300 F2.8L IS II+1,4X or 400 DO 4 IS II

[AdamBotond]

So yet another dilemma. My current 400 5.6 has been decent for me for a while. This is my go to lens when it comes to wildlife photography, which is my main interest. 400mm is the golden mean for that purpose imo. Gaining an extra stop of light and 4 stops of IS are more than attractive, as well.

So my question is: If 400 mm is the one you mostly use then would you go with the 300 2.8 II+1,4x or the 400 DO 4 II natively?

300 with both 1,4x and 2x converters is surely more versatile, but the 400mm focal length being crucial for me I might give the nod to the 400 DO II, which is still charming with 1,4x and OK with the 2x converters, respectively.
Any inputs would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[AlanF]

Re: 300 F2.8L IS II+1,4X or 400 DO 4 IS III

I got tremendous usage and results from a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC (or 1.4x) on first a 7D and then better still on 5DIII, and highly recommend it. But, I eventually joined a small group here and purchased the 400mm DO II, which I used with a 2xTC on a 5DIV and 1.4xTC on a 5DSR or bare on both. The 300mm II is no longer used by me, and I really should sell it. I like the 100-400m II very much, and use it a lot.

 

[dslrdummy]

Like you my go to lens was a 400 f/5.6 before I bought the 300 f/2.8ii. The 300 is great with the 1.4tc and if you really need the extra length then it can handle the 2.0tc, although it takes a noticeable hit in sharpness. I don't own the 400 DO but like Alan I do have the 100-400ii which in reasonable light is a great lense. You haven't mentioned what sort of wildlife photography you prefer but for me I need the f/2.8 which is the biggest advantage of the 300. Good luck with your choice.

 

[AlanF]

If you need f/2.8 of the 300mm for low light situations for higher shutter speed, you can use the same shutter speed of the f/4 400mm with similar signal to noise by going up in iso. You can use the f/4 400 at 1 ev more iso than the 300mm at f/2.8 and then downsize the image to 300mm size. It might seem a crazy idea at first sight because you naturally think that higher iso means more noise. But there is good logic behind it. Basically, the 400mm f/4 and the 300mm f/2.8 have very similarly sized front lenses and let in very similar amounts of light. The 400mm spreads it out over a larger area of the image. Downsizing the image improves the signal/noise and nearly cancels out the iso noise.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Been through this one myself a lot: and because I can already get out to (more or less) 600mm with my 100-400mm Mk II and a 1.4x, I'm very clear in my own mind that it makes most sense to take the choice that gives me more FL, so I'm looking out for a 400mm f/4 DO Mk II at the moment.

I'm routinely well into four-figure ISOs anyway with my 7D Mk II/100-400mm/1.4x combo (and with Photo Ninja as my converter, it hardly matters) so although I occasionally miss the DoF options available from f/2.8 (I've used a Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS for years - sometimes on its own, often with 1.4x or 2x TCs), (portable) reach is usually the most important thing for me, so 400mm DO it is...

 

[candc]

the doii is great with or without converters so i don't see it as being any more or less "versatile" than the 300. primes by nature are not designed to be. if most of your shooting is at a certain fl then get that prime. if versatility is the most important thing then look at a zoom.

i do a lot of wildlife/bird shooting and have the sigma 120-300 sport, 400doii, 600ii, tamron 150-600, and sigma 80-400. my most used by far is the doii. if had to keep one of the above regardless of price it would be the doii without question

 

[Grant Atkinson]

Both the EF 300L f2.8 IS ii and the EF 400 f4 DO IS ii are really good wildlife lenses and I am lucky that I get to use both of them, but if I was going to have to use the EF 300L f2.8 IS ii with a 1.4x extender most of the time, then the 400 f4 DO IS ii becomes a better choice. I used to own the EF 300L f2.8 IS and I now do own the EF 400 f4 DO IS ii and have no regrets. For my use it focuses faster and more accurately, gives better image quality wide-open, is lighter, significantly shorter and more manageable than the EF 300L f2.8 IS ii with 1.4x extender attached. If 300mm is enough focal length, then I would rather go with the bare EF 300 f2.8 IS ii.
Good comments from Candc and AlanF.
Both are great lenses

 

[bholliman]

If 400 mm is the one you mostly use, then would you go with the 300 2.8 II+1,4x or the 400 DO 4 II natively?

Some excellent advice from expert users in this thread!

If you are looking for 400mm (and don't need f/2.8 ), the 400 DO II is my recommendation as well. You didn't mention if you needed to use focal lengths longer than 400mm at times, but a 400mm native lens allows you to achieve 560mm and 800mm with extenders, while a 300 limits you to 600 at the long end.

Personally, I have no experience with the 400 DO II, but I own a 300mm f/2.8 II that has been my only long lens for several years. When I first purchased the 300mm several years ago my primary use was our oldest sons high school sporting events (swimming, golf, wrestling) and some portraiture. I needed the fast aperture for the dark indoor sports events. And the 300 was the best choice considering the focal length and aperture at that time.

Fast forward 3 years, and our son just graduated from high school and he isn't continuing any sports. We have younger children, but none of them has any interest at this time in sports. Also, during the past 18 months I've become interested in wildlife and bird photography. I quickly found that 300mm on a full frame body isn't enough reach for birds and wildlife and 1.4x and 2.0x extenders became almost permanent attachments to my 300.

I decided a few months ago to acquire a longer lens, 400mm+ for wildlife photography. Since I plan to keep my 300 f/2.8, I'm looking to add a 500 f/4 II instead of a 400 DO II since those two focal lengths will complement each other better giving me 300mm up to 1,000mm in different combinations with extenders. If I wasn't going to keep the 300, I would go with a 400 DO II.

 

[Mikehit]

You clearly need 400mm so I would say go straight away for the 400DOii. The 300mm f2.8 is a beautiful lens and if my interest was mainly field sports I would probably have gone the wide aperture and limited DOF of the 300mm (that and the beautiful bokeh) .

But with smaller wildlife in the UK (don't see many moose in these parts!) the attraction of going to 800mm was too much to resist. The 400mm DO is also slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the 300 f2.8 so that is not an issue and in UK it costs about 10% more for the 400mm. You seem to be talking about 300mm with a 1.4x permanently attached - much as I went though the same thinking, my final answer was 'why bother'?

 

[AdamBotond]

Thanks for all the great inputs and suggestions! As 400mm is the least I need for my wildlife photography in general (mammals mostly), I think its reasonable to go with the DO II natively, while still being able to extend it to either 560 or 800. Your comments are much appreciated!

 

[Jack Douglas]

Can't add much except to say for birding my 300 virtually never had the 1.4X attached, always 2X. 420 typically wasn't enough and I only rarely used 300 bare, often for close-ups with extension tubes. It's better close focus than the DO II and that annoys me now that I'm using the 400. I find 400 X1.4 to be the equal at least of the 300 X2, with better AF and 800 is very nice to have. Like Alan my 300 sits and should be sold.

Jack