you more reach. With a TC it might be close but I have no direct experience with either lens.

I'm thinking of buying the 300 for event photography. I won't be using a TC, normally, so getting extra reach is not part of my decision process.

From my experience the 400 is sharper wide open than the 300 but it could be anything that makes the difference. If you are comfortable with the native 300mm length and on occasion use the 1.4, believe me, you will be happy; if focuses within 5', has IS and takes a 1.4 well. It was my 1st long birding lens. Go to the lens sample forum and check out the photos. Bohdank you will love it for event photography. The pictures I took of my daughter are breath taking and the bokeh was really nice.

Thanks..... I've seen quite a few good samples from the 300 and I'm sure I would be satisfied with the IQ. Fortunately I can wait till the spring to make a decision on the 300. I could use it but, based on past experience, I am not convinced that I would use it often enough to drag it around everywhere, let alone buy it, just in case I can use it.

My bag is already over 17 lb's and it does get to be a nuisance when dragging it around all day.

I think if a great deal comes along I may just buy it on a whim, without fully convincing myself it is something I really need/want.

It can serve double duty for flowers etc, especially with extension rings but I sound like I am looking for a way to justify purchasing it

Earlier I said "Don't believe the 300mm f4 has a similar IQ to the 400mm 5.6. The straight 400mm will have better IQ." I meant to say "Don't believe the 300mm f4 plus the extender has a similar IQ to the 400mm 5.6. The straight 400mm will have better IQ." I made the correction. Without extenders, these lenses have very similar excellent IQ. Sorry for the error.

I used it for flower shots without extension tubes and it worked superb. If you want to see some check out my zenfolio site

bohdank wrote in post #9208079
...It can serve double duty for flowers etc, especially with extension rings but I sound like I am looking for a way to justify purchasing it

I agree with what's been said. I use the 1.4x on my 300 about 1/3 of the time. If I think the subject is going to be moving much, I prefer to keep the 1.4x off (the slower auto focus is real). When I pixel peep, I can't seem to find any loss of sharpness in my images with the 1.4x on. If I was doing primarily birds, I would have gone for the 400, but for me, I liked the flexibility of the 300. I'm 50/50 using the IS. I'm glad I have it when I need it (low light/stationary subjects) and it is a simple matter of turning it off when I don't (tripod/moving targets).

I've been playing with my 75-300 @ 300mm with 1.4 kenko TC (IQ isnt great of course) - So have been hankering after one of these primes. Before tinkering I'd have said 300 easily because of IS, but now I realise I can cope without IS, I'd go for the longer FL of 400mm I think (and have the option to go to 560mm with TC).

I reckon renting at least one of them first though.

You can't go wrong with the 300mm. If you need one...let me know =]