Canon 300 f4.0L vs 400 f5.6lL

[Leigh Cojocar]

I know these aren't the big lens that you guys have to play with, but I'm pretty young and just starting out as a hobbyist so I can't afford anything bigger at the moment.

I am torn between the 400 or the 300 f4.0L IS with 1.4x TC.

Wondering if anyone has any experience with either of these lens or possibly both.

My understanding is the 400 will not AF with a TC, and that the 300 is very slow AF compared to 400 specially for BIF. IF the 300 was faster I think it would be a no brainer since the 300 with 1.4x TC gives you 420 @ 5.6 while also offering IS.

I have found both used and in great condition, 400 for $900 and the 300 for $1200.


any input would be helpful.


Thanks.

[Markus Jais]

Hi Leigh,

both lenses are excellent. I've not used the 5.6/400 except for a few test shots. I've been using the 4/300L IS + 1.4x II for a long time. Very sharp, very light lens.

I would go for the 4/300 + 1.4x. This will give you 2 focal length. Sometimes, when animals are closer, the 4/300 will be enough. If you use a crop camera like the 7/70D, it will be great. Depends on how shy the animals are where you live. Here in Germany birds require long lenses like 500/600 but in many places a 4/300 + 1.4x and a 7D will be a great setup. Also great for mammals.


The 4/300 is also a great lens for flowers and large insects as it has a magnification ration of 0.24x (I I remember correctly).

AF at f8 will only work with the EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 1DX (firware update may be necessary) and the older 1D models like the 1D Mark IV.

An alternative might be the 2.8/70-200L IS II with a 2x III extender. A bit more expensive but very sharp and popular. And you would have all the zoom range from 70-400.

Hope this helps,

Markus

[Don Lacy]

The 300 f/4 is my second favorite lens next to my 500/4 it's the lens a shot with for years until I could afford a 500. If you want the most versatile lens the 300 with the 1.4 TC would be my choice it's a jack of all trades from Macro with extension tubes to bird and mammal photography, now if your main interest is BIF then the 400 is the better lens as the 300 with TC will not keep up with the 400 when it comes to AF speed.

[Leigh Cojocar]

I already have a 70-200 4.0 and am thinking of upgrading to the 2.8 IS but right now I want something longer.

Will the 300 and 1.4xTC only focus at f 8.0 on some camera's? I am shooting with a 60D.

BIF isn't my main interest I would say birds in general along with wildlife are my interests at the moment.

I'm leaning towards the 300 now when I was sure I was going for the 400. I was contemplating buying both then selling which ever I didn't use.

[Don Lacy]

Will the 300 and 1.4xTC only focus at f 8.0 on some camera's? I am shooting with a 60D.

the 300 f/4 with a 1.4TC has a max aperture of f/5.6 not f/8 and will focus on any Canon body the 400 with TC has a max aperture of f/8 and will only focus on a 1D or 5DIII body

BIF isn't my main interest I would say birds in general along with wildlife are my interests at the moment.

Then I would go with the 300 f/4 I doubt you will regret it.

[Ashley Cohen]

Hi, I've had both lenses, the sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX OS, the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MK II, the 300mm F2.8 L IS and now a 300mm F2.8 L IS MK II ( with a switch to a nikon 500mm F4 between those lol), so I have quite a bit of a experience with the shorter lenses.

My opinion of the 300mm and the 1.4x was always a bit hit and miss but everyone raves about it and I wondering after a look back at my images not so long ago I could have been front or back focusing badly with that setup. The lenses on it's own wasn't that sharp at F4 infact hardly useable, but once you were at F4.5 it was sharp and only got sharper after that, F5.6 was a nice sharp spot. Again Im not sure I had a great copy. I found the AF speed slow for moving birds with the 1.4x on but the flexibility of the lens was great for butterflies, amphibians and tamer wildlife.

The 400mm F5.6 I had was sharp at F5.6 and only got slightly better stopped down. The AF speed was fast and BIF were no problem. I used it on occasion on my 7D with the 1.4x on static roosting birds, Focused through liveview and the results were very good. The lens was quite limited due to the 3.5 meter minimum focus if anything came in really close and was no good at macro, also having no IS made it tricky at times to get sharp images.

