Canon 300mm f/4 prime lens for nature work

Highlandfair

Highlandfair

Messages
118
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Hi ... im considering buying a Canon 300mm f/4 prime lens for some bird and general distance nature shots .... i have not tried one yet but what are your thoughts on this lens please ... i do prefer primes to zooms.
 
Not a Canon user but there is generally debate over which lens is better - the 300 F4 or the 400 F5.6

The 300 has IS and a closer focussing distance - so better for insects etc. It also works well with the 1.4TC.

The 400 has no IS but a lot of bird photographers use one - very quick to focus (depending on camera body obviously) so great for birds in flight.

Worth looking at both before buying.

Never owned either - so just repeating lots of info I have seen :)

Dave.
 
I've got an old 300 f4 non IS version,mine does not autofocus either(got it very cheap),it's very good with a 1.4x converter and gives you 420mm,I've given this much thought,if I had some money I'd probably buy a 300 f4 with IS rather than a 400 f5.6, the minimum focus distance is also quite a bit shorter than the 400.
 
Last edited:
I recently purchased a 300 F4 L IS + 1.4x for this very reason. I went with this against the 400 F5.6 as i felt it was a more flexible combination. I have been pleased with my decision so far, but as always with nature photography, I am sure no matter what lens you choose you will always want something longer!
 
I bought a Canon 300mm f/4 IS today -
for me the ability to focus down to 1.5m is going to be useful for 'macro' and I already have the 1.4x TC
The IS is a useful addition but if I had been after a lens that would be used mainly for bird photography I think I would probably have gone for the 400mm f/5.6
 
I have the 400/5.6 and it has been my most used lens (on a 7D) . Birds, insects, flying dragonflys (!!), plants ( the out of focus and bokeh is amazing) even landscapes, the sharpness still astonishes.
Without the IS, the weight is easily hand holdable but I mainly use a simple monopod to steady my shots if light levels are a problem.
 
thanks for the info guys ......... i think i will plump for the 300 f/4
 
Dave Semmens said:
The 400 has no IS but a lot of bird photographers use one - very quick to focus (depending on camera body obviously) so great for birds in flight.

Dave.
Click to expand...

The 400mm f/5.6 is a cracking lens, my Dad uses one mounted on a 1Dx and its extremely good at focusing for the price of the lens! & produces some excellent results! Would highly recommend from what I have seen...
 
I run the 300 f4 and love it.

This was shot through the patio doors in the garden at home:

_MG_2201-Edit by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

And this was shot at Whipsnade, handheld as I almost walked on it!!

_MG_0472 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

I find i tincredibly versatile, especially when used with the 1.4EX, in fact it''s almost permanently fixed to my 7D !!
 
Having used both I would plum for the 300mm f4 and TC.
 
I also had the 300mm f4 and a 1.4 TC great combination. sold the lens here some time back.
 
I also have both lenses and would certainly go for the 300mm + 1.4 teleconverter. You get the best of both worlds with that combo and can shoot anything from butterflies to birds with its flexibility. Much better in bad light too.
 
I have this lens and it is amazing. V.sharp, light and fast and has a useful IS. Also focuses very close. However, having just got the new 100-400mm mk 2, it may have been usurped as my lens of choice. The zoom focuses closer and has greater flexibility, better IS and faster AF, but is nearly x2 the price.
 
I too have had both the Canon 300mm F/4 L IS and the 400mm F/5.6 L and sometimes with the Canon 1.4x III.

Personally I found that the 1.4x on the 400mm was too much of a compromise. Both lenses have an excellent reputation. The Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) on the 400mm is 12ft and I found that very restrictive at times whereas the 300mm is about 5ft and therefore great for butterflies etc.

I sold both to buy the new 100-400mm L IS II which works well with the 1.4x when needed and has an even closer MFD.

Another alternative would be a (secondhand?) Canon 300mm F/2.8 L IS and use a 2x Extender. I don't know what the MFD is on this lens though but I don't expect it to be good.

As always, the lens which suits you best depends on what subjects you like to photograph.
 
[QUOTE="RedRobin, post: 6869932, member: 65886
Another alternative would be a (secondhand?) Canon 300mm F/2.8 L IS and use a 2x Extender. I don't know what the MFD is on this lens though but I don't expect it to be good.

As always, the lens which suits you best depends on what subjects you like to photograph.[/QUOTE]

I believe that the mfd on the v1 f2.8 is 2.5m. The v2 is 2m. Still not great for close-ups.
 
Hello everyone as I have just joined up today, in reply to this thread I pondered on both the 300 f/4.0 and the 400 f/5.6, read all the reviews I could and asked people who had either lens what their thoughts were. In the end it only came down to the price, I managed to get a used 300mm f/4.0 from MPB for a little cheaper than the 400mm f/5.6. I haven't regretted my choice at all as I get great sharp shots with it and quick autofocus even with a 1.4x converter attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top