Which is the best?

[Q8-MC]

I just compared between Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM and Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM and I saw no difference between them. Could you guys tell me if there is a different or not?

 

[Menace]

Both are some of the best lenses one can get. Do you mean difference in IQ between them?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 400 II is best...if you need a 400mm lens. If you need a 300mm lens, the 300 II is best. If you need a 50mm lens, they both suck.

 

[Q8-MC]

Both are some of the best lenses one can get. Do you mean difference in IQ between them?

I mean difference between them in everything

 

[Q8-MC]

The 400 II is best...if you need a 400mm lens. If you need a 300mm lens, the 300 II is best. If you need a 50mm lens, they both suck.

If both of them are best. Why they (Canon Company) put a high price between them.

 

[expatinasia]

The 400 II is best...if you need a 400mm lens. If you need a 300mm lens, the 300 II is best. If you need a 50mm lens, they both suck.

neuro's in top form lately!

Q8-MC - Your question makes no sense. There is 100mm difference, and that grows when you start to use TCs. What do you want to shoot, why and what is your budget?

 

[Q8-MC]

The 400 II is best...if you need a 400mm lens. If you need a 300mm lens, the 300 II is best. If you need a 50mm lens, they both suck.

neuro's in top form lately!

Q8-MC - Your question makes no sense. There is 100mm difference, and that grows when you start to use TCs. What do you want to shoot, why and what is your budget?

I want to shoot wildlife and I have around $10000

 

[neuroanatomist]

If both of them are best. Why they (Canon Company) put a high price between them.

Who knows? Canon decided to make the 400 II over 3 lbs. heavier than the 300 II as well. I guess they felt like putting bigger glass and more titanium in the 400. Silly Canon.

 

[jdramirez]

The 400 II is best...if you need a 400mm lens. If you need a 300mm lens, the 300 II is best. If you need a 50mm lens, they both suck.

Funny.

If I were to throw in my two cents... get the 300 and crop... I historically prefer to be wider than my subject and then crop in and do my composition that way... but I know you tend to lose a bit of the effect...

 

[Canon-F1]

I want to shoot wildlife and I have around $10000

well if you ask such questions and have so much money to spend.... at least get a good book about photography too.... :

a book that explains focal length and such basic stuff...

 

[Q8-MC]

I want to shoot wildlife and I have around $10000

well if you ask such questions and have so much money to spend.... at least get a good book about photography too.... :

a book that explains focal length and such basic stuff...

Thanks for the advice. what's your recommend?

 

[tarpon6]

I want to shoot wildlife and I have around $10000

Then the 500mm f/4 is best.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I want to shoot wildlife and I have around $10000

Then the 500mm f/4 is best.

+1

 

[Click]

I want to shoot wildlife and I have around $10000

Then the 500mm f/4 is best.

I agree with you.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Wildlife is a pretty general term. For birds, even 800mm is often not enough.

As others noted, the 500mm f/4 is considered to be the best all around wildlife camera, and its light enough to take it out without needing a porter to carry the lens and tripod.

 

[CanNotYet]

Another way to go is to get the 400/2.8 and some TCs. 800/5.6 is then available to you for much less money.

 

[docholliday]

Nah, here's a wildlife lens:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/13/carl-zeiss-creates-over-five-foot-long-telephoto-lens/

just need a Rover or Jeep as a tripod to with it!

 

[jdramirez]

Wildlife is a pretty general term.

That's true... it could also pertain to the Kappa Alpha Gamma girls who live across the street. If that is the case, get the 500mm.

 

[crasher8]

They are only good for photographing books at a distance. Otherwise get a Nikon.

 

[bycostello]

unless you take pictures of targets you won't...