Another 300f4 IS or 400f5.6 question...

Sorry for another one of these threads, but I think I know what I want, just checking some questions out.


Have some kids that will be reaching the age of youth soccer in the near future and also have been bitten by the birding bug. Nothing too serious yet, but hey, having fun. I am really not needing IS that much as I rarely use it when taking pictures outside with my 70-200f4IS. I don't really use that lens much inside as I have fast primes. I probably will be on the sidelines of the soccer matches so reach should be ok with either one. I have a Kenko 1.4xtc that I use on the 70-200 and get great results at 280mm but find the need for a longer reach most times. I have done reading up on the focus slowing with TC on the 300f4, but it isn't really any different than the TC on the 70-200 and that is fine with me.


So here is the question for you that have either owned or have the following...would I benefit from the extra reach of the 400 or should I just buy the 300 and use the TC when I need the extra reach? If I happen to go out, I have a 2nd body that the 70-200 can go on, so switching isn't an issue. My concern is that I will buy the 400 and lose the stop of light and maybe it will be a little long for the soccer/baseball fields. Will evenings be an issue at sundown with the 400? Also, I know that the Kenko doesn't report to the lensapertureand so would your camera AF with the 400 on a non 1D body? Anyone try this? I previously had the 70-300 IS and used the TC with that and it focused at 300. IQ however, not so good with the extra glass.


Thanks for any input that you might have.


Jayson

Rent both and try for yourself, a week of shooting should give you an idea.

Only problem with renting is the kids sports haven't started yet and really, the only two lens the local camera store have that would be close is the 300 2.8 and the 100-400. They don't have the two I am looking at.

Jayson, where do you live?


If you live in the US, try www.lensrentals.com

Nebraska. I will have to see how much renting for a week will run. I know I would be happy with both, but just looking to see what would be more practical.

300 f/4L IS http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-300mm-f4-l-is/for-canon


400 f/5.6L http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-400mm-f5.6-l/for-canon


7-day rental period doesn't start until after you get the lens

Thanks Nate. I will check that out. I know you shot with the 400 before you upgraded to the big boy, but did you ever try a TC with the 400?


Jayson

I still SHOOT with my 400 [:D], just not so much now. I don't have a 1.4 extender and never used one with my 400, planning to get one in the near future though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

Thanks Nate. I will check that out. I know you shot with the 400 before you upgraded to the big boy, but did you ever try a TC with the 400?


Jayson

---

Jayson, I wouldn't suggest putting a TC on the 400. It's already slow and big and doesn't have IS. A 640mm f/8? No thank you. Especially for sports. I shoot with a 7D and 300 f4 w/ no TC, and it's plenty enough reach for me. I often have to back up! As Nate said, rent both and decide. The 300 does MFD at 5' compared to the 400's 11', and that was a deciding factor for me, you'll have to decide if that's important to you.


brendan

Come to think of it, I remember you saying a couple times that the 500 was a little long. [;)]

I didn't think TC on the 400 would be a good way to go, but you never know...always have to ask. I have the 7D also and was thinking that the 300 would be the way to go, but thought I would check. I have that 70-300 and I like the distance that gives me, but always wondered about having another 100 to the end. I am going to give renting a shot and see what comes of it. Thanks guys for the input.


Jayson

I don't disagree with Nate's suggestion that you rent.


However, it *sounds* like much more concerned with reach than with MFD or IS. You've tried 280mm and know you would like more reach than that. This being the case, the 400mm f/5.6 seems the way to go.


(Sure, you could put the TC on a 300mm in a pinch, but if you're primarily going to want the longer focal length, get the longer lens).

I use the EF 300mm f/4.0 L USM (no IS) for a lot of daylight sports and I think it is a great choice. It is certainly lighter and less expensive than the two big f/2.8 primes and it is a tad sharper than the 70-200. If you do choose the EF70-200mm f/2.8, you'll have an outstanding and versatile lens.


I rarely see the EF400 f/5.6 and I think it is just a tad too slow for anything but brite day shooting.


You can't go wrong with the 300.

The 300 f/4 is slow with the 1.4x (f/5.6). I use the 300 on a 30d (480mm f/4 not bad), and on a 5d. You also loose some IQ with a TC. I like IQ. The 70-200 f/4 IS also has great IQ as is. I have both (I like Primes better). f/4 needs good light to get good IQ. f/5.6 (I assume your not talking about the 400 f/2.8) seems to slow to me to shoot sports. No AF with a TC on non 1series bodies( the 400 f/5.6)

Just to play devil's advocate, why a prime? You're going to be on the sidelines of a sport where the players are moving up and down the field, so the action might be 15 feet away, or might be 50 yards away. To me, that situation calls for the flexibility of a zoom like the 100-400mm.


