I have a chance to trade the 300 f2.8 IS (2008) for 400 DO (2009)
would I make a mistake???
I have a 500 & would keep it!
Printable View
I have a chance to trade the 300 f2.8 IS (2008) for 400 DO (2009)
would I make a mistake???
I have a 500 & would keep it!
Personally I would keep the 300 2.8.
JMHO
Dave
That is one tough choice and would boil down to application !!!
For me it would make more sense having the DO since it could be used along with a 500 ... the other would be either or !!!
Buy the DO and keep the 300! Life is short!
I own a 300 2.8 and a 500 4 as well. I wouldn't make the trade. If you add 1.4xTC to the 300 you have a 420mm F4. To me, that means the only advantage to the 400mm DO would be weight. Is weight an overriding issue for you?
The 300 2.8 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and infinitely better than the 400 DO. I had the 400 DO and sold it because I didn't find the image quality worth the cost of the lens. I certainly would advise you to keep your current lenses and not 'trade down' to the 400 DO
Just my personal opinion based on using all three lenses.
Hi Debbie I have not owned a 400DO but have borrowed from CPS Its a fine lens and extremely sharp Not sure what was going on with yours? Might look in the bulletins when Artie was unable to use the 500 and took the DO to the Gallapagos ... no sharpness problems there !!
Jim you can't go wrong with either but adding a 1.4X to the 400 does give you significantly more range .... and two less pounds !!! Not a bad combination Was thinking from the boat with a 50D might be a good choice :)
Thank you all for the responses.
Deborah,
did you buy the 400 DO recently new?
To me, it's strictly a matter of focal length and packability, as the 400 DO is quite capable of making great images. Since you often don't know in advance what focal length you will need, I like to have everything covered from 17mm to 500 or 600. When traveling by air, I find both the 300 2.8 and 400 f4 too bulky (though it can be done). Instead, I usually pack the 70-200 and the 400 f5.6, along with a 17-40 and either the 500 or 600. I have owned the 400 DO, and currently own a 300 f2.8, but it seldom makes the cut when I'm flying.
When I was using Canon gear, I borrowed a 400 DO from CPS, and found that it was somewhat soft. I did not purchase one based on that experience.
The 300 2.8, on the other hand, is one of the best lenses on the planet. I'd keep it.
Take a look at the 400 5.6. I found that lens to offer less weight than the 400 DO, with much, much sharper images.
IMHO, it is a vastly under-appreciated gem of a lens.
I recently had the exact same option. I bought a 300 2.8 IS last fall along with a Canon 2x to use as a "stepping stone" to getting a 500 f4. I've never had any complaints about the performance of the 300 + converters... ever! The lens is just astonishing with either the 1.4 or 2x. A gentleman was selling his fairly recent 400 DO on FM, and wanted a 300 2.8 IS in exchange plus cash. His lens was quite sharp but the more I thought about it, the more I decided that I just couldn't give up the 300..
No, my 400 was one of the earlier ones. I now have a 400 5.6 which, in my hands, seems to be much sharper and have kept it for use when weight is an issueQuote:
Originally Posted by Renate Arzonetti
This is a really tough call. I have a 400mm DO which I am selling, but my experience with it has been great. I found mine to be much sharper that the 400mm f5.6 when I stoppped the DO down to f5.6. While it has lower contrast than the 300mm 2.8, I don't think the sharpness is way off as long as you stop it down to f4.5 or f5.6. It is much lighter than the 300mm f2.8 and the distribution of weight is more balanced which makes it feel even lighter. If you do a lot of hiking and treking, I would go with the DO. If you work many from the car or the house I would go with the 300mm f2.8. I am only selling mine as I don't travel with it, and I am not hiking much any more.
Bill
