- Status
I would think much would depend on how important IS is to you. Under perfect conditions i would very much imagine the 400mm would have better IQ, and I would think better AF action. Those perfect conditions are usually hard to come by, for me at least. But the 300 combo has IS(this could mean the ability to use a stop or 2 lower ISO when compared to the nonIS 400mm), better close focusing performance, and with the 1.4 it's like 2 lenses. Also the 1.4 could live on with you with other lenses in the future, even if sometime down the road you decide the 300mm isn't for you any longer.
Upvote
0
2 years ago I was facing the same decision. But after trying both at my local Canon dealer in a mall with not so great lighting conditions I realized how important the extra stop (which you are offsetting by adding a TC) and the IS are.
Have been happy with the 300 F4L but still bought a used 400L last year...
Have been happy with the 300 F4L but still bought a used 400L last year...
Upvote
0
IIIHobbs said:
risc32 said:
You don't mention what bodies you'll be running this glass with. But you do say that you'd like to increase your reach occasionally. The +1.4III is going to be a lot lighter on your wallet and a lot lighter in your bag. I had a 300 f/4is which I occasionally used with the +1.4II and from memory the results were perfectly fine. Mind you, I had a stellar copy of the 300 f/4is which I'm sure helped.
Why don't you get the +1.4III and see how you go. If you find that 400 (420mm actually) is a focal length that fits your shooting style and f/5.6 just isn't cutting it, that may be the time to take a deep breath and go for a real 400, the 400 f/2.8is. I would expect reasonable numbers of 400 f/2.8is glass to be finding it's way onto the second hand market as sports and some wildlife/bird shooters trade up to the new 2kg lighter 400 f/2.8II.
A pre-owned 400 f/2.8is is a risk free purchase. If you find you're not using it, re-sell and you'll be unlikely to lose a penny on the deal.
Paul Wright
Upvote
0
T
TMan
Guest
From your statement above, it seems that the 400mm focal range will be used on odd occassions. The 300mm plus an extender gives you an option of either 300mm at f/4 or 420mm at f/5.6. And this option is a lot cheaper.IIIHobbs said:
What do you intend taking photos of -- wildlife, BIFs?
Upvote
0
The 1.4x slows down the AF.
The change is noticeable.
If you are looking to take action pictures with the 300 and a 1.4x TC, you may not like it.
Interestingly enough, using "seat of the pants" observation, the 7D seems to drive a 300 f4/IS + 1.4x TC faster than a 1D4.
Focus was aimed at the same spot ~15' away, lens focus range was 1.5m - infinity, lens was spun to the far macro range manually each time. "Back button" AF used.
The difference isn't huge, but it is there.
The change is noticeable.
If you are looking to take action pictures with the 300 and a 1.4x TC, you may not like it.
Interestingly enough, using "seat of the pants" observation, the 7D seems to drive a 300 f4/IS + 1.4x TC faster than a 1D4.
Focus was aimed at the same spot ~15' away, lens focus range was 1.5m - infinity, lens was spun to the far macro range manually each time. "Back button" AF used.
The difference isn't huge, but it is there.
Upvote
0
I
IIIHobbs
Guest
I am using a 5dIII
The intended use is outdoor daytime sports, so the comments about AF speed are helpful. However, having 420 5.6 in the bag with me for whenever I might need it is the winning comment.
I doubt very much that I would ever opt for the 400 2.8 for the frequency I need the focal length, but I may consider a 200-400 f4 zoom. It's not the money as much as the need and frequency of use. I have purchased a number of lenses through the years only to sell them, not for poor results, but because they are rarely on my camera.
The intended use is outdoor daytime sports, so the comments about AF speed are helpful. However, having 420 5.6 in the bag with me for whenever I might need it is the winning comment.
I doubt very much that I would ever opt for the 400 2.8 for the frequency I need the focal length, but I may consider a 200-400 f4 zoom. It's not the money as much as the need and frequency of use. I have purchased a number of lenses through the years only to sell them, not for poor results, but because they are rarely on my camera.
Upvote
0
Just some "out of the box" thinking:
A 100-400 zoom is $1589 right now.
The EF 400 5.6 is $1339 right now.
A new 7D is $1549 right now.
A used 7D is hovering at the $1100 mark on craigslist in my area.
Attaching your 300 to a 7D gives you 480mm with no loss of AF speed, no loss of f4 and no TC related IQ issues. I'd take f4 over f5.6 any day as a starting point.
Given good lighting, low ISO and a fast shutter speed, the 7D seems to do just fine.
A 100-400 zoom is $1589 right now.
The EF 400 5.6 is $1339 right now.
A new 7D is $1549 right now.
A used 7D is hovering at the $1100 mark on craigslist in my area.
Attaching your 300 to a 7D gives you 480mm with no loss of AF speed, no loss of f4 and no TC related IQ issues. I'd take f4 over f5.6 any day as a starting point.
Given good lighting, low ISO and a fast shutter speed, the 7D seems to do just fine.
Upvote
0
danski0224 said:
Love your line of thinking. This will be a super valid viewpoint when the last +1.3 crop APS-H Mk IV ships, leaving a number of long lens shooters feeling stranded. If the rumoured 7DII specs become a reality your argument becomes watertight. I'm with you. Get a 7D! Or a pre-owned MkIII or MkIV.