However, if you're going out with the 70-200 f/4 on a second body then a prime would make sense. You stated, "I have a Kenko 1.4xtc that I use on the 70-200 and get great results at 280mm but find the need for a longer reach most times." If you really mean most times, why are you considering the 300mm f/4? If you'd said your problem with the 70-200+1.4x is that at 280mm f/5.6 is too slow, or IQ is inadequate, then the 300mm f/4 would be the obvious choice. But 300mm is not a 'longer reach' than 280mm, IMO, so if you're going with a prime you'd want the 400mm f/5.6. But then I'd come back to the 100-400mm, since at 400mm it's no slower than the prime, and offers much more flexibility, IS just in case, and only a very minor hit on IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

You're going to be on the sidelines of a sport where the players are moving up and down the field, so the action might be 15 feet away, or might be 50 yards away. To me, that situation calls for the flexibility of a zoom like the 100-400mm.


However, if you're going out with the 70-200 f/4 on a second body then a prime would make sense.

---

I agree much. For such things, I really like a 70-200 on one body at aprime on another.


Good for games, weddings, etc.

The 400mm F/5.6 is a great lens, I used it on my 40D, and autofocused in good light with both 1.4X and 2X TC's. Obviously, AF with a 2X was slow and light has to be good.


I never really intended to use TC's with the lens, I had a cheap non reportingTamron 1.4X and a quantaray 2X that came with a used camera, so I gave it a try.





The house in this photo is a long long ways away, maybe 1500-2,000 ft, so the atmosphere causes some distortion. The lens was on a tripod, and the shutter speeds vary from 1/80 sec with the 2X to 1/500 with no TC, due to my letting the camera set the parameters.





400mm no TC


http://mt-spokane-photography.smugmu...7_XGLLE-XL.jpg





Same location with 1.4 TC


http://mt-spokane-photography.smugmu...7_KMVbf-XL.jpg





Same location with 2X TC


http://mt-spokane-photography.smugmu...7_JMq9W-XL.jpg

Thanks for all of the tips and pictures. I appreciate your responses. I have a friend that I just discovered purchased the 300 f4, so I am going to go shooting with him in the near future and will give that a shot. We will see if that works for what I am looking for and if not, then the 400 will be in my bag.


Thanks again.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation and my solution is torent a Sigma 100-300 F/4. Not image stabalized, but I believe that shooting action in daylight I don't want it. Renting makes alot more sense to me than buying and selling.

Nothing wrong with renting, its the $40 postage that is painful to me.


I have generally found that I can buy a popular Canon L use it for 2 or 3 years, and if I want to upgrade, sell it for what I paid or more. I tried this with a Sigma and found resale to be much less favorable.


But, for a one time use, rentals make sense, its just that we have no local rentals, so I must rent by mail order and pay the high cost of shipping.

...some may not be happy as I have raised a similar thread about this query and I do apologize as somehow I missed seeing this prior.


I'm in the same boat and can't decide over the 300 4L or the 400 5.6L.Looking at "Nate's" photo's, itlooks like I'm leaning towards the 400 5.6L.


There has also been mention of the 100-400 5.6L, but is this not as slow as the 400 5.6L? I have the 70-200 2.8 IS so the 100-200 to me is out of the question and prefer the prime over the zoom (I don't like the push-pull). The only benefit that I can see with the 100-400 over the 400 is the IS functionality but again, you won't be freezing the action only hand-holding capability when stepping down (??).


I know I won't be using either during the evening as this is where my 70-200 2.8 comes in. I would then ask those with experience with either lens,is the 400 5.6L slower than the 300 4L to auto-focus when primarily used for nature shots during the day (typical sunny day)? Which one is the sharper with or without a 1.4x TC. My camera body is a 450D but I'm also leaning towards upgrading to the 7D. Maybe Henrys or Vistek could give me special pricing on the bundle - dare to dream!


Thanks

Am I the only person who thinks the Sigma 100-300 F/4 deserves a look?


Advantages : fixed f/4, zoom, fixed length, portability, price


Disadvantages: No IS (could happenin the future- Sigma's recently announced OS for several of their popular lenses)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschaps

Disadvantages: No IS (could happenin the future- Sigma's recently announced OS for several of their popular lenses)

---

How about AF issues? I will admit I've never used a Sigma lens - but I am somewhat concerned that many (most?) of Bryan's reviews of Sigma lenses, and many of the other reviews on the 'net using Sigma lenses with Canon bodies, mention issues with AF performance (and Sigma's notorious QC issues). Is this lens an exception? The photozone.de review is quite favorable, and it's specs look quite nice...

