300mm or 400mm prime?

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm considering selling the 100-400 and getting either the 300mm or 400mm.

I love the flexibility of the 100-400 but want something with quicker AF and sharper images without breaking the bank so am looking to swap pretty much - this rules out the 2.8's

My longer term thinking is I could get the Tamron 70-300 VC (I used to have one and it was very good) - that fills in that gap and frees me up to get one of the primes, now I also have a Kenko 1.4 TC, so my thoughts are either:

1) 300mm + 1.4 TC - keeps the versatility and gives me a 300mm & a 420mm, but will I loose too much AF speed/quality?
2) 400mm - at 5.6 already I'm stuck there - I think my TC will actually let me go longer and keep AF as its non-reporting.

What do you guys think?

Ta,

John
 
I did the same as you are thinking of doing.

400mm L all the way for my wife.

It gets used a fair amount by my wife and the 300mm F2.8 Siggy is always sat in the bag. She used to use that all the time but for wildlife and birds she prefers the 400mm even though the 300mm is a great lens.

If you go for a 300mm F2.8 then you can use both extenders and have AF and its with a x2 that it gets used occationaly.

In all 400mm gets used the most for what she likes to takes pics of.
 
Last edited:
Canon are not just being bloody minded when they inhibit AF above F5.6 - it simply does not work very well. With your TC it may try to AF, but will probably be very slow or hunt.
 
Only my thoughts, but if you have got a sharp copy of the 100-400 I'd keep it. Some of the 100-400s are very sharp, though not as sharp as the 400mm prime, probably on par with the 300mm f/4 + 1.4xTC.

I have got a 300mm f/4 L IS and a Canon 1.4x TC. It is a pretty good combo but of course the focus speed and optical quality is slightly affected by the TC. However it is fast on its own at 300mm, is f/4 and the minimum focus distance is only 1.5m.

The 400mm is the sharpest and fastest focussing of the lot but lacks IS. IS may or may not be important to you, only you know what your intended target is. BIF shots don't particularly need IS for instance.

Oh, one other nice thing about the primes is the built in hood.

These 3 combos come up time and time again, each one has its own strengths but all in all, they are very similar to each other.

Good luck with your decision...
 
Cheers all, I've had a good poke about and have come down on the 400mm side, after all I'm planning to pick up the Tammy again (probably let the Sigma 10-20 go to fund that one), which covers my worries about the 400mm's long MFD and covers the up to 300 range very well indeed.

I actually do have a pretty good 100-400 (I think anyway), but I always want a little more AF speed and while its great on IQ and not bad on AF, from what I hear its not up there wit the 400mm, so I'm trying to sell it in the wanted section at the moment with my own wanted looking for the 400mm.

Fingers crossed its the right decision :)
 
JohnN said:
Cheers all, I've had a good poke about and have come down on the 400mm side,

Fingers crossed its the right decision :)
Click to expand...

I have the 400mm prime and also used to have the 100-400mm and the 300mmf4
and I would not go back to either of them
the autofocus is night v day quicker than the zoom add to that I have a 1 series camera which in good light works well with the 1.4 x converter and you have a pretty versatile tool at your disposal

whereas the converter on the zoom is bordering on useless for anything that moves with the slightest of grey cloud that appears

you have definatly made the right decision IMHO
my 2p
Chris
 
Cheers all - the deal is done, I've swapped my 100-400 for a 400.

I briefly considered the 120-300 but I wanted cost neutral so it was out of the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top