400 mm f5.6 non-IS / 300 mm f4 IS with extender 1.4 III or waiting?
- Thread starter g-spot
- Start date
- Status
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..
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..
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
g-spot said:
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.
Upvote
0
tron said: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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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...AlanF said:
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 ;D )
Upvote
0
Hi,
I am also an aviation photographer (spotter) and also had a hard time deciding on my super tele.
I own the 70-200 f/4 and was considering the 100-400L but I've seen a lot of soft shots and complaints from people who own them. I was leaning towards the versatility and the "IS" which is of course useful in our case. Yet the 100-400L new was 1700$ and ended up buying the 400L + some accessories. The 300 f/4L IS + 1.4 II was something I didn't look at too much because I do believe it was slightly more expensive than the 400L and the 1.4x was another 300$ which would turn out to be even more expensive than the 100-400L. Also, since I already have a 200mm lens I found that their won't be a huge difference to have 100mm extra.
Although, sometimes I feel as if I made the wrong decision purchasing the 400L because on my cheap body (Rebel XS/1000D) the results aren't superb. The lens seems soft or oof most of the time (probably camera fault) with all possible manual settings. With speeds under 1/100 it's also soft even if I have good stability or support. I don't see it performing badly on the 50D as i've seen great shots from the 40D and above.
Depending on your spotting locations and the type of shots you want you should consider:
- Do I want the most zoom with the best IQ?- 400L
- Do I want more versatility and the possibility to have 420mm f/5.6L with some IQ loss? - 300L + 1.4
- Do I want complete versatility with not as good IQ (even with 1.4x). - 100-400L
Here are a few examples from my friend's:
50D + 300L
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7446219&nseq=3
40D + 400L
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/229768/zk-okq-air-new-zealand-boeing-777-300er/
The lack of IS on the 400L is a bit tricky but it still get's some great results with practice and maybe a monopod at times.
Jan
I am also an aviation photographer (spotter) and also had a hard time deciding on my super tele.
I own the 70-200 f/4 and was considering the 100-400L but I've seen a lot of soft shots and complaints from people who own them. I was leaning towards the versatility and the "IS" which is of course useful in our case. Yet the 100-400L new was 1700$ and ended up buying the 400L + some accessories. The 300 f/4L IS + 1.4 II was something I didn't look at too much because I do believe it was slightly more expensive than the 400L and the 1.4x was another 300$ which would turn out to be even more expensive than the 100-400L. Also, since I already have a 200mm lens I found that their won't be a huge difference to have 100mm extra.
Although, sometimes I feel as if I made the wrong decision purchasing the 400L because on my cheap body (Rebel XS/1000D) the results aren't superb. The lens seems soft or oof most of the time (probably camera fault) with all possible manual settings. With speeds under 1/100 it's also soft even if I have good stability or support. I don't see it performing badly on the 50D as i've seen great shots from the 40D and above.
Depending on your spotting locations and the type of shots you want you should consider:
- Do I want the most zoom with the best IQ?- 400L
- Do I want more versatility and the possibility to have 420mm f/5.6L with some IQ loss? - 300L + 1.4
- Do I want complete versatility with not as good IQ (even with 1.4x). - 100-400L
Here are a few examples from my friend's:
50D + 300L
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7446219&nseq=3
40D + 400L
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/229768/zk-okq-air-new-zealand-boeing-777-300er/
The lack of IS on the 400L is a bit tricky but it still get's some great results with practice and maybe a monopod at times.
Jan
Upvote
0
My 400mm f5.6 is sooooo sharp and I can highly recommend it. If you are cropping heavy then it would appear you need the reach rather the flexibility of a zoom / lens and t.c. combination. I don't particulary miss IS as need a high shutter speed for the photography I do (birds and birds in flight) if your are shooting planes in flight then I would assume similar.
If you want to see how sharp the 400 f5.6 is have a look at my bird photos on flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eimajm/
If you want to see how sharp the 400 f5.6 is have a look at my bird photos on flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eimajm/
Upvote
0
I own both the 400/5.6 and the 300/4. I also have the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III and have owned the 100-400 in the past. For your purposes (aviation) the 400/5.6 would seem to be a no brainer. You will already be using a high shutter speed so you won't miss the lack of IS.
Contrary to what you may read elsewhere the 300/4 takes extenders very poorly. I tried it once and was so disappointed by the results that I never tried it again. That being said, it is a great lens. If you can get close to your subject then it has a great macro capability. On the aviation side it could be used for interesting closeups of aircraft on the ground.
I heavily use my 400/5.6 for birding now and I keep it in my bag vs. the 300/4 which stays in my closet. It is a bit annoying when a bird gets too close and I can't focus on it, but otherwise it does a very good job. The 300/4 bare lens does AF faster, but that is probably more a case of the camera being able to use more focus points at the lower aperture. It is far quicker AF-wise than my 100-400 was.
This was taken with the 300/4 - demonstrating the close up capabilities. (not cropped)
JSC_3116-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
This was taken with my 400/5.6. (cropped)
Taking Flight by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
Contrary to what you may read elsewhere the 300/4 takes extenders very poorly. I tried it once and was so disappointed by the results that I never tried it again. That being said, it is a great lens. If you can get close to your subject then it has a great macro capability. On the aviation side it could be used for interesting closeups of aircraft on the ground.
