EF300mm F4L IS (+1.4x) vs. EF400mm F5.6L

The 400 and 300 primes focus better and faster without the TC but not with it, this is from extensive tests with them. Never had a problem with focusing with the 100-400 in low light and neither have many professional photographers that I know.

I am using the Canon 300 2.8 II with the matching 2x III that offers faster AF with the series II lenses and even this combo does not focus faster than the 100-400 bare lens. I used to own the 300 2.8 MK1 and matched with the 2x II TC was nowhere near in AF speed to the bare 100-400, especially when not using the AF limiter.
 
micloi said:
The 400 and 300 primes focus better and faster without the TC but not with it, this is from extensive tests with them. Never had a problem with focusing with the 100-400 in low light and neither have many professional photographers that I know.

I am using the Canon 300 2.8 II with the matching 2x III that offers faster AF with the series II lenses and even this combo does not focus faster than the 100-400 bare lens. I used to own the 300 2.8 MK1 and matched with the 2x II TC was nowhere near in AF speed to the bare 100-400, especially when not using the AF limiter.
Click to expand...

I owned the 100-400mm for 2 years and the autofocus is poor compared to every prime mentioned in this thread
my brother bought one and he said exactly the same
these reviews of the lens confirm this scroll down to the AF bit
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/77

Fred Miranda reviews - over 50% on the very 1st page all comment about the AF being slow or sluggish
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=19

if you want further just google 100-400mm AF reviews and you will endless pages with people commenting about it being a slow coach

many people can get by using a tripod or monopod etc but for fast sporting action with a 'less than stellar'; AF its a non starter in anything other than good light
I also know a lot of Pro togs and sports togs and very few are using F5'6 lenses as there bread and butter Lens
so we dont seem to getting anywhere fast here so you have your opinion and I have mine lets leave it here shall we
 
desantnik said:
You did see the price for the 200-400 was likely to be upwards of 6k... The Nikon one is 4k..and nowhere near the quality of the long primes
Click to expand...

I bet that was because of that stupid builtin 1.4x converter and all the R&D to get it to work. God only knows why canon went down that route. KISS Keep it simple stupid. A 200-400mm f4 lens would have been just fine. As for lens prices, well they are just bonkers :bonk::bonk: nowadays because of the problems with demand and supply due to Japan and Thailand
 
I suspect it had to do with dslr video...
 
Well folks, after a great deal of deliberation and hair-pulling, I finally decided to go with the 300mm F4L rather than the 400mm F5.6L mainly because of the versatility it'll give me when it's coupled with a 1.4x converter.

The low(er) light capability and the IS made the difference to me as well as finding one on here for £800! :D

Thanks for all of the help,
Si
 
Spiritflier said:
Well folks, after a great deal of deliberation and hair-pulling, I finally decided to go with the 300mm F4L rather than the 400mm F5.6L mainly because of the versatility it'll give me when it's coupled with a 1.4x converter.

The low(er) light capability and the IS made the difference to me as well as finding one on here for £800! :D

Thanks for all of the help,
Si
Click to expand...

Enjoy it, I really like mine and think I'd only sell it if I had the opportunity to get a 2.8.

Seems a good price as well
 
Good choice I feel. Liked mine so much that I bought the same solution on Nikon when I moved over.
 
pete.rush said:
I bet that was because of that stupid builtin 1.4x converter and all the R&D to get it to work. God only knows why canon went down that route. KISS Keep it simple stupid. A 200-400mm f4 lens would have been just fine. As for lens prices, well they are just bonkers :bonk::bonk: nowadays because of the problems with demand and supply due to Japan and Thailand
Click to expand...

I think the 200-400 with built-in and optimized extender is a pretty brilliant idea tbh.. the only bad thing about is price which will of course come down but compare it to the Nikon offering, it's not cheap either.

The design of the built-in extender seems very simple as well, it's just a package of elements that swings into place on the optical path when needed.

Sure it may have required changes to the main optics compared to a "normal" 200-400 where the rear elements can be closer to the rear of the lens (no space for extender needed). But on the other hand the extender doesn't have to compensate for the added distance between lens mount and sensor that a traditional extender would bring. I think this has to make the extender less complicated and less compromising on sharpness & CA.

I never judge kit based on the press releases, let's wait for the reviews.
 
It is cheap for a piece of video glass... which is how they could attempt it, and of course the idea of a TC built in like that is common in video lenses too.

Which is why I say it was pitched at DSLR video users... although of course it will work for us "still types" too :D
 
desantnik said:
It is cheap for a piece of video glass... which is how they could attempt it, and of course the idea of a TC built in like that is common in video lenses too.

Which is why I say it was pitched at DSLR video users... although of course it will work for us "still types" too :D
Click to expand...

What the £$!@ is canon pandering to the video freaks for, the sports crowd has been after a faster longer zoom for years. The camera's are starting to look like a Swiss Army Knife, you'll be