Printable View
Hello good folks...
I would love to hear about anyone's practical experience RE either or both of these lenses. Aside from the obvious differences between the lenses (IQ, MFD, AF speed, IS) could anyone tell me about their actual hands-on real-life bird photography with either or both of these lenses? I'm 90% sure which lens is better for me, but I could always be persuaded...anyhow, I can't thank you enough for sharing your information...
Hi Jack.
I started my bird photography with the Canon 300mm f4L + 1.4X extender on a 40D. It has very nice image quality and has a minimum focus distance of 1.5m which makes it versatile for flowers and butterflies too. It is lightweight, and the IS makes this a very nice lens for hand-held shots. I think the extender slows down AF a bit, but I still love this lens combo.
I also have the 400mm f5.6L, and I use this for BIF in good light. Also lightweight, this lens produces sharp images. Both are great lenses, in my opinion.
The 400 f/5.6 wins hands down for flight, no contest. for perched birds 300 + f/4 might have an edge due to IS.
Appreciate the info, and i'm certainly on the same page as both of you. Let me add this: I deplore tripods and intend never to use one...assuming I'm fairly steady-handed, how would minimum shutter speeds compare? Many thanks...
Jack,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Breakfast
I can't compare to the 400 as I've not used one. But I do have the 300 f/4 and TCs. It is my lens of choice when I need to travel light. I specifically chose the 300 for the IS over any non-IS lens as I feel there are too many situations when it is important to get a good image. I bought the 300 f/4 before getting the 500 f/4 then the 300 f/2.8. I will always keep the 300 f/4 for its versatility and IQ (unless they come out with a version 2). Note the IS is the old style IS, which gives about 3 stops. It also has a problem that if you have IS on when shutter speeds are above about 1/2000 second, as image quality drops a small amount (presumably due to the IS action must be happening at similar frequencies). You really don't need IS at those speeds but must remember to turn it off.
Roger
Thanks much, Roger...that sounds about right to me...I can only afford one of the two and feel that the 300mm f4 will be far more versatile...on top of that, I already have the 1.4 teleconverter...I really appreciate the tip RE turning off IS at 1/2000...from what I hear, Canon has no plans to re-release this lens anytime soon, but who knows?
Another big fan of the 300 f/4 IS used it for years before buying a 500 f/4 and it is my go to lens for Dragonflies and Butterflies check out the dragonfly gallery on my website 90% of the image were made with the 300. In fact 2 of my friends have also bought 300 f/4 and love them.
It really comes down to whether you want to do flight as your primary subject or not, if yes 400 is your choice. The TC will slow down the AF on the 300 significantly, especially on a non-pro body...you will just miss the photo any way so the IS becomes kind of irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Breakfast
For static shots IS def helps as Roger pointed out, the effectiveness and the min shutter speed really depends on your personal hand holding capability, for me I don't need IS on such light lens but I think 1/200 to 1/2000sec is the range where you benefit from IS. Again as Roger pointed out IS on that lens is older version and not as effective as the new lenses... I think the Canon spec for that lens is only 2-stops (have to check with manual)
My first lens combo was actually the 300 f/4 and 1.4X TC, as others pointed out IQ was great but it wasn't really usable for flight work, my life changed when I upgraded to a 400 f/5.6. It seems like Canon is not going to update that lens with IS.
Jack, I used to have non-IS 300 f/4 before I upgraded to 400f5.6.
IQ on the 300 is very good and as others have stated, more versatile with close MFD ( MFD does not decrease when you add TC...thus giving very good magnification). On the IS model, yes, IS will help in certain situations. really depends on what you photograph the most.
compared to 300+1.4x, 400prime of course has the edge on the AF front...and also a slight edge on wide-open sharpness.
If you are interested in having one lens that can do a variety of things, then I'd say go with the 300.
What I have done is made 400 my go-to lens for birds. But I also carry 200 f2.8(another great lens, very underrated) in my bag that takes the TC very well. so that covers those focal lengths and close MFD situations.
Many thanks for the info, Arash, it's much appreciated. I feel that the 300 f4 would also be very useful on its own for the more forthcoming and/or larger birds...the MFD is greatly appealing too, but I take your grains of salt to heart...the truth of the matter is that I only shoot birds in flight once in a while, and they tend to be rookery birds or gulls, and in those cases I've found 300mm to be a nice FL anyhow...but seriously, thanks for the info...if I had your skills at shooting birds in flight I'd buy the 400 for sure...
And thank you also Kaustubh...I second your opinion on the 200 f2.8...I adore that lens and use it constantly with the 1.4 teleconverter...but of course it's a little short for a lot of situations...anyhow, I feel that I'm leaning towards the 300 or else perhaps some kind of heist that could land me, oh, I don't know, the 300 2.8 or maybe the 500 f4 etc etc...really guys, thanks again for the helpful advice...your know-how is impressive, to say the least...
Julie Brown has it right. I also have the 300 and the 400. 300+ for butterflies, dragonflies and perched birds. 400 5.6 for BIF. Both are great walk-around lenses.
Thank you, everyone, for your help...I feel that the 300mm will be more versatile and suit me better...will likely pick up a used copy from a store that offers a warranty...thank you again.
