Please give me an advice for an prime lens 300/400mm

[TexPhoto]

Choosing between 300mm and 400mm should be made based on what you will be shooting. I love shooting long, and own a 400mm f2.8 IS. It is great for for sports but can often be too long, especially on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body. But I own both teleconveters and love shooting at 560mm and 800, even on crop bodies. Surfing contests for example.

I also own a 300mm f4 IS. For 10 years if has been my go-to travel telephoto. So light and compact, and great.

But I now also own a Sigma 120-300mm. And i freekin love it. 300mm f2.8, yea, I got that that? Press pit to the batter at home base, perfect. Play at first base and I can zoom back to 150 or 200. Yes, so much yes.

So anyway, hope that helps.

 

[tphillips63]

I am pretty much in the same boat as you and I ordered the 400 f/4 DO IS II.
I have the 200 f/2 and the 400 weighs even less!

From everything I have read, this is going to be the best lens for me. Also I am not willing to spend 10K+ on any one lens. I just can't wrap my head around that and the weight of the bigger whites will for sure make it a much less used item.

 

[sulla]

Ha, I asked myself the exactly same question: 300 2.8 II or 400 DO II: They are priced nearly identically and have nearly identical image quality, size and weight. (I'm just not yet willing enough to shell out this kind of money...)

A tough decision. It depends, what other lenses you already have. I made up my mind: I want the 400 f/4 lens, because:

• I have the 70-200 2.8 lens already. With a 1.4 converter it will go to 280 f/4 just fine with still great IQ. A native 300 would not be enough difference for me. That kind of money for 1 stop more of light is just too much for me.
• Then, the 400 is perfect at 400, said to be still excellent at 560 f/5.6 with a 1.4 converter.
• Theoretically, it should still have very very good IQ with a 2x converter at 800 f/8 and my camera shlould handle the AF at f/8.

So, for me a 300 would give me:
200mm from my zoom, 280 from 200x1.4, 300 from the 300, 420 from 300x1.4, and 600 form 300x2.

The 400 would give me:
200mm from my zoom, 280 from 200x1.4, 400 from the 400, 560 from 400x1.4, and 800 form 400x2. More attractive to me.

Besides, don't be afraid to use the 2x teleconverter: Yes, it degrades IQ, but - oh no, I feel I am just starting a shitstorm - in my view IQ is greatly overrated. Look at all those great images taken with really horrible lenses, then you immediately know IQ is just a minor ingredient in a good photo. I once saw a very impressive reportage in a very respectable magazien (Nat.Geo) shot with the EF 28 1.8, fantastic images, really impressive. But the lens itself is quite a bad one with loads and loads of weaknesses. Actually, I sold mine because I was not happy with it, but still: Others have taken impressive images with them.

So, bottom line: Try to figure out which of the lenses will fit better in your current lineup in terms of focal length. IQ will be fantastic with both lenses, with any extender.

 

[tomscott]

Thing is 400mm is usually short for birds in flight. I find 500-640 a good balance.

First 640mm lens I had was the original 70-200mm L 2.8 with a 2x extender with 40d just struggled without a stabiliser and the shots were a little soft. Bought a 70-200mm MKII IS and it's great with a 2x extender just never got on with the 7D kept it about 2 months the IQ just wasn't what I expected. I bought the 5D MKIII and that combo has worked well for me it's a very versatile 2.8 from 70-200, 110-320 f4 with a 1.4x and 140-400mm f5.6 with a 2x. I find the AF is a little slower with the 2x but it's definetely usable. I've shot Motorsport and wildlife because it gives you such a vast range and got some epic shots used in newspapers etc.

The 70-200mm MKII with a 2x gives you slightly better results than 100-400mm MKI at 400mm.

Currently traveling north and South America and brought the 70-300mm L because it's a great size and great IQ I've been to some incredible places for wildlife - Amazon, colca canyon, smoky mountains many many national parks etc and got some great shots but 300 just isn't long enough with the 5D for most birds and wildlife. With a crop it would be nice but the IQ of crop for me... I'm spoilt with the 5D now.

I have an upcoming trip to Africa and I'm in the same situation. From my research the best option is the 500mm F4 L MKI because you can get them in the uk for 4.5k-5.5k and apart from weight and IS the MKII isnt a huge upgrade. I would say this lens will be mounted to a tripod so the IS won't be beneficial.

I would love one but they are just so big heavy and primes aren't as versatile. I also have thought about the 400mm F5.6 because it's just a bargain and with wildlife especially birds in flight I usualy turn IS off because of the 1/1000+ shutter speed.

But I've decided for price and range the tammy 150-600mm is what I'm going to try on my 5D. It performs better than the 100-400mm MKI throughout the range, pretty good up to 500mm 600 a little soft but seems to work really well on full frame and 500-600 is a good length. With it being £700 it's £4000 cheaper. To add to it I have the 70-300 and the 70-200mm with 2+1.4 ex.