I heavily use my 400/5.6 for birding now and I keep it in my bag vs. the 300/4 which stays in my closet. It is a bit annoying when a bird gets too close and I can't focus on it, but otherwise it does a very good job. The 300/4 bare lens does AF faster, but that is probably more a case of the camera being able to use more focus points at the lower aperture. It is far quicker AF-wise than my 100-400 was.
This was taken with the 300/4 - demonstrating the close up capabilities. (not cropped)
JSC_3116-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
This was taken with my 400/5.6. (cropped)
Taking Flight by CalevPhoto, on Flickr
Upvote
0
I just used my 400/5.6 for only the 2nd time in the field for birding and was very pleased with the results. I was using my 7D on a tripod at ISO 400 and high shutter speed. These images are heavily cropped. I think the 400/5.6 is a great value compared to Canon's other super telephotos.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I am a complete newby to Photoshop as I just finished a series of video tutorials and used ACR, Photoshop for the first time on this set of images, so excuse me if I don't fully understand your questions. 
In ACR the crop % shows 54 for the seagull and 45 for the eagle. I believe I settled on Unsharp mask for the sharpening method. Some of the sharpness seems to have been lost in posting to this website so I have much to learn and improve upon!
In ACR the crop % shows 54 for the seagull and 45 for the eagle. I believe I settled on Unsharp mask for the sharpening method. Some of the sharpness seems to have been lost in posting to this website so I have much to learn and improve upon!
Upvote
0
I spent a lot of time debating this very choice. I shot with a 70-200 f4L IS on my 50D for a couple of years, with and without a 1.4ii extender. Loved the IQ of the naked lens, and the lens+1.4 was still very, very good, but it always seemed too short for my needs. I eventually opted for the 100-400 and I have been very pleased so far. Technique is crucial at the longer focal lengths, but when I nail focus at 1/60-1/125 (or use a good tripod) I think the IQ is just fantastic (unless shooting over ISO 800, of course, then noise prevails).
This funny shot of a suberb starling at the Atlanta Zoo was taken from about 12 feet at 400mm/f6.3 at 1/60 hand-held (200ISO) and minimally processed in Lightroom (basically just cut a portrait out of a landscape, so it's only cropped horizontally a bit, and bumped up clarity and optimized exposure). At 100% there's great detail in the feathers and the bokeh is really nice. I find this lens sharp wide open but it's hard to get the right DOF for many subjects so I bump to 6.3-8 more for DOF than lens performance. Even on this starling I'd like more of the beak in focus at 6.3, but it still works.
I was sorely tempted by the close focusing of the 300 f4 IS and AF of the 400 f5.6, but I wanted that 100-300 range too much. I think this is really splitting hairs and comes down to minor preferences until you get to options like the 300 f2.8L which is in another league (and price orbit).
This funny shot of a suberb starling at the Atlanta Zoo was taken from about 12 feet at 400mm/f6.3 at 1/60 hand-held (200ISO) and minimally processed in Lightroom (basically just cut a portrait out of a landscape, so it's only cropped horizontally a bit, and bumped up clarity and optimized exposure). At 100% there's great detail in the feathers and the bokeh is really nice. I find this lens sharp wide open but it's hard to get the right DOF for many subjects so I bump to 6.3-8 more for DOF than lens performance. Even on this starling I'd like more of the beak in focus at 6.3, but it still works.
I was sorely tempted by the close focusing of the 300 f4 IS and AF of the 400 f5.6, but I wanted that 100-300 range too much. I think this is really splitting hairs and comes down to minor preferences until you get to options like the 300 f2.8L which is in another league (and price orbit).
Attachments
Upvote
0
RiceCanon said:I am a complete newby to Photoshop as I just finished a series of video tutorials and used ACR, Photoshop for the first time on this set of images, so excuse me if I don't fully understand your questions.
What we mean by 100% crop is that the actual pixels you see on the crop eg 1000x700 is the same as what that crop had in the original digital image (eg a 1000x700 section taken from the 5184x3456 for a 7D). You can use Photoshop to reduce the number of pixels, which is often done in the forums to give images that are smaller and load faster. Did you reduce the size of the image of the eagle as well as crop it?
Upvote
0
To the original poster:
I have rented both the 400 f/5.6L and the 300 f/4L IS. The 400 is sharper, the 300 gives a wider field and the convenience of IS...and a faster aperture. Neither is very sharp with a 2x TC, and I didn't try them with the 1.4x. Only the 300 would autofocus on any camera smaller than a 1 series, with a 1.4x TC attached.
Since you have the 100-400 already, I am betting you would miss the ability to zoom, more than you would like any small improvement in sharpness. You would also miss the IS.
If you have $3000 to spend, in addition to the funds you could get from selling the 100-400, you might consider buying a larger supertele, such as the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, and so on.
You should rent the lenses you are considering for purchase.
I have rented both the 400 f/5.6L and the 300 f/4L IS. The 400 is sharper, the 300 gives a wider field and the convenience of IS...and a faster aperture. Neither is very sharp with a 2x TC, and I didn't try them with the 1.4x. Only the 300 would autofocus on any camera smaller than a 1 series, with a 1.4x TC attached.
Since you have the 100-400 already, I am betting you would miss the ability to zoom, more than you would like any small improvement in sharpness. You would also miss the IS.
If you have $3000 to spend, in addition to the funds you could get from selling the 100-400, you might consider buying a larger supertele, such as the 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, and so on.
You should rent the lenses you are considering for purchase.
Upvote
0
- Status