The 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MK II and 2x MK 3 I used for bird photography fell short on the 7D. I didn't feel it gave me the best reach and it needed to be stopped down to F7.1 ( ish) to give good quality. It did suffer a bit when you tried to crop in and AF speed wasn't the best. This setup will work as a second lens setup on a 1D body as the AF speed will be good enough and the images sharper but I wouldn't use it as your main setup on a 7D 1.6x crop body.

If I was starting out again I thinK I would be quite happy with the flexibility the 300mm offered and the image quality. Don't expect to do tack sharp BIF shots with the 1.4x attached but you'll capture more images of a variety of wildlife than the 400mm F5.6. If image quality and AF speed is the most important thing then the 400mm F5.6 is your better option.

[Leigh Cojocar]

Hi, I've had both lenses, the sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX OS, the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MK II, the 300mm F2.8 L IS and now a 300mm F2.8 L IS MK II ( with a switch to a nikon 500mm F4 between those lol), so I have quite a bit of a experience with the shorter lenses.

My opinion of the 300mm and the 1.4x was always a bit hit and miss but everyone raves about it and I wondering after a look back at my images not so long ago I could have been front or back focusing badly with that setup. The lenses on it's own wasn't that sharp at F4 infact hardly useable, but once you were at F4.5 it was sharp and only got sharper after that, F5.6 was a nice sharp spot. Again Im not sure I had a great copy. I found the AF speed slow for moving birds with the 1.4x on but the flexibility of the lens was great for butterflies, amphibians and tamer wildlife.

The 400mm F5.6 I had was sharp at F5.6 and only got slightly better stopped down. The AF speed was fast and BIF were no problem. I used it on occasion on my 7D with the 1.4x on static roosting birds, Focused through liveview and the results were very good. The lens was quite limited due to the 3.5 meter minimum focus if anything came in really close and was no good at macro, also having no IS made it tricky at times to get sharp images.

The 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MK II and 2x MK 3 I used for bird photography fell short on the 7D. I didn't feel it gave me the best reach and it needed to be stopped down to F7.1 ( ish) to give good quality. It did suffer a bit when you tried to crop in and AF speed wasn't the best. This setup will work as a second lens setup on a 1D body as the AF speed will be good enough and the images sharper but I wouldn't use it as your main setup on a 7D 1.6x crop body.

If I was starting out again I thinK I would be quite happy with the flexibility the 300mm offered and the image quality. Don't expect to do tack sharp BIF shots with the 1.4x attached but you'll capture more images of a variety of wildlife than the 400mm F5.6. If image quality and AF speed is the most important thing then the 400mm F5.6 is your better option.

How was the 300 focusing for BIF with out the 1.4x on it ?


Thanks everyone for your responses.

[Doug Schurman]

I doubt you would ever take off the 1.4 extender on the 300 f4 when shooting birds. People rarely get that close to birds outside of Florida and it looks like you are in Canada.

The 400 will provide the accuracy and focus speed that the 300 f4 and extender can equal. IS really isn't that big a deal. Yes it can help but I value the focus accuracy and speed much more.

[Ashley Cohen]

I doubt you would ever take off the 1.4 extender on the 300 f4 when shooting birds. People rarely get that close to birds outside of Florida and it looks like you are in Canada.

The 400 will provide the accuracy and focus speed that the 300 f4 and extender can equal. IS really isn't that big a deal. Yes it can help but I value the focus accuracy and speed much more.

As I say it depends on what the original posters plans to shoot mostly. Leigh if your mostly planning on static shots and your wanting to shoot handheld the IS will help with those types of shots more so I think. If your looking at doing BIF I'd go for the 400mm F5.6. AF speed without the extender on the 300mm is very fast equal to the 400mm as I recall. A focus limit switch is on both lenses and it really helps with the 300mm especially when your using it with the 1.4x. Infact I'd never use it for birds without it on limit.