People who say extenders are useless... Most wildlife photographers even with the big whites use them a huge amount of time. Check this vid

http://youtu.be/XKz7busHsfQ

Also here are a few pics I've taken with the 70-200 with 2x

BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Puffin in flight, Cliffside, Inner Farne, Farne Islands by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Sunbathing Lamb, Lowther Estate, Penrith Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Grey Seal, Farne Islands, Seahouses, UK by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Here are a few from my 70-300mm

Red Tailed Hawk, Cades Cove, Smoky Mountains by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Winter Wren in the snow, Cades Cove, Smokey Mountains,Tennessee by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

But really wish I had 400mm in many of my 70-300mm sits all are crops.

One thing I have learned is to improve technique and do your homework on your subject. 2-3 steps = 100mm getting closer and knowing how can help you reduce cost of gear, reduce your weight and make your experience a huge amount better!

For example birds always face into the wind because they don't like their feathers being ruffled and it means less damage to plumage. Being on the right side of the bird and knowing behaviour can really aid and guarentee you get the face so facing down wind and waiting is a good strategy. Also hunting techniques, camo etc is really important. In terms of ISO and F number, being on the right side of the bird is really important, a good rule is to always have the sun behind you and have your shadow pointing at the subject to give the best contrast, this not only aids with focus but hard light = sharp images soft light = soft images. Having your shadow pointing directly at the subject means you can shoot 15-20deg either side of the subject and not worry about hard shadows meaning pulling them out in post. Also less reliance on fast primes, and high ISO because the sun is where you want it. Also I find on full frame I usualy stick to F8 to get enough DOF, if you check the performance of any of the whites at f8 you will find they all perfom similarly... So could save you money if that's how you shoot.

Many people say being at the right place at the right time and luck is involved but also instead of getting stuck in right away and panicking get there earlier and watch and survey then when the light comes you will have worked out the best place to be sit and wait and hope your subject plays ball!

 

[Somlu]

The 300 2.8 mk ii is a lens which I had and if u talk about the image quality its just SUPERB . It is very difficult to exceed this lens regarding its terrific image stabiliser, solid built and and awesome image quality . But as a wild life and specially bird photography enthusiast I was always complaing about the reach . I was using the very lens with almost always with a TC . Well the degradation with the TC s r not much but still if u always have to use it with TCs then its a bit frustrating . Regarding bird photography , I will say it is not the ultimate . The 500 MKii which I bought after that is very satisfying and superb in quality again . But that lens has got weight and for a short person like me is not possible to hand hold it for a long time . Then as a GOD sent gift the 400 DO mkii came in the market and I bought it . I am using it for last 2 weeks and starting to believe it to be the ultimate lens for hand holding in bird / flying bird photography. I did some birding last week and almost continuously carried it for almost 5 hours . The image quality is superb , the image stabiliser is superb , the build quality is 5 star and the weight is very comfortable . As I have used both the lenses 300 mkii and 400 mkii I am giving u the comparison what I felt

300 2.8 mk ll 400 DO IS ll


Reach Less More
Birding dificult for small bird Much better
Reach Less More
IQ Superb superb
WT More (2.5) Less (2.1)
Takes TC With very slight degradation of IQ With very small degradation
How fast Better with 2.8 Little less but OK with 4
...for me it is the 400 DO IS ll anyday

 

[Somlu]

Canon 7D MK ll with 400 DO IS ll
Little ringed plover

 

[Somlu]

Canon 7D MK ll with 400 DO IS ll
Rudy Shelduck

 

[Somlu]

Canon 7D MK ll with 400 DO IS ll
Openbill Stork

 

[candc]

Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?

 

[Zeidora]

Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?

I fully agree with that. Get what you really need straight up. FWIW I have a 300/2.8 IS for shooting skittish or dangerous reptiles, like rattle snakes. For that the close focus capability is important. The 180 macro is not quite long enough for safety, so I occasionally use the 300 with an extension ring. I don't shoot bird or big wildlife, and chose the 300/2.8. That should tell you that a 300 on a FF body is not enough for birds. I have a TC1.4III for occasional convenience, but this is more for the odd shot here and there. I mainly shoot specialty natural history (slime molds, Nematomorpha), rather than the mammals & birds.

 

[stein]

I've got the "old" 300/2.8L IS and is extremely happy with it for birding, often used with 1.4xIII if needed for reach (420mm/4), if you can get the new 300 and it will do a great job for you!
http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com/BirdsoftheNorth/GULLS-AND-TERNS/i-bPg9Pzc/5/X2/_MG_5329%20%282%29-X2.jpg
http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com/Mammals/Marine-mammals/i-kq3n9jq/1/X3/20131114-SNI_1964-X3.jpg

Stein, Norway

 

[krisbell]

Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?

I fully agree with that. Get what you really need straight up.

I agree with both of you in principle BUT portability for many of us is absolutely paramount, both in terms of carrying a lens on long hikes, hand-held shooting and for carry-on travel, for which anything larger than a 300 or 400DO just will not do. For those of us that need that portability and as much reach as we can get our only options for primes are the 300 or 400DO with teleconverters.

