Canon 300 mm f2.8 L II vs. 400 mm f4 DO II

[candc]

I have yet to pull the trigger on either, but have considered both. Other than the concerns brought up by Alan (in fairness, TDP completes their review of the 400 DO II by saying that it takes "world class images" and with Bryan trying to justify adding it to his already crowded kit). In my mind it gets down to whether or not you would prefer having 300 mm f/2.8 or 800 f/8. Because the 400 f/4 vs 420 f/4 (300 plus 1.4TC) and 560 f/5.6 (400 plus 1.4TC) vs 600 f/5.6 (300 plus 2x TC) are very similar.

one of the main things that makes the 400 attractive is that the performance and iq with the 1.4xiii is better than what i have seen and read about from the 300ii + 2xiii

 

[Maiaibing]

What camera did you use? 5DS/R has the best Canon AF ever (so far) - if you use the five center double cross-type points.

Best so far - really?
Certainly not in speed of acquisition and though very good the tracking is not as good as my 1DX and I am not entirely certain that it is quite as good at tracking as my 7D2 (though I haven't had my 7D2 for long so this is just my impression). Even the Canon rep only claimed "detail/minor" improvements over the already good 5D3 when he failed to sell me one.
I liked the camera very much but it is slow compared to my existing 1DX for wildlife (I am not thinking of frames per second here) the 7D2 felt closer to what I wanted so I bought one and it is showing great promise so far. Unfortunately, like the 5DSr, it suffers from too many pixels for my needs but nothing is perfect!

Well, my impression is somewhat different than yours. DpReview tested the 5DS/R AF quite extensively, you may want to check out their recent review. One finding was that it was very important to choose the optimum AF settings for the best results (5DS/R has an amazing array of AF options you can set).

 

[ejenner]

For wildlife, I would have thought the question would be more about a 400 DO II vs 500 f4 II used. 300 is too short IMO. If you are that close to anything not huge, then DOF is often too thin anyway.

Also while any of these lenses are good with a 1.4x, they are only acceptable with a 2x and with a huge AF hit (even if you are still at f5.6).

If you know you'll only need 400mm max, then of course the 300 makes sense. I think most folks shooting birds and wildlife in general are looking for 600-700mm, even for a 'hand-holdable' lens.

 

[docsmith]

I can support this only 65%. The 35% that I can't is AF related. Part of the benefit of longer lengths is to get more of your target not only on the image sensor, but on the phase detect AF sensor. One of the tests I did evaluating a 400 mm lens vs 600 mm lens was my AF "keeper rate" for subjects pushing the limits of the 400 mm lens. The keeper rate was definitely higher with the 600 mm lens for those subjects.

What camera did you use? 5DS/R has the best Canon AF ever (so far) - if you use the five center double cross-type points. It could be that your experience is related to the use of an extender combined with a relatively weaker AF system than that of the 5DS/R.

The tests I did were on the 5DIII. I've heard good things about the 5Ds(R) AF. But the point is that the image size on the AF sensor also matters.

Regarding the IQ of the 400 plus 1.4x vs the 300 plus 2x, looking at this, it does seem a bit better on the 400 combination, so that would be a factor:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Well, my impression is somewhat different than yours. DpReview tested the 5DS/R AF quite extensively, you may want to check out their recent review. One finding was that it was very important to choose the optimum AF settings for the best results (5DS/R has an amazing array of AF options you can set).

Well I have not done much reading about the 5DSr AF system - I have merely used it alongside my 1DX. What some pundit has to say is only a guide and no substitute for actually using the camera. As to the setting options if you use the 7D2, 1DX, 5D3, 5DS/DSr then you will see that the options are virtually identical except for some minor priority settings in some of the case modes. Note the 7D2 has the newest focusing system in Canon DSLR world.

I am not in any way knocking the 5D series (any model) they are fine cameras - for certain purposes possibly the best going, but let's not mislead others by stating advantages that do not exist.

Back on topic: I use the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and can confirm that it is an excellent lens (any version) but I do find that I end up using extenders most of the time. Unfortunately this reduces it's 2 main advantages namely aperture and IQ. Whist it takes the Canon Mk3 extenders very well there is always some compromise. Much depends on the size of your subjects and how close you can get to them also what type of shot you are after. If you like frame fillers then my Canon 800mm is frequently too short but it can also be too long if you want to show your subject in it's environment.
Before you decide I would suggest that you look at the Canon 500mm F4 L IS Mk2. Yes it's bigger, more expensive, heavier and may well involve expensive support but is probably the best all round prime for wildlife at the moment. If mobility is at an absolute premium the the 400 DO Mk2 may be better - I have not used the Mk2 but I liked the Mk1 except for the variation between copies.

 

[bholliman]

I considered both of these lenses last spring and decided to go with the 300 II and haven't regretted it for a minute. I use the lens for wildlife, but also indoor/outdoor kids sports and portraits. For family and sports shooting, I usually use the lens bare. For wildlife, almost always with extenders. I like having the options between 300/2.8, 420/4 and 600/5.6.