The other thing to consider is if your planning on shooting birds at a feeder setup then the 400mm becomes awkward with it's 3.5m close focus and the 300mm becomes much more flexible with it's 1.5m close focus. Although you have to consider if your using a 1.4x you'll probably want to stop down from F5.6 to F8 reducing the shutter speed in half unless you up the ISO accordingly meaning noisier images if you don't have much light to play with.

There's always lots to consider when going for a lens. Also don't write off the 100-400mm if you can get a good copy it's a great lens.

[Leigh Cojocar]

As I say it depends on what the original posters plans to shoot mostly. Leigh if your mostly planning on static shots and your wanting to shoot handheld the IS will help with those types of shots more so I think. If your looking at doing BIF I'd go for the 400mm F5.6. AF speed without the extender on the 300mm is very fast equal to the 400mm as I recall. A focus limit switch is on both lenses and it really helps with the 300mm especially when your using it with the 1.4x. Infact I'd never use it for birds without it on limit.

The other thing to consider is if your planning on shooting birds at a feeder setup then the 400mm becomes awkward with it's 3.5m close focus and the 300mm becomes much more flexible with it's 1.5m close focus. Although you have to consider if your using a 1.4x you'll probably want to stop down from F5.6 to F8 reducing the shutter speed in half unless you up the ISO accordingly meaning noisier images if you don't have much light to play with.

There's always lots to consider when going for a lens. Also don't write off the 100-400mm if you can get a good copy it's a great lens.

We have some upland birds that will not fly until almost stepped on so i'm thinking I might still get use of the 300 with out the TC for BIF, but like I said its not a big deal.

I have considered the 100-400 but I really had my heart set on a prime lens. I'm not to crazy about how the 100-400 telescopes to zoom.

I know soon enough i'll be wanting a 500mm i'm sure lol.

[fabiobernardino]

Have you considered a Sigma 50-500 OS ? Maybe you should rent one and check if it fits your image quality requirements and the weight of the lens.

[Marina Scarr]

I owned the 300/4 for several years and now own the 400/5.6. In your shoes I would go with the 400. You have a 70-200 which will reach to 280 with a 1.4 and that combo is pretty fast. The 70-200 is also very good for macro. Lately I have been using the 400 with a 1.4 for something light and I have been very pleased with the results, even of flight images. I have no regrets about letting my 300 and switching to the 400.

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

I have no experience with the 400f/5.6 but in a country like mine, where animals are most of the time in the deep shadows, I would go with the 300f/4. In fact, that´s my favorite lens, I most of the time use it stacked with the 1.4X TC and even have tried some BIF with it! not very fast but as you mention that is not going to be your main shooting idea, so you would be fine. I love this lens since I can focus pretty close (1.5mts!) and can always use the lens without the TC. IS in this lens works just fine with my MkIII and I am sure it would work great on your 60D. So to me it is no brainer as which lens to get! Good luck with whatever lens you get!

[Leigh Cojocar]

Have you considered a Sigma 50-500 OS ? Maybe you should rent one and check if it fits your image quality requirements and the weight of the lens.

unfortunately I live in small town that doesn't even have a camera store let alone somewhere I could rent a lens.

[Markus Jais]

unfortunately I live in small town that doesn't even have a camera store let alone somewhere I could rent a lens.

Some stores offer renting via a website. They will send you the lens via UPS or similar. I've never used this and I don't know if it is available anywhere suitable for you but it might be possible to try that.

Maybe some BPN member has the lens and lives close to you and you can meet. I would be happy to let you try the 4/300L IS but I live in southern Germany which might be too far away.

Markus

[Doug Howell]

I owned the 300/4 for several years and now own the 400/5.6. In your shoes I would go with the 400. You have a 70-200 which will reach to 280 with a 1.4 and that combo is pretty fast. The 70-200 is also very good for macro. Lately I have been using the 400 with a 1.4 for something light and I have been very pleased with the results, even of flight images. I have no regrets about letting my 300 and switching to the 400.