I've read elsewhere AF with this lens requires "technique" -essentially pre-focusingfrequently even when not actually capturing images.


I plan to rent for ten days starting March 12th. I'll let you know around then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschaps

I've read elsewhere AF with this lens requires "technique" -essentially pre-focusingfrequently even when not actually capturing images.

---

Pseudo-manual-sort-of-automatic focus?If autofocus isn't really<span>autofocus, what good is it?For myself, I'll pass...but let us know how it works out for you! Or how it will have already previously worked out for you in the future that has already passed into the past...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschaps

I plan to rent for ten days starting March 12th.

---

Where'd you get a Way-Back machine? Do you mean March 12th, 2011? That's planning pretty far in advance! [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

...what good is it?

---

We'll see. For me it's about the image. The rest is chit-chat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschaps

I plan to rent for ten days starting March 12th.

---

Yes, of course. I meant April 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Where'd you get a Way-Back machine? Do you mean March 12th, 2011? That's planning pretty far in advance! [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<p style="CLEAR: both"]

---

<p style="CLEAR: both"]That's clever. I've got one for you: When's a doctor a real doctor? Answer: When he's practicing medicine. Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschaps

Yes, of course. I meant April 12.

---

Yes, I assumed so. [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschaps

I've got one for you: When's a doctor a real doctor? Answer: When he's practicing medicine.

---

LOL! In fact, I'm not a real doctor - I'm the fake kind, PhD, not MD. I am guilty of the occasional self-diagnosis, though... [:P]

Jayson, just for clarification, are you buying the 400 f/5.6 for sports? For birds it's a nice lens but for other uses it just tends to be a little slow. It's not that big of a deal but sometimes that f4 aperture can save you. Rent the lenses and find out


-brendan

I was seriously considering the 400 for sports and other photo taking chances, such as birds. I had a chance to try the 100-400 and I know the quality is pretty comparableto the 400 prime. Anyway, long story short, sitting on the sidelines of a little kiddie soccer game, I found myself to be more in the 300 range. I think that might be the way to go so I am going to give that a shot. Thank you for all of your replies, I really appreciate it. I also thinking that the MFD of the 300 will be a bonus. I didn't think it would be initially, but after a weekend of pure shooting time, I noticed that I did shoot many things at the MFD of the 70-200 and thought I would like to have my macro. I believe my choice was made with those two situations. 300 F4 IS it is!.


Again, thanks for the input everyone.


Jayson

Congrats Jayson!


Really nice to have another 300 f/4 IS shooter on this forum.

It's going to be fun. Before I can buy it however, I have to sell an XTi and a 70-300. Maybe a 50mm 1.8 too...you know to offset the difference. I don't think I need two rebels as I really never use them since I got the 7D.


Be happy to post some shots when I get that beauty!


Jayson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

Be happy to post some shots when I get that beauty!

---

Love to see them! Enjoy the new lens when you get it!


After shooting with my 300mm f/4L IS for a few weeks (I bought a used copy for a great price on Craigslist), I came to the conclusion that I wanted a bit more reach and also more versatility - accordingly, my EF 100-400mm arrives tomorrow... [:D]

I really considered that lens, but just can't jump that much in budget. Plus I already have the great 70-200f4 IS that I carry on my other camera. Sure its a rebel, but thecenter pointworks pretty well to get whatever with it. Thats why I was really only looking at the primes. Enjoy your new lens. There are many out there that love that lens. I really liked the one that I tried.


Jayson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

I really considered that lens, but just can't jump that much in budget. Plus I already have the great 70-200f4 IS that I carry on my other camera. Sure its a rebel, but thecenter pointworks pretty well to get whatever with it. Thats why I was really only looking at the primes. Enjoy your new lens. There are many out there that love that lens. I really liked the one that I tried.


Jayson

---

Then you chose perfectly. I never understood the point of getting a 100-400 if you already have a telezoom. Makes &cent;&cent;&cent;&cent;


brendan

Because there's an overlap doesn't mean that the zoom range is wasted...


Things move, sometimes faster than you can change a lens, or even a camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Because there's an overlap doesn't mean that the zoom range is wasted...


Things move, sometimes faster than you can change a lens, or even a camera.

---

Good Point.