Wich telephoto lens to choose?

Hi,
I'm looking to buy a telephoto lens mainly for wildlife and a bit of sports.
I have narrowed the choice to EF 300 f/2.8 L IS II and the new EF 400 f/4 DO IS II.
They are roughly the same price. I have already used the EF 300 and this lens is wonderfull even with the teleconverters.
But the EF 400 is longer and lighter and there are a lot of negative comment on the old EF 400 DO.

I know it all depends on what I shoot, but I would like to know what pro's and con's you guys have for these lenses.

Thanks in advance,

Andre
Montreal, PQ, CAN

Sounds like you know the main pros and cons....

The 300 2.8 may be the sharpest lens Canon ever made and it does well with both the 1.4 and 2.0 converters. I have version I of this lens and it is great. I use it for sports occasionally such as baseball and soccer. I also use it for bird photography. In fact, I took some humming bird shots with it this morning and posted them on this forum! It really produces amazing images.

I never owned or used the 400 DO but if you need a 400 prime have you ruled out the 400 f/5.6 prime? it's a very fine lens for a lot less money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Sounds like you know the main pros and cons....

The 300 2.8 may be the sharpest lens Canon ever made and it does well with both the 1.4 and 2.0 converters. I have version I of this lens and it is great. I use it for sports occasionally such as baseball and soccer. I also use it for bird photography. In fact, I took some humming bird shots with it this morning and posted them on this forum! It really produces amazing images.

I never owned or used the 400 DO but if you need a 400 prime have you ruled out the 400 f/5.6 prime? it's a very fine lens for a lot less money.

---

I have not ruled out the 400 f/5.6 but it does not have IS... I have rented the 300 a couple of times and the image quality out of this lens is amazing even with the teleconverters so if the new 400 DO performs closely to the 300, the longer focal lenght will be nice for birds. With an EF 2x it's 800 f/8 wich is really nice for small birds.

Andre,

If the reviews of the 400 DO II come in as expected (exceptional), then, for me, it gets down to what you value more: the ability to get 800 mm f/8 or 300 mm f/2.8. Because the are both going to give exceptional performance at ~400-420 f/4 and 560-600 f/5.6. The 400 DO may have a slight advantage in that range as it would be native or with a 1.4xTC vs 1.4xTC and 2xTC. We'll see. That is one of the things I'll be looking for in reviews. Again, assuming everything checks out in reviews.

For wildlife, I suspect the 400 DO may be better. And the 500 or 600 f/4 even better.

It is hard to do pro and con on a lens not available yet. By the previews it looks like both have good IQ. So the difference will be 100mm longer with the 400, wider 2.8 aperture which might give a bit better Bokeh at 300 with the 300.
The 400 looks promising, I would suggest waiting for some reviews before you commit. To many unproven unknowns like focus speed, Bokeh, IQ ......

you could also consider a 500 mm f/4 Is I series used, it would be just a bit less money and is an excellent lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

It is hard to do pro and con on a lens not available yet. By the previews it looks like both have good IQ. So the difference will be 100mm longer with the 400, wider 2.8 aperture which might give a bit better Bokeh at 300 with the 300.
The 400 looks promising, I would suggest waiting for some reviews before you commit. To many unproven unknowns like focus speed, Bokeh, IQ ......

you could also consider a 500 mm f/4 Is I series used, it would be just a bit less money and is an excellent lens.

---

It' a good way of seeing it: 300 f/2.8 ou 800 f/8
The 500 f/4 is to bulky and heavy even if it's more suitable for wildlife...