Paul Wright
Upvote
0
i love my 300 f4L and also consider saving some cash and get the kenko 1.4 its half the price of the canon and equalt quality, since the lens isnt weather sealed its a non issue. plus you can use the kenko TC on macro lenses too for more zoomification of little stuff 
for some reason the 300 f4L seem to go really cheap second hand, I picked mine up for 800 bucks
also the IS is quite clunky and noisey but its still a solid lens that works really well
for some reason the 300 f4L seem to go really cheap second hand, I picked mine up for 800 bucks
also the IS is quite clunky and noisey but its still a solid lens that works really well
Upvote
0
Good thread, I've also been wondering about the 300 f4 and the 400 f5.6. I had started another thread about a 1.4 & 2x with a 700-200. Sure if a guy had the extra cash, I'd get a 3 or 400 2.8, but unfortunately not in the near future. Both of these lenses are reasonably priced, it's too bad the 400 didn't have IS.
Upvote
0
Well i don't follow that outside the box thinking. Get a 7d when you have a 5dmk3? So with the 7d he'll get twice the DOF, thats not going to help isolating people in sporting situations. Then he'll be demoted to 18mp and lose, what, 2 stops of ISO performance, and get a much weaker AF system, less spiffy LCD etc. If you have a 300mm and a 5dmk3 and you think you would like a longer setup occasionally, I would get the 1.4 tele and if that doesn't get it done, crop. Or just crop now and buy nothing. I get amazing prints from my 13mp original 5d. so with my newer mk3 with 23mp to burn i see that as a built-in 2x ext when neeed This setup isn't to far removed from mine and I've got no complaints. I run the mk3 with a 300is2.8 and sometimes slap a 1.4 ext on it. Unless of course you really need 23mp files for some reason, or want to purchase, learn, and haul around another camera body, with a back up battery.
Upvote
0
4
40dman
Guest
Hobbs, I have just recently purchased the sigma 100-300f4 to go with my 40d.
It is great and I have shot a lot of soccer (outdoors) with it.
I used to use my canon 70-200 (both of these non-IS but not needed as I shoot 1/800 or more).
If you want samples let me know.
I have even done the sigma 1.4 and while it degrades if needed for the reach it is nice.
How I am obviously not a pro but I rarely use my canon anymore so to leave a L lens at home says something.
It is great and I have shot a lot of soccer (outdoors) with it.
I used to use my canon 70-200 (both of these non-IS but not needed as I shoot 1/800 or more).
If you want samples let me know.
I have even done the sigma 1.4 and while it degrades if needed for the reach it is nice.
How I am obviously not a pro but I rarely use my canon anymore so to leave a L lens at home says something.
Upvote
0
B
Birdshooter
Guest
I have had both. The 300 f/4 is a fantastic lens, but adding a 1.4x extender to it, makes the AF really slow, too slow for wildlife. The minimum aperture of 5.6 is not workable, it is not sharp enough, thus you must stop it down, at leas 2/3 making it workable 420 f/7.1 lens.
The 400 is rasor sharp, even wide open, and it's AF is superfast. It is lacking IS, but the use of a tripod or beanbag overcomes this issue.
Conclusion: If you need 400, get the 400. If you need 300, and in less then 25% of the cases need a 400, get the 300 and add the extender. I would recommend the version II rather than the version III extender.
If you can afford: Get the 300 f/2.8, like I did as well. You then have the best lens in both 300 as well as 420 full open, and a very very good 600 lens.
The 400 is rasor sharp, even wide open, and it's AF is superfast. It is lacking IS, but the use of a tripod or beanbag overcomes this issue.
Conclusion: If you need 400, get the 400. If you need 300, and in less then 25% of the cases need a 400, get the 300 and add the extender. I would recommend the version II rather than the version III extender.
If you can afford: Get the 300 f/2.8, like I did as well. You then have the best lens in both 300 as well as 420 full open, and a very very good 600 lens.
Upvote
0
risc32 said:
I also have a 300 f/4 and a 1.4x extender.
The change in AF speed is quite noticeable once the 1.4x extender is installed. You also go from f4 to f5.6. I am not an experienced wildlife photographer, but I view the increase in AF speed as an issue in a dynamic environment. The AF speed penalty is fine for slow moving/static subjects.
I do not have a 300 f2.8, nor do I know if the AF speed on the f2.8 lens is any different from the f4 lens.
The 300 f2.8 becomes f4 with the 1.4x, which is still better than f5.6 unless the lighting is good or unless you can crank the ISO.
I am not a DoF expert, but sometimes, the smaller sensor of the 7D would be an advantage in that respect.
Cropping will only take you so far.
The 7D still puts more pixels on the image to start with than a full frame 5 series or 1 series. So, if the image is good to begin with, the crop of a 7D image turns out bigger, if not better. Maybe not the most correct technical explanation, but the pixel density on the 7D is greater than the full frame equivalent, so the 7D shot has more pixels than a FF crop.
Yes, the 7D has some ISO limitations in comparison to the 5DII or 5DIII. But, outdoors in good lighting, I believe those limitations go away. I have many very nice outdoor images taken with a 7D and they look damn good to me straight out of the camera. They would look better if I printed them and lost the ability to pixel peep on a monitor. Better still if I did some basic post process work. In fact, if i print them on my PS (postscript) 4 color laser printer on 32lb laser paper, many of those 7D prints at 8.5 x 11 still look better than pretty much anything I ever did with a film camera printed at that size.
The images from the 1DIV are better than the 7D, but that camera costs a whole lot more than a 7D. Even used.
Given the OP's description, I still think going with a 7D is a better choice than the 1.4x extender. The word "occasionally" is mentioned, so I am *assuming* that the intent is to install a 1.4x extender when needed. This could also mean that the 300mm f4 lens is removed from the 5dIII and then could be installed on the 7D.... or the OP could leave the 300 on a 7D and then stick a 70-200 on the 5DIII.
There are many ways to approach the problem. In my opinion, the AF speed hit from the 1.4x extender is a big deal.
If the OP does not like the 7D idea either, then I would say go and get a 400 mm lens.
I would like to own one of those 400mm f2.8 lenses, but they are pretty darn expensive.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
