300mm f/2.8L IS II vs. 400mm f/4 DO IS II ---> price difference

[Ming-Tzu]

I've read tons of reviews comparing the two lenses. Seems there are supporters in both camps. Not here to argue over which lens is better for what purpose.

One of the common arguments with getting the 300 over the 400 DO is price:

- CPW price for 300: $5600
- CPW price for 400: $5800

The $200 difference is minimal if you're spending that much on a lens. Given that both lenses are practically on equal footing as far as price, what would people choose? Is it still a matter of picking the FL you're after? Is the IQ difference between the two (e.g. bare, 1.4x, 2x) minimal enough to where it IS really about FL?

Just curious about what people say now that the price for the 400 DO II is a lot less than retail ($6900).

 

[AlanF]

How is an authorised USA Canon dealer able to sell at such a discount?

 

[candc]

If you are wanting a bird/wildlife lens then you want at least 400. The doii is really good with extenders so I would recommend it over the 300.

 

[Ming-Tzu]

If you are wanting a bird/wildlife lens then you want at least 400. The doii is really good with extenders so I would recommend it over the 300.

I've been debating between the two lenses for a few weeks. The 300 seems more versatile for birding, indoor sports, etc. Here's my thinking:

300mm
- 300 f/2.8
- 420 f/4.0
- 600 f/5.6

400mm
- 400 f/4.0
- 560 f/5.6
- 800 f/8.0

However, if I use my current 7D, getting the 300mm amplifies everything by 1.6x. So, with the 300mm, I get a reach of 960mm @ f/5.6. Seems like 960mm is decent enough for birding, while still having the versatility of the lens without the teleconverters.

The draw of the 400mm is that it's in sale by a substantial amount at the CPW street price. Retail price is $6,900 but the street price is $5,800, which is a pretty good discount. I figure jump on that discount because the 300mm is probably not going to go on sale or refurb anytime soon.

Not sure though. Gotta think it through more.

 

[Skatol]

If you are wanting a bird/wildlife lens then you want at least 400. The doii is really good with extenders so I would recommend it over the 300.

I've been debating between the two lenses for a few weeks. The 300 seems more versatile for birding, indoor sports, etc. Here's my thinking:

300mm
- 300 f/2.8
- 420 f/4.0
- 600 f/5.6

400mm
- 400 f/4.0
- 560 f/5.6
- 800 f/8.0

However, if I use my current 7D, getting the 300mm amplifies everything by 1.6x. So, with the 300mm, I get a reach of 960mm @ f/5.6. Seems like 960mm is decent enough for birding, while still having the versatility of the lens without the teleconverters.

The draw of the 400mm is that it's in sale by a substantial amount at the CPW street price. Retail price is $6,900 but the street price is $5,800, which is a pretty good discount. I figure jump on that discount because the 300mm is probably not going to go on sale or refurb anytime soon.

Not sure though. Gotta think it through more.

I went through the same process a couple of years ago and decided on the 300. My reasoning was the minimum focusing distance, and F/5.6 with the 2X TC. At the time my camera did not have the capability to focus at F/8. I don't recall if the 7D can now auto-focus at F/8 with the last firmware update. I use the 300+2X+36mm extension tube like a macro setup quite often, not a true 1:1 obviously.
I also use it as a secondary lens to my 600 w/ 1.4TC on a second body when out shooting wildlife. The combination is easily hand hold-able for short duration's when I can't spin the 600 around quickly or quietly.
300 was also long enough for shooting from the sidelines at high school football games (American football).
I find with the 2X TC stopping down to F/11 gives me the best results, F/8 provides acceptable results, rarely ever shoot at F/5.6. Would rather bump up the ISO if possible.

 

[RBC5]

However, if I use my current 7D, getting the 300mm amplifies everything by 1.6x. So, with the 300mm, I get a reach of 960mm @ f/5.6. Seems like 960mm is decent enough for birding, while still having the versatility of the lens without the teleconverters.

The 300mm does not amplify (magnify) anything by 1.6x, nor does the camera. The only thing that can magnify an image is a longer focal length lens. A crop sensor merely cuts off field of view you would normally get with a full frame sensor. You are not getting any more reach, you are simply getting a smaller sensor area onto which the image is projected by the lens. A 300mm lens will project the same physical size image onto the sensor of a 5Ds as it will onto a cropped sensor. The only way to get more magnification with a DSLR is with more focal length.

 

[Mikehit]

However, if I use my current 7D, getting the 300mm amplifies everything by 1.6x. So, with the 300mm, I get a reach of 960mm @ f/5.6. Seems like 960mm is decent enough for birding, while still having the versatility of the lens without the teleconverters.

The 300mm does not amplify (magnify) anything by 1.6x, nor does the camera. The only thing that can magnify an image is a longer focal length lens. A crop sensor merely cuts off field of view you would normally get with a full frame sensor. You are not getting any more reach, you are simply getting a smaller sensor area onto which the image is projected by the lens. A 300mm lens will project the same physical size image onto the sensor of a 5Ds as it will onto a cropped sensor. The only way to get more magnification with a DSLR is with more focal length.

True

The traditional response to your argument is 'but the APS-C puts more pixels on the subject' - but even that is now semi-redundant with the 5DSR.

 

[RBC5]

True

The traditional response to your argument is 'but the APS-C puts more pixels on the subject' - but even that is now semi-redundant with the 5DSR.

I know, and hopefully people new to the crop sensors realize that that response is not the case. Just as there are varying pixel counts in full frame sensors, there are varying pixel counts in crop sensors, so an older crop sensor may have far fewer pixels than the 7D II. If pixel count equals magnification, then the 5Ds series can be said to be a 2x zoom over a 1Dx II, which of course is not true. Resolution does not equal focal length, but it seems like a really difficult thing for some people to grasp.

