Canon 300 f4 v 400 f5.6

adrian5127

adrian5127

Messages
794
Name
adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking at trading my 100-400 for the 300 f4 or 400 f5.6

My reasons are I want something with faster focusing and sharper pics. This will be used for motorbike racing, wildlife and the odd air show to go on my 7D or 40D. I am leaning slightly towards the 300 because I could use a 1.4 teleconverter and still retain the autofocus.

Has anyone had experience of either or both of the lenses and can comment on the focusing abilities ??
 
I have used both, I originally had the 300mm but I found myself constantly using extenders and I never used IS so I sold it.

Focussing is very fast on both lenses, I find the 400mm a bit faster but you are loosing a stop of light.

Maybe renting them both would help you decide?
 
Great lens, was my main sport / aviation lens until I upgraded last year to the bigger brother. The f4 works very well with the canon 1.4x TC, but you do need the light to get the best from that combo.


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3850copy1.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_4393copy2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_3794_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg


Great lens, works well with the 1.4x TC but to get the best you need the light conditions.

Not used the 400mm f5.6, but heard its fast focusing and tack sharp, and the bird togs love it. Might struggle in low light like the 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC combination, but if the lights right great lens.
How about hiring both lenses out

Peter
 
I was using a 3rd party 2x extender on a 350d and the focusing was very slow but the image quality wasn't bad.

Of course using a canon extender such as a 1.4 and a better camera would improve focussing a lot.
 
Since posting this doing quite a bit of research and the consensus seems to be both are very sharp but extender does slow the auto-focus down for the 300. Like you have both said it would pay to hire them both and save any doubts later
 
This is one of those perennial dilemmas. TBH the 100-400L is hard to beat. For sure the two options you're looking at are better in some respects, but the margin isn't huge. Especially if you start messing about with extenders and taking the lack of IS into account on the 400 (and quite long minimum focus).

If you want a real leg up it's the 300L 2.8 for a bit more money! Still corking with an extender ;)
 
Hello all

Sorry to gatecrash the thread, but can anyone tell me whether there's much purple fringing wide open with the 300/4 L?

I'm currently using a Tamron SP 300/5.6 manual focus lens which is really sharp but fringes heavily when shooting BIF unless stopped down to f8 (urrrrgh!).

Not too fussed about the AF speed ;)

Thanks
 
manualfocus-g said:
Hello all

Sorry to gatecrash the thread, but can anyone tell me whether there's much purple fringing wide open with the 300/4 L?

I'm currently using a Tamron SP 300/5.6 manual focus lens which is really sharp but fringes heavily when shooting BIF unless stopped down to f8 (urrrrgh!).

Not too fussed about the AF speed ;)

Thanks
Click to expand...

Welcome to TP :)

I think you'll notice a big improvement over your Tamron.

Take a look here, and load up as many comparisons as you like. I think these are the best long lens tests on the web, but they'll quickly send you blind (so it won't matter anyway :D ).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111
 
Having done a couple of months of research (on and off) and deliberation, I've decided to go for the 400L 5.6, mainly for birding.

I have the 100-400L at the moment and generally use it at 400mm so I thought the prime will be the logical choice and give me better sharpness, which most reviews state is the case. In addition, the the 400L 5.6 apparently takes the extenders better than the 100-400L too. I've never been happy with the IQ on the 100-400 with my Canon x1.4 extender. Waiting for the 400L 5.6 to arrive this weeken sometime.
 
I changed from a 100-400 to a 300/4. I went for this because I personally like IS. I also like the minimum focusing distance on the 300/4 as I use it for butterflies and other beasties. I have used it with a 1.4 extender as well as some extension tubes. It did slow down the focus, but I prefer manual focusing under those conditions.

Overall, I do not regret this change one bit, and prefer the 300/4.
 
Hi guys

I eventually found a used 300/4 L (non-IS) from 1993 (!) for £400.00 and it's excellent :) Optics are in superb condition and the image quality looks really good so far. Not a big fan of the bokeh, but then again I'm used to old lenses with millions of blades :lol:

Hoping to get some proper shots under my belt this weekend :)

Thanks for your help!
 
Hi Adrian
Good choice on the 300mm f4. Had mine just over a year now and absolutley love it, love it, love it, - even with the x1.4 attached.
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top