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

[john1970]

Dear everyone,

I recently switched to Canon equipment for camera and lens. The majority of my photography is wildlife and nature. I initially purchased the 300 mm f2.8 II lens, but now I am wondering if the 400 mm f4 DO II would be a better substitution for the 300 mm lens. I can still return the 300 mm lens since I am within 30 days of purchase.

Advantages of the 300 mm lens:
1) one stop faster at native focal length that the DO lens (should be faster at acquiring focus in low light)
2) more flexible in that i can convert it to a 420 mm f4 or 600 mm f5.6 lens

Advantages of the 400 mm lens:
1) one pound lighter that the 300mm lens + 1.4x extender
2) shorter in length that 300 mm+1.4x extender

In the past I owned a 300 mm f2.8 lens and the majority of the time a 1.4x converter was on the lens, but there were circumstances (birds in flight in low light) where the 300 mm f2.8 had a distinct advantage.

If anyone can please chime in here it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

John

 

[BeenThere]

There are probably opinions and arguments for both options. My opinion is that for wild birds, the 400mm DO II is the better option. I find that pairing this lens with the 7d2 body for BIF is hard to beat. You will almost always be looking for more reach and the 400 gives you that. The 1 lb lighter will also be appreciated. Depending on the situation, putting a 1.4x on the 400 is also a viable option for smaller birds or when even more reach is needed. In terms of sharpness, you are unlikely to see any difference between the 300 and the 400.

 

[candc]

they are both excellent lenses but 300mm is not long enough most of the time (even on aps-c). i think the 300 would be better for indoor sports but the 400 better for birds and wildlife.

 

[fentiger]

you have summed up your answer, i would stick with the 300F2.8. least you have the low light option that way

 

[john1970]

Thank you to everyone for their feedback. I will likely keep the 300 mm f2.8 for the flexibility since I might take up indoor photography or sports in the future.

Typically, I use this lens on a 7DMKII with Battery Grip and two batteries so the masses are:
1) 300 mm+1.4 x with camera setup = 8.5 lbs
2) 400 mm DO II with camera setup = 7.5 lbs

While saving weight is nice, I don't see a one pound savings being that significant; definitely not enough to justify purchasing the 400 mm DO lens in addition to the 300 mm lens.

Now if Canon will only release their 600 mm f4 DO lens in 2016

 

[bdunbar79]

I'll probably regret saying this, but I would partially argue using a 300 f/2.8L II IS and cropping to the FoV of the 400mm DO will still yield more resolution. I could be wrong but you already know how blown away the 300 v2 gets you with regards to resolving power, especially on a 7D2.

 

[candc]

I'll probably regret saying this, but I would partially argue using a 300 f/2.8L II IS and cropping to the FoV of the 400mm DO will still yield more resolution. I could be wrong but you already know how blown away the 300 v2 gets you with regards to resolving power, especially on a 7D2.

According to lens rentals the 400 is sharper wide open than the 300. The 300 stopped down to f/4 is sharper than the 400. Both are very similar so I would suggest picking the one that has the fl you need

 

[bdunbar79]

I'll probably regret saying this, but I would partially argue using a 300 f/2.8L II IS and cropping to the FoV of the 400mm DO will still yield more resolution. I could be wrong but you already know how blown away the 300 v2 gets you with regards to resolving power, especially on a 7D2.

According to lens rentals the 400 is sharper wide open than the 300. The 300 stopped down to f/4 is sharper than the 400. Both are very similar so I would suggest picking the one that has the fl you need

Yes, but wide open for the 400 is f/4. That's why I made my comment. I agree that my statement is highly subjective, however.

 

[AlanF]

I have thought a lot about replacing my 300/2.8 II with the 400 DO II and have read all the reviews I can find as it is not a lens easy to get hold of for direct testing. Lensrentals does indeed rave about the DO II. But, the two copies tested by TDP appear less sharp than the 300/2.8 II, both wide open and about the same with the 1.4xTC III on to give 420mm. SLRgear has the DO II noticeably less sharp and one owner complains about the lens not being tack sharp http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1747/cat/10
So, I conclude that there could be some copy variation in the DO II. It would be good if lensrentals did its usual copy variation analysis.

At the moment, I am sticking to the 300/2.8 II as the wider aperture gives more latitude in shooting in dim conditions, especially dawn and dusk, and I like the zoom flexibility of the 100-400 II for more general use. But, if I would be very tempted for a reasonably priced DO II to become available that I could test. The full price in the UK at £6,999 is too high. The lens can be bought 35% cheaper on the gray market but returning might be difficult.

 

[docsmith]

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.

 

[BeenThere]

I still say that if you usually need the extra reach of the 400 then you are better off with the native 400 lens. Putting extenders on either lens causes AF to slow which can be critical for BIF. In my opinion, the 2x is nearly useless for BIF shots.

 

[Maiaibing]

What to do (seriously).

Buy 5DS R to supplement your 300mm f/2.8 IS L II. Save weight and a lot of money. Enjoy a super combo for reach and low light when needed.

Beats getting the 400mm DO any day. Especially because bokeh still suffers with the DO for nature shots where this often is important (even if improved as well as the contrast over the DO mark I).

 

[bdunbar79]

What to do (seriously).

Buy 5DS R to supplement your 300mm f/2.8 IS L II. Save weight and a lot of money. Enjoy a super combo for reach and low light when needed.

Beats getting the 400mm DO any day. Especially because bokeh still suffers with the DO for nature shots where this often is important (even if improved as well as the contrast over the DO mark I).

I can support those statements 100%.

 

[docsmith]

What to do (seriously).

Buy 5DS R to supplement your 300mm f/2.8 IS L II. Save weight and a lot of money. Enjoy a super combo for reach and low light when needed.

Beats getting the 400mm DO any day. Especially because bokeh still suffers with the DO for nature shots where this often is important (even if improved as well as the contrast over the DO mark I).

I can support those statements 100%.

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.

 

[Maiaibing]

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.

 

[AlanF]

What to do (seriously).

Buy 5DS R to supplement your 300mm f/2.8 IS L II. Save weight and a lot of money. Enjoy a super combo for reach and low light when needed.

Beats getting the 400mm DO any day. Especially because bokeh still suffers with the DO for nature shots where this often is important (even if improved as well as the contrast over the DO mark I).

I can support those statements 100%.

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.

My support for this less than 50%. 300mm on a 5DSr, like 300mm on a 7DII, is too short for much bird photography.

 

[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.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

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!

 

[JMZawodny]

I have the 300 f2.8 II and the original 400 DO. The original DO was OK IQ-wise, and the lighter weight was nice. It still works well on my 5D2 with its larger pixels. I use that combo for airshows. The 300 with the 1.4x is clearly better than the original DO on my 7D2. I bought the 300 f2.8 because I needed f/2.8 plain and simple. If you will most always pair the 300 with the 1.4x and do not need the speed advantage of f/2.8 then get the 400 DO II as it is likely superior to that combo at f/4.

You need to honestly consider what you really need. You can make the 300 f2.8 into a 400 f4 DO II -ish lens by adding the 1.4x. You can't make the 400 DO II into a 300 f2.8. The answer seems obvious to me, but I do not know what you value. YMMV

 

[kaihp]

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 :-\