I totally agree with Marina, I did exactly the same selling my 300/4 IS for a new 400/5.6. I loved the 300 with 1.4x but it couldn't compete in image quality with the bare 400. I use it with the 1.4x as well giving me 560mm on my 1DX which is also very good. If you own a 60D that will give you 640mm with the 400 without extenders and the quality will be superb even for a 20 year old lens !
I would definitely go for the 400 without question.
I also thought that I could use the 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x instead of the 300/4 anyway with 4 stop IS as well

[Chris Cooke]

Leigh, I still have the 300 f/4 L IS and the 400 f/5.6L for some 6 years and would not part with either. 1) The 300 f/4 + 1.4 is fine for BIFS Provided you remember the value of PRE FOCUS and use the focus limiter both lenses are VERY sharp from wide open up. As has been said I frequently use the 300 for Macro with Extension Tubes .2) The 400 f/5.6 is my favorite BIF lens especially as it now flies with the 1.4X and my 5DMKIII it is light, blindingly sharp and providing you practice your hand holding technique (I shoot hundreds of seagulls each week just to keep my panning skills up) a joy to use all day.

The problem is the two lenses compliment each other really well but if you could only have one, versatility should point you to the 300 f/4L IS.

Best of luck and please let us know how you go.

[raymondy]

Hi Leigh,

both lenses are excellent. I've not used the 5.6/400 except for a few test shots. I've been using the 4/300L IS + 1.4x II for a long time. Very sharp, very light lens.


I would go for the 4/300 + 1.4x. This will give you 2 focal length. Sometimes, when animals are closer, the 4/300 will be enough. If you use a crop camera like the 7/70D, it will be great. Depends on how shy the animals are where you live. Here in Germany birds require long lenses like 500/600 but in many places a 4/300 + 1.4x and a 7D will be a great setup. Also great for mammals.


The 4/300 is also a great lens for flowers and large insects as it has a magnification ration of 0.24x (I I remember correctly).

AF at f8 will only work with the EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 1DX (firware update may be necessary) and the older 1D models like the 1D Mark IV.

An alternative might be the 2.8/70-200L IS II with a 2x III extender. A bit more expensive but very sharp and popular. And you would have all the zoom range from 70-400.

Hope this helps,

Markus

I have the 300 f/4 and love it

[Karl Egressy]

I had two copies of 300 f4.0 L IS and three copies of the 400 f5.6 L.
I always sold them when I needed the money to buy some other equipment and always bought them again.
Both are excellent lenses. The 300 is more versatile, the 400 has better focusing speed and sharper image than the 300 with the 1.4x TC on.
The 300 is great for macro as well. I was mostly or shooting birds.

[Leigh Cojocar]

well you guys have given me lots to think about and I thank you for that!

I'll be making a trip to the states this weekend and hopefully be able to find a camera store. Its really gonna come down to which lens I can find first and what it will cost me. I said I was looking second hand but for a extra couple hundred I do like the idea of just buying new.

I'll probably keep my eye open for the 300, but if the 400 comes along i'll jump on it. I like the idea of upgrade my 70-200 to the 2.8 IS from the 4.0 and having the 400 and a 1.4x TC would have me covered everywhere.

Thanks!

[Markus Jais]

How was the 300 focusing for BIF with out the 1.4x on it ?


Thanks everyone for your responses.

I haven't done too much BIF with the 4/300. Where I live birds are shy. But I did flight photography of Steppe Eagles and some other birds in India with the lens. Tracking the eagles with the 7D, 4/300 and 1.4x II was no problem. Lot's of sharp images. Without the 1.4x, it would have been even better. Very sharp. A 5D III or 1DX shouls produce even better results (if you can get close enough to the birds). Soaring and gliding Steppe Eagles are not the fastest birds, though. I've never used the lens for birds like terns or shorebirds.

I think the 4/300 with and without 1.4x would be good for BIF if you can get close enough. The better the AF of the camera, the better the results.


