300 or 400 and where to get??

[Meint Sijp]

Hi i'm wondering about bying the canon 300 F4 IS L or the Canon 400 F 5.6 L
My question is, Wich would be better for birding. The things i'm thinking about is the 300 have IS and More light, compared to 400. Also are there anywhere you could recommend bying one this have to be in usa cause i think it cost 1100 dollars new, dont know if possible to get used or if it's good. In denmark this Cost me 2000 dollars for the same. We have a greate life with the tax here:D

Hope any one Can give some help.'

Regards
Meint Sijp

[William Malacarne]

I bought the 300mm because of th IS then added a 1.4 teleconverter that gives me 420mm f/5.6 with IS.

Hope this helps

Bill M

PS B&H is a reliable place to buy.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

[JH Tugs]

How does the teleconverter work out for you? I have read such conflicting reviews about the comparison between the 300+1.4x Canon teleconverter versus the 400mm - both f/5.6 at that point of course, but as you say with the 300 having IS. (And since I'm looking for a long lens in that price bracket right now, I've been going back and forward for months on the pros and cons of each possibility...!).

I also have the impression that the 100-400M f/4.5-6.3L IS is seen as inferior to these primes, but again I see such conflicting comments on this issue it's hard to tell. Unfortunately I've yet to find anywhere where I could rent all 3 to do a comparison for myself - they only have the 100-400 to rent.

thanks

[JH Tugs]

Meint Sijp> They're about the same weight - only 60g or so in it I think, so that wouldn't be a deciding factor for me personally. However, one thing that may (or may not) be a deciding factor (depending on how you plan to use the lens) is the minimum focusing distance for the 300mm vs the 400mm. The 300mm focuses down to 1.5m (4.9'); the 400mm only to 3.5m (11.5'). For me, the 3.5m min distance is pretty limiting and would mean I'd have to consider using extension tubes for many shots by default.

The other thing that was worrying me for both of these lenses is that they are really quite old now - and I hear many reports of slow focusing on both of them, especially the 300mm. I'm sure that people here can comment on whether this is true for them - I'd be keen to hear more first hand experiences too.

[Robert Amoruso]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a very popular handheld bird in flight lens. Due to the short focusing distance, it focuses FAST.

The 300mm f/4 is pretty good speed wise with the 1.4x and a slow with a 2x. As mentioned, the close focusing of the lens and especially if you combine it with extention tubes makes for a good macro.

The 100-400mm is a good all around zoom. I have had two and both where very sharp. Too slow for birds in flight unless it is a slow moving one. Good for mammals.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

I was tossing and turning over either and settled for the 300/4 IS with 1.4x and 2x converters. Though not having a 1D series body, I get only manual focus with the 2x. It appears to focus just fine, very fast in fact in AF modes on its own or with a Canon EFII 1.4x.

[Judd Patterson]

The 300mm f/4 and 1.4x TC has been by combo of choice for several years and it is capable of a HUGE variety of images. I went with the 300mm and TC because it had IS, focusing down to 4.9 feet, and with a TC it gave me two focal length options. It is certainly not as fast to focus as the 400mm, but you can certainly take flight shots with either lens. Here are around 200 images that I created with my 300mm: http://www.juddpatterson.com/search.php?lens=300mm%20f/4

[Alfred Forns]

The 400 5.6 has a horrible minimum focussing distance That is the reason it focuses fast (I'm sure Robert meant that )

For birds it would be my choice With a 1.6X camera is a 640 lens In a pinch you can use a converter When I had that lens I did use it with a converter on occasions and found it sharp

[Johnny Bravo]

'What they said' Good advice. I used the 300 and the 1.4 for about 18 months before I went to big glass. Very effective combination. I tried the 100-400 before I picked up the 300--it's a reasonably good lens but I found it was quite soft when compared to any of the primes. at 300 or 400mm. Picked up a 400f5.6 this year and I'm VERY impressed. Sharp as a tack and focuses very fast. On a shoulder mount, it's just killer for birds in flight. To your original question, I'd go with the 300 and 1.4. It's a great way to get started and that lens is one you'll never want to sell. (dittos for the 400, it's just not as versatile)

Where to buy? I'd try Hunts--I like to do business with the 'little guys' when I can. If he's got it in stock, I buy from him first. If not, then I go to Ritz for bodies ordered over the web (just got my 1DS from them, for some reason they seem to get the new bodies first)--and usually end up at BandH or Adora for 'Big Glass' lenses over the web.

[Pete Woods]

What about the 400 DO as a good BIF lens ???

[Meint Sijp]

Thanks a lot for the Answers. Still a little doubt. Forgot to mension i shoot the 1D MRK III now and went from 20 D so have to learn a lot. also i have the 1-400 wich i'm very happy with and got some good shots, but i still have some fokusing probs, have to get it send to canon when ever they have the time.

Another question is the lenses are pretty old now, do you think they would have to be upgraded if that is possible or dose'nt that have anything to say.

Also i have been calculating, even though it sound amazing:D The :

300 + MRKIII + 1,4TC = 546 F/5.2
400 + MRKIII + 1,4TC = 728 F/7,8

Know i'm not very good at theese things, i now it makes the 400 a little slower and you have to give it some more light.But does it have any big saying for birds in flight?? And does any one know howe the AF works on theese two

SORRY IF YOU allredy have answered these new questions i just have some problems some times consentrating reading english and allso hope i havent been writing to fuzzy, but so you understand the question???

Regards meint sijp

[D. Robert Franz]

Since you state the lens would be for birding I would go for the 400mm F5.6.. The MK3 will focus with the 1.4X and you start off with more focal length.

[Alfred Forns]

The 300 will do better with a tele for birds in flight has a larger max aperture Both (any lens) will suffer as far as AF performance

Pete the 400 DO is a fine lens Artie has lots of in depth comments in the bulletins Might want to do a search The only drawback is the close focusing distance It is not good I got one from CPS and liked it very much My original idea was to use it for a flight lens on camera

Taking that and the long lens was way much for me I seem to do the best when going light The lens is only one pound more than the 5.6 but it is larger

[Pete Woods]

Thanks Al. Over here the 400 DO is £4000 but I can get one from DigitalRev on ebay for £2708 with guaranteed Vat/import duty reinbursed...

I have used DigitalRev before so this may be the route i take. Will read Artie's comments on the lens first though.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

I bought the 300mm because of th IS then added a 1.4 teleconverter that gives me 420mm f/5.6 with IS.



I agree, I sold my 400 5.6 (a beautiful lens) and kept my 300 as I use it for BIF and Macro/close up and on occasions with the 2X KENKO manually focused and it is a superb combo.

It replaced my 500 F4 and my 400 5.6 and is a lot less gear to carry.