300+1.4x v 400

Dino f

Dino f

Wiiiiilmmmaaaaaaaa
Messages
2,711
Name
Dean Feltimo
Edit My Images
Yes
Heres the question.
How does the Canon 300mm f4 IS L lens with a 1.4x conveter (canon L) compare to a Canon 400mm f5.6 L.
Now, what im thinking is, the aperture would be the same at f5.6, but the lens would benefit from IS, compared to the 400mm f5.6. I know the 400mm f5.6 is fast and bitingly sharp, but what would the IQ of the other combo be like compared to it. The lens would be for aircraft photography.
Any insight would be grateful.
Thanks
dean:)
 
hello dino f,

i was just about to put in the same enquiry.

i have a 300mm f4 "is" lens, and was looking out for a 400mm f5.6, but depending on the replies i may just end up buying a ef1.4x.

sorry to gatecrash your ad, but i will be taking note of your replies.

many thanks paul. (y)
 
Definitely get the 300 with a f4. They you have much more flexibility that a 400 5.6.

The 1.4 extender is really good quality and you hardly get any image degradation with it. And you'll have f4 for when the light gets bad which you wont have with the 5.6.

Always go for the biggest aperture you can get is my view.
 
If the replies keep coming in like that, i think i will have to trade my 70-200 f2.8 for one.
Dean:)
 
It depends what you want. If you want a 400, get a 400. If you want a 300 most of the time, get a 300 and a 1.4.

I had a 300/4 and now have a 400/5.6. The 400 is faster focusing and sharper than the 300 with an extender (in fact, I think it is better than the 300 was without an extender). The 400/5.6 is a real peach of a lens. Mine doesn't get used much but when it does come out, I am always impressed. It is as sharp as my 500/4.

Paul
 
Ooh the options.......im not sure about the IQ of the 70-200 with 2x converter.
Dean:)
 
Cheers guys, id heard pretty much the same. Problem is, 200mm with 1.4x converter isnt enough length for aircraft, 300mm with one would be fine. I was using a 100-400 but wanted to change for a prime. Looks like the 70-200 might have to go on the bay, to fund a 400mm f5.6.
Unless anyone else has any ideas.:shrug:
Dean:)
 
The 300/4 + T/C certainly isn't a match for the 400/5.6 in terms of sharpness and focus speed. The upside is that it's very much more usable in poor to average lighting.
I had both options but needed to sell one to help fund another purchase....it was the 400/5.6 that went despite the fact I've also got the 300/2.8. Another benefit of the 300 +T/C is the excellent minimum focus distance (my main reason for keeping it).

Bob
 
Cheers guys,
Bob, id love to get a 300/2.8, but thats out of the question for about a year.
Looks like 400/5.6 for me then.
Dean:)
 
I own a 300 F4 IS and 1.4x TC, after owning all 70-200 variations. I mainly shoot wildlife, and the 300mm on its own is great at the zoo. For shooting birds and wild animals the 1.4x is an excellent addition. I've never been unimpressed with the image quality when using the TC.

I also like to shoot sport when I can, and the 300 on it's own is great for that. Also does nice portraits @ F4 and combined with the TC it's macro ability is pretty impressive

I also tried a 100-400 before getting this combo, and that disappointment led me onto my current setup and I haven't looked back
 
Cheers TC.(y)
Dean:)
 
Mate, link isnt working. Would love to see some examples.
Dean:)
 
Your bird shots are stunning, were all these taken with the 300/4-1.4x combo.
Im primarily worried about speed of focus, as the fast jets are pretty rapid. The s/e owl is a lovely bif shot was this also with the combo??? sorry for all the questions.
Dean:)
 
Dino f said:
Your bird shots are stunning, were all these taken with the 300/4-1.4x combo.
Im primarily worried about speed of focus, as the fast jets are pretty rapid. The s/e owl is a lovely bif shot was this also with the combo??? sorry for all the questions.
Dean:)
Click to expand...


thanks m8, all shots are with this combo. i rarely take the 1.4 of the lens i love it
 
I can comment on the 400mm f5.6, but have had great use out of my 300mm f4. For Airshows and lowfly its my lens of choice. I heard the 400mm f5.6 is good, but better than a 300mm f4 in low light, I don't think so, especially photographing 600mph aircraft in the gloom. Must admit the 400mm must be slightly better than 300mm + 1.4x TC, but I've used this combo and taken some good shots with it.

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC at Shoreham
IMG_3566_edited-2.jpg


IMG_3573_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


IMG_3794_edited-2.jpg


I've also try the 70-200mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC, not overly impressed, on it's own, a great lens, but not as a combo and wouldn't go anywhere near 2x and this lens. The nivana is the 300mm f2.8, but the 300mm f4 isn't bad. If you want flexibility of a zoom, what about the sigma 100-300mm f4, about the same price range as 400mm f5.6 and 300mm f4.