Markus

[Karl Egressy]

I had two copies of 300 f4.0 L IS and three copies of the 400 f5.6 L.
I always sold them when I needed the money to buy some other equipment and always bought them again.
Both are excellent lenses. The 300 is more versatile, the 400 has better focusing speed and sharper image than the 300 with the 1.4x TC on.
The 300 is great for macro as well. I was mostly or shooting birds.

I just noticed that the last sentence doesn't make any sense.
I guess I changed it around as I typed and forgot to check.
What I meant to say was that I mostly shoot birds.
Anyway, it is a hard decision. You will always miss the one you did not buy. (Murphy's Law.)

[Arthur Morris]

Here's another vote for the 300 f/4 L IS. Why? IS. Two focal lengths. Closer focus. Note: the 400 will AF with a 1.4X TC and the 300 will AF with the 2X TC with all pro bodies plus the 5D III.

[Dennis Luz]

I owned the 300/4 for several years and now own the 400/5.6. In your shoes I would go with the 400. You have a 70-200 which will reach to 280 with a 1.4 and that combo is pretty fast. The 70-200 is also very good for macro. Lately I have been using the 400 with a 1.4 for something light and I have been very pleased with the results, even of flight images. I have no regrets about letting my 300 and switching to the 400.

_____________
I agree with Marina. I have both the 400mm/f5.6L and the 70-200mm f4/L IS. Both are great lenses and serve my purpose. The 70-200 is for more general middle distance shots (it also takes my 1.4TC if necessary) and I figure that if i wanted to photograph birds or wildlife then I need to make a big jump to at least 400mm for reach (incidentally, comments about the 400mm + 1.4 TC not focusing with the 7D isn't true. With my Tamron 1.4TC it does focus if you choose an edge focus point, but not center focus, and although this is not very convenient for a number of reasons I have been able to get excellent shots with my 7D and this combo in good light). Some will argue that the 300mm has IS compared to the 400mm, and on paper that is definite an advantage, but since I shoot 90% of my shots with a Sidekick gimbal head on tripod, the lack of IS is a moot factor. For most people, however, hand holding the 7D+400mm/f5.6 is doable.

The 300mm/f4L IS (and for that matter the f2.8L IS) are excellent lenses, don't get me wrong. For me, the choice was reach over light, and I have no regrets over this decision.

Of course it would be even better if you could afford a 500mm or 600mm lens but obviously cost is the main factor because there is a quantum leap in price between the 400mm/f5.6 and the 500mm/f4. I would even say that the 400mm/f5.6L is the best bang for the buck (with emphasis on those last three words) as far as bird and wildlife photography is concerned.

[Arthur Morris]

Dennis, What camera body are you using?

[Dennis Luz]

Hello Artie, I am using the Canon 7D body. BTW, I enjoyed your keynote talk at the Klamath Winter Wings Festival a couple of years ago. Funny opening with the photo of the raptor and prey with those words: "I hope you enjoyed your dinner this evening." LOL.

[Arthur Morris]

Fact. If you have a 7D and use AF then the 300 f/4 has greater reach (420mm) with AF with a 7D than the 400 (400mm). Both at f/5.6. And the 300 has IS....

FWIW.

Otherwise :).

[Dennis Luz]

Those numbers work out right. However, 300+1.4TC vs 400 without TC means that, although both are now theoretically at f5.6, there's more glass introduced in the 300mm combo, and the consensus is that that may degrade picture quality.
But to each his own. Cheers.

[Arthur Morris]

There are many other considerations, however, it is doubtful that most folks could see any differences in sharpness between the two. In addition, if you are hand holding for static subjects the 300/1.4X combo wins by a country mile. Beware the internet and other experts. I have been doing this for 30+ years and have owned and used both lenses :).

[Leigh Cojocar]

Thanks for the insight everyone, I have decided on the 300 f4 when I do find one. I have been thinking about it for to long with out actually pulling the trigger, Guess i've been holding out for a used one but am skeptically to find one online with out seeing it in person first. I'm planning on relocating to Australia for a year in January so I have a lot of ducks to get in order but do not want to leave Canada with out a new lens and TC.