 

[Random Orbits]

It comes down to how you'll use it. If you plan on using it indoors or in low light, the f/2.8 of the 300 is the better option. If you plan on hiking with it or generally don't need f/2.8, then the 400 DO II is better. It's 0.5 lb lighter than the 300 f/2.8 IS II and that doesn't even count the weight and hassle of a 1.4x, and it gets you to a longer FL with a 2x.

 

[bholliman]

I agree, it depends on your intended use.

I considered both of these lenses last year and decided on the 300 f/2.8 II and for me it was the right choice. Pricing has changed since then, the DO II was considerably more expensive last year compared to the 300 II. Today the prices are close enough to not be a major factor in the decision.

For me, the ability to shot at f/2.8 for indoor sports and portraits was the deciding factor to go with the 300. I was doing very little wildlife or bird photography at that time, so my needs for longer reach minimal. Last winter, I started shooting eagles and other large birds and had occasional second thoughts when a longer lens would have been useful. I think I'll eventually add a 500 f/4 II for wildlife, but the 300 with extenders does an admirable job until then. It's a wonderful lens!

 

[Ming-Tzu]

Thanks for the advice everybody! After further research, I opted out of the 400 DO and got the 300L instead. For longer reach, I also purchased the 500L. So should be set there. And to add to the trifecta, I went ahead and bought the 35L, since I've been wanting that one for a while lol

 

[Click]

Congrats on your new acquisitions. 8)

 

[chauncey]

Just be sure that you micro-adjust that new puppy.

 

[RBC5]

Thanks for the advice everybody! After further research, I opted out of the 400 DO and got the 300L instead. For longer reach, I also purchased the 500L. So should be set there. And to add to the trifecta, I went ahead and bought the 35L, since I've been wanting that one for a while lol

Good job! That's a nice pair of super telephotos, and with a 1.4x III converter, you've got a great bird setup to cover all the bases. Ditto on Chauncey's advice re microadjusting.

Post some photos when you get the new gear!

 

[Act444]

I've been having the same debate for perhaps a year now...

Currently leaning towards the 300 though, especially since giving up the 7D2 a couple months ago. However, the 400 is tempting for animal shooting work...although having used the 100-400, perhaps a 500 or 600 would be ideal for that...

Choices...

 

[bholliman]

Thanks for the advice everybody! After further research, I opted out of the 400 DO and got the 300L instead. For longer reach, I also purchased the 500L. So should be set there. And to add to the trifecta, I went ahead and bought the 35L, since I've been wanting that one for a while lol

Congrats! An excellent trio of primes! I'll have to wait a year or two for my 500L, it will take me that long to convince my wife I really need it. I'm lobbying for the new 24-105 II currently...

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks for the advice everybody! After further research, I opted out of the 400 DO and got the 300L instead. For longer reach, I also purchased the 500L. So should be set there. And to add to the trifecta, I went ahead and bought the 35L, since I've been wanting that one for a while lol

Ming, on your next lens buying spree maybe you could pick up a 400 DO for me as a gift - I'd be very appreciative!

I'm mainly shooting birds and typically needing the reach although in fairness I have a lot of photos that, when cropped, are still very much praised by the average Joe who doesn't appreciate the things that CR folk do. The 300 2.8 II X2 III has served me very well and I've hiked a lot with it so weight isn't a big complaint, and it is seldom on a tripod. However, I'm now in a mood of .... not sure what to call it but, I'm getting either the 1DX II or the 5D4 soon and if it's the 5D4 then a bit of cash remains and I'd sure like the 400 DO. I think that is feasible for poor old me if I sold the 300, otherwise I can't really justify it although I'm not sure why I tend to add the words, justify it.

Wondering if anyone has thought about this camera/lens combo in the light of this thread topic. Two cameras, two lenses; what combo makes the most sense?

Jack

 

[RBC5]

Jack -

I had the first 400 DO a long time ago and I didn't like the backgrounds it gave me; really weird bokeh in many cases. I'm sure it's on this forum somewhere, but do you know if that particular quality has improved in the new model?

Anyway, I sold that and got the 300 2.8 and the 500/4, and I am really happy with that combo. After shooting many birds, especially in flight, I would much rather have a 500/4 rather than a 400/4. And if 500 ever happens to be too much, I always have the option of 420/4 with the teleconverter.

Also, in the majority of cases, the simple fact that a lens exists justifies it purchase.

-Jeff

 

[Jane]

The 400DO II is much improved over the original version. Makes a great birding set up combined with a 2x III and 1DXII. Not very heavy; great performance.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Thanks for the advice everybody! After further research, I opted out of the 400 DO and got the 300L instead. For longer reach, I also purchased the 500L. So should be set there. And to add to the trifecta, I went ahead and bought the 35L, since I've been wanting that one for a while lol

I have the same two big lenses, plus the 100-400L II. Currently the 300 is not getting much use - if I want maximum power I take the 500, and if I want portability and versatility I take the 100-400. The 300 gets kind of squeezed out.

There are situations where the 300/2.8 is perfect, and paired with the 2x III it did a great job for the three years I owned it before getting the 500. It's also a bit lighter of course which could sometimes be a factor. Overall though, I think the 500 and 100-400 will continue to be used much more.

An interesting question for me is what would I do if I had to cut all that down to one lens, with as much reach and image quality as possible but without the size of the 500? The 400 DO II would have to be a very strong contender. I'd lose the close up capability of the 100-400, but as a fairly light long lens it looks superb.