400 mm f5.6 non-IS / 300 mm f4 IS with extender 1.4 III or waiting?

[MrFotoFool]

For years I used the 300 f4 (non-IS that I got used cheap) and 1.4x ii extender.  Very sharp with or without and I have no hesitation recommending it.  I have seen online that the IS version of the 300 f4 is not quite as sharp as the older non-IS that I had, but I think the difference is too small to notice in real life usage.  I even used the lens with the 2x ii for awhile, though of course it was manual focus only.  Got perfectly acceptable results with that and with the 1.4x outstanding results.  Two main advantages to this (over 400 5.6) is ability to use a larger aperture (300 f4) and much closer focus.

The only reason I sold my 300 f4 is I needed a zoom so I got the 70-200 2.8 to use with 1.4x extender.  (Well first I got a Sigma 100-300 f4, but then the autofocus broke and Sigma said it was too old to fix...)

[g-spot]

Thanks for the replies so far! 

.. so the Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM could do a better job (with the sigma extender 1.4) as it is a 2.8.. even better than Canon primes (with ext)?


Gert.

[Lurker]

For your budget you could get a 70-200 f/2.8L II and a 2x iii.

I've only used this combo a couple of times.  IQ is very good and it has IS.  Some say AF is slow and I think I noticed this too and it hunted some.  This could have been due to low contrast sceen (water, snow, or ice) and hand holding.   Balance is a bit off I thought and I had some issues with the controls due to heavy gloves in cold weather.   This was not an issue with the 100-400 due to push pull design or the 400 which has no zooming.

[wickidwombat]

300 f4L IS can be had pretty cheap used
I snapped mine up off ebay for $800

[g-spot]

well, my budget is limited to max $3000, and for that I can have the following:
- Canon 300mm IS L with converter 1,4 III + 70-300mm IS non L
OR
- Canon 400mm non IS L + 70-300mm IS II L
OR
- Sigma 120-300mm 2,8 + convertor 1,4 from Sigma.

Shall I launch a poll to see who chooses what? 

G.

[tron]

I would choose Canon 400mm non IS L + 70-300mm IS II L BUT:

It seems you are using now 100-400 with 50D.

I do not think the improvement will be 3000$ worth and you will be carrying more lenses for the same job!

[g-spot]

Well one can fit on my 5OD and the other on my 500D..  It's good to have a zoom and a prime ready for the flying action.

However your remark is true, for that price.. that was my initial worry: will the budget give me better IQ results? It is important for me as I love heavy cropping for close-ups..

[bluenoser1993]

Looking at the ISO 12233 charts I definately would not buy the Sigma at that price.  The Sigma with no converter still isn't as good as 70-200 2.8 II IS L with 2XIII converter attached.  I use the latter combination on a 7D and like it a lot.  I will admit that my primary use isn't at 400, and that was why I went the way I did, but when the reach is needed it meets my needs. 

[g-spot]

SO the 70-200 f2,8 IS L gives better results, even with a 2x convertor? Better than a 400mm L non is or 100-400mm L IS?

Ofcourse for the price of the 70-200mm 2,8 with convertor, one can buy two good lenses; 70-300 IS L + 400 5,6 L..


G.

[Random Orbits]

SO the 70-200 f2,8 IS L gives better results, even with a 2x convertor? Better than a 400mm L non is or 100-400mm L IS?

Ofcourse for the price of the 70-200mm 2,8 with convertor, one can buy two good lenses; 70-300 IS L + 400 5,6 L..


G.

70-200 IS II gives similar results compared to 100-400 but might have slower AF.  The 400 5.6 is better IQ wise than either 70-200 IS II or 100-400 but it doesn't have IS.

[tron]

Unfortunately Canon has ignored that focal length (and price, size and weight) range. Both 100-400 and 400/5.6L are very old and would benefit from upgrade (but not so for our wallets  ...)

[Random Orbits]

Unfortunately Canon has ignored that focal length (and price, size and weight) range. Both 100-400 and 400/5.6L are very old and would benefit from upgrade (but not so for our wallets  ...)

So true, but they're giving you time to fatten your wallet, so that they can pillage more of it.

[AlanF]

The best value for money is the Sigma Tele Macro 400mm f/5.6, with or without HSM. Photozone.de have measured its mtf and found it is much sharper than the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L. I bought one on eBay for £150 in pristine condition and found that is indeed far better than the Canon. Some will autofocus only wide open at f/5.6. But that is not serious as it is very sharp wide open and a non-IS lens is usually used hand held at the highest speeds. My one does focus stopped down but it is hardly sharper at f/8. OK, it is doesn't focus as fast as the Canon. But, it costs less than an extender and gives a fantastic image. THey turn up frequently on eBay, but don't buy the 400mms that are not Tele Macro.

[g-spot]

Thanks for the useful replies guys, I think a combi of both the 70-300mm L IS + 400mm 5.6 L will be the final decision, so .. now eagerly awaiting some bonus news, in case I don't get a nice one, I will have to go cold turkey.. 

Gert.

[tron]

Some will autofocus only wide open at f/5.6.

Quite an indication that they are not really value for money as there are already incompatibility issues. By the time next generation canon cameras are introduced they may not even function fully open...
True some models work as you said but the future is unknown. Someone would have to find a truly cheap - and working - lens to take this risk...
Now, for Sigma fanatics I have a wonderful 14mm f/3/5 which works only wide open! In addition it serves as a nice paperweight... (there is no additional charge for that    )