I purchased a 5DsR in September and absolutely love using this camera with my 300 II. Auto focus is extremely fast and accurate. For wildlife, this combo it terrific, but the buffer does fill quickly when shooting full RAW. The buffer hasn't been much of a problem for me thus far as I have to be a little more deliberate with my bursts and can't just spray and pray.

Regarding the IQ of the 400 plus 1.4x vs the 300 plus 2x, looking at this, it does seem a bit better on the 400 combination, so that would be a factor:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

That is close, I'd give the 300 a slight edge in sharpness in the center and the 400 mid frame and corner.

 

[bdunbar79]

Honestly the REAL solution to this is to buy a used 400mm f/2.8L I IS lens. That's what I did for sports a few years ago because like you I wanted low light AF and reach. I think I bought mine in 9+ condition from B&H Photo for $6500 and haven't regretted it one bit. I know it's a stretch suggesting it, but something to really consider given your needs.

My back, shoulders and arms groans just from the memory of the weight of the 400/2.8L IS MkI. I purchased one from a birder back in 2010, since he found it too heavy when moving around with tripod/gimbal/lens/camera (he was shooting Owls primarily). I used it for motorsports a couple of seasons before deciding to sell it, even though I was placed fairly statically and could use a monopod/tripod+gimbal for supporting the lens.

Don't get me wrong - it's a wonderful lens. It's just ... damn heavy :-\

It is a very valid point. For soccer I shoot with both the 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS and let me tell you, going home after the match I feel like I actually played.

 

[N2itiv]

I have been considering the merits of these two lenses for quite some time, considering that I need a Supertele.
Just some thoughts from my perspective.
When the 400 f/4 DO ll came out, I recall reading it was sharpest wide open and gradually decreased in image quality upon stopping down.
The 300 f/2.8 IS ll seems to increase sharpness upon stopping down-until f/11, anyways.
When the comparison of the 2 lenses were done @ lensrental.com, it was said that the 400 DO ll was sharper wide open than the 300 2.8 ll @ 2.8 and @ 420 f/4, and I agree w/that. I think it's important to look beyond that and see if that changes upon stopping down, especially w/teleconverters applied.
At the Digital Picture, it seems-to me anyway- the 300 2.8 ll w/1.4 converter get better than the 400 f/4 DO ll natively @ f/8 and f/11.
The 300 2.8 ll w/2.0 converter seems slightly better, overall, than the 400 DO ll and 1.4 converter @ f/8 and f/11. The contrast appears better on the 300 2.8 ll than the 400-even though contrast can be corrected. Some comparisons seem close or even, but the 300 looks slightly better overall.
As some posters have mentioned, 300 native, 420 and 600 seem like good focal length options. Better than native 400 and 560 f/5.6 for those of us w/out f/8 bodies.(Yes, that's subjective)
The 400 DO ll seems to be a great and practical lens considering its weight.
For me, I think the 300 w/1.4 and 2.0 converters win because of contrast, sharpness, aperture, 400 DO ll onions, and price. The 300 f/2.8 w both teleconverters is cheaper than the 400 DO ll @ Canon price watch.
$4,999.99 US vs $6449.00 US. That helps make my decision much easier.

 

[AlanF]

What is the sharpest aperture of the 300mm f/2.8 II depends on who measures it, how, and possibly copy variation. Lenstip, sharpest at f/4, by Imatest,
http://www.lenstip.com/329.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_300_mm_f_2.8_L_IS_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

ePhotozine , sharpest at f/5.6, by Imatest, https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-300mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm-lens-review-19868

Lensrentals has f/4 sharper than f/2.8 by Imatest. Lensrentals point out that most of these tests are at short distances and may be different al greater distances, and you can take the results with a grain of salt. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons

Objektivtest has sensor-independent MTF higher at f/2.8 than f/8
http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-300-mm-f28-l-is-ii-usm-test-djurens-konung/

My own copy on FoCal sharp aperture is sharpest at f/2.8 (and wide open also +1.4xTC III and 2xTC III.

TDPs copy is sharper stopped down to f/4.

 

[JMZawodny]

I have often wondered to what extent the sharpness varies with target distance. We often forget that the lens must perform well over a wide range of subject target distances and that this is just one of many performance criteria that must get optimized, in a balanced/trade-off, during lens design. I seriously doubt performance is uniform over the full focal range. Anyone have any info on this? Perhaps some of the deviations in "measured" performance between various testing websites is actually due to the test itself.

 

[Berowne]

I have often wondered to what extent the sharpness varies with target distance. We often forget that the lens must perform well over a wide range of subject target distances and that this is just one of many performance criteria that must get optimized, in a balanced/trade-off, during lens design. I seriously doubt performance is uniform over the full focal range. Anyone have any info on this? Perhaps some of the deviations in "measured" performance between various testing websites is actually due to the test itself.

All Prime-Lenses (except conventional Macro) are optimized for infinity. Conventional Macro-Lenses are optimzed for midrange distance (1 meter). Only lenses like the Canon MP-E 65mm are best at short distance (1:1). All double-gauss-Lenses (50mm prime for instance) are optimized for f5.6, regardless how fast they are.

Zooms are optimized for nothing, fast Superteles may be best wide open. (this is very difficult to measure).