Peter
 
Cheers Pete, its gotta be an L lens, after owning the 100-400, 70-200 i wouldnt want to go back to a sigma for this type of work. Had a couple, and they just aint up to par. Will be looking at a 300/2.8 for next year, but just need something to get me through this season and the trips to Bwlch.
Dean:)

Nice shots btw
 
I have been reading alot about this topic as I am pondering which to get. There is alot of information of google from other websites.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=canon+300mm+f4+or+canon+400mm+f5.6&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

The top 3 links offer comparisons, from reading these and many more websites I have settled upon the 300+1.4x converter, it has IS (no you may not need it but its good to have it incase), as said above you get 2 lenses, better low light performance (granted it is at 300mm but from what I hear the lens is very sharp so cropping shall not be an issue), minimum focus distance is lower.
Hope it helps :)
 
Cheers Woodsie(y)
 
Just to stir it up again :D

I have the 400 L and the things you read about the sharpness and the focus speed are all true. And it's nice and light too, which is handy if your going to point it at the sky all day.

I would love to have the 300 f2.8 though :)
 
Iam in exactly the same boat as Dino f. Although im 90% sure iam going to go with the 300mm f4 + 1.4tc. Mainly due to the added flexability and the IS if I need it.
 
Dino f said:
Cheers Pete, its gotta be an L lens, after owning the 100-400, 70-200 i wouldnt want to go back to a sigma for this type of work. Had a couple, and they just aint up to par. Will be looking at a 300/2.8 for next year, but just need something to get me through this season and the trips to Bwlch.
Dean:)

Nice shots btw
Click to expand...

Dino if you want a lens for the Loop, forget about the 400mm, it's too long. The F15 from the Bwlch was with a 300mm and 1Dmkiin (1.3x crop) and swamped the camera (only need th 70-200), depends if you want head on shots or panned. 400 will work for Head on but not panned unless you only want 1/2 an aircraft in frame. You really only need a 300mm for most locations on the loop.

Peter
 
Pete, been looking through the exif on my lowfly shots, all were taken with the 100-400, with the majority of them being arouind the 320mm mark. The Harrier pass were a little shorter. Ill be up there on the 1st and 2nd of Apr, with a 400mm on one body and the 70-200 on the other. I will see what comes through and keep an eye on the length. 300mm is looking like a good idea then. The other problem is i only get to Wales 3-4 times a year (long journey), but average about 10 airshows per season, where the length would be handy.
Dean:)
 
I find IS invaluable. Not only is it a great help with longer shutter speeds, but it really helps with accurate framing when you're trying to track a fast moving subject at 400mm or more.
 
Dino f said:
Pete, been looking through the exif on my lowfly shots, all were taken with the 100-400, with the majority of them being arouind the 320mm mark. The Harrier pass were a little shorter. Ill be up there on the 1st and 2nd of Apr, with a 400mm on one body and the 70-200 on the other. I will see what comes through and keep an eye on the length. 300mm is looking like a good idea then. The other problem is i only get to Wales 3-4 times a year (long journey), but average about 10 airshows per season, where the length would be handy.
Dean:)
Click to expand...

As an owner of the 400 i'll be interested to see the results, I have the full frame sensor though, so I'm hoping the lack of crop will even things out a little. Really want to get to the loop this year.

Anyone want to adopt me :D
 
digitalfailure said:
As an owner of the 400 i'll be interested to see the results, I have the full frame sensor though, so I'm hoping the lack of crop will even things out a little. Really want to get to the loop this year.

Anyone want to adopt me :D
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, you can achieve some great shots with the 400mm, you just have to just pick your locations and shots. A 400mm would be Great on Cad East or West for head on shots and full frame Hawks, the Top Shelf of the Bwlch or the Bwlch Spur (on the left handside of the Bwlch pass as you go down). The large jets (F15's and Tornado's) will probably swamp the frame if you want a panning shot unless you capture them early and late. Full Frame sensor will give you some advantage over cropped. Just pray for decent weather.
 
Actually, I'm going to bump this thread by saying that the 70-300VR nikkor enabled me to get my recent rhino shot [now on my flickr, if you missed it..]

I wouldn't have got it with the 300/4 - I literally had a moment to get into position, and rhino only held still for about a second or two - had I been on the tripod, even with my decent head, I'd have missed the chance. VR enabled me to handhold the exposure [at f/6.3 IIRC - any less and I'd not have enough DOF].

At 300mm, DoF is wafer thin even on APS-C. Even with the sharpness of the 300/4 wide open, you have to stop down to get a decent depth - so I'm going to go with HoppyUK on this one and agree that VR definitely has its place, even in the face of faster glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top