 

[expatinasia]

I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?

Comparison between that and the 400 DO:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[AlanF]

One thing I have learned is to improve technique and do your homework on your subject. 2-3 steps = 100mm getting closer ....!

2-3 steps = 100mm? How on earth do you justify that statement? It all depends on how far you are away and the focal length of your lens. If you are 50m away, 2-3 steps makes close to zero difference, 2-3 steps if you are 5m away gives a factor of 2. Adding 100mm to a 20mm lens gives you a 600% magnification, adding 100mm to a 400mm lens gives 25% magnification.

 

[candc]

Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?

I fully agree with that. Get what you really need straight up.

I agree with both of you in principle BUT portability for many of us is absolutely paramount, both in terms of carrying a lens on long hikes, hand-held shooting and for carry-on travel, for which anything larger than a 300 or 400DO just will not do. For those of us that need that portability and as much reach as we can get our only options for primes are the 300 or 400DO with teleconverters.

in that case i would go for the 400doii, if you want to get as much reach as you can then you want to start with the longer lens to begin with.

 

[Vern]

I have the 600II and the 300II and use both with extenders. The 300II handles the 1.4XIII and 2XIII quite well (flare becomes a bigger issue with the 2X as far as IQ with backlit subjects). I backpack as often as I can and then I cannot carry the 600, so the 300 + extenders is a relatively light weight option. I am now wondering about the 400 II DO as a backpacking telephoto. I only have full frame cameras but toyed with getting the 7DII to increase pixels on target with a light weight tele option, but did not pull the trigger b/c I'm often in low light conditions and need the higher ISO performance from 1Dx and 5DMKIII. Also, landscape is a major component of backpacking, so have to have a full frame body.

Heading to Yellowstone to photograph wolves etc. on Saturday and I'm taking both the 600 and 300, 2 bodies and the 24-70 2.8II and the 70-200 2.8II. I will use the 600 when we drive along the Lamar valley and only walk a short distance from the snowcat, but want to have the 300 and converters for when we go snow shoeing. Maybe the 400 DO would allow me to take only one tele? For now, I can't imagine spending the time and $ to get there and not having my longest lens.

Unless you have lots of ideas for what to do with 300mm at f2.8 (sports?), go for the 400 DO.

 

[BeenThere]

I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?

Comparison between that and the 400 DO:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

This comparison is with the old 400 DO, the new version is not up on dp site yet and will look much better in the comparison.

 

[FEBS]

Hmmmm.....

Thats tricky for me.
Yes, an 500mm would be my first choice. But a new 500mm II is to expensive for me. I have been looking for one some weeks ago, but the 500mm lenses, where I am sure, that the product is ok, is still beyond 8500-9000€ (2-3 years old and signs of usage).
(I learned from an mistake I made some years ago, buying an 70-200mm 2.8 IS from an photographer, where the Is was not working correct and I had to invest another 600€). If you know an serious seller, tell me.

I like to shoot birds and other animals that are not near to me, so the longer the focal lenght is, the better it is.

I tried the 400mm II DO on monday in combination with the 1.4x extender in an shop. But the AF did not work proper with my 7D (long time of hunting for sharpness) the 6D was much faster. And I was allowed to use the 300mm 2.8 with and without the 1.4x extender. The 300mm 2.8 is a dream. An super image quality, but only 300mm... The shop assistent told me not to use an 2x extender, as the picture quality will go down al lot.

So there is still an big "?", what to do... 6500€s or more are still a lot of money for me

Birds and not near to you. Then the answer is very easy: 400 Do II. You will need the reach, no doubt. Best performance would be the 400 DO II + 1.4x on 6D. I still have a 7D, and must agree that the AF of that camera, which was very impressing by the announcement of the 7D years ago, is now passed by other cameras, including your 6D. The difference in reach between the 7D and the 6D, can be cropped on the 6D.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I would echo "Vern's" comments, though my personal combination is a 1DX + 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and an 800 F5.6 L IS.
The Canon 300 F2.8 (any version) is simply a superb lens and takes extenders VERY well. If you can carry/afford a longer lens then that is a better solution. However if you need mobility then the 500+ mm lenses start getting in the way - this is where the 300 F2.8 scores.
The 400DO Mk2 is still a bit new on the market. I have tried a few of the Mk1 versions with mixed results. They varied from barely adequate to 2 of the sharpest lenses that I have ever used! The 400DO Mk2 is looking very interesting but I think we should give it a little longer to prove itself before making specific recommendations.
Combining reach and mobility is always difficult so you need to work out exactly what you need and then decide on an appropriate lens.

 

[expatinasia]

I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?

Comparison between that and the 400 DO:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

This comparison is with the old 400 DO, the new version is not up on dp site yet and will look much better in the comparison.

You are right.

I was just highlighting that the new 100-400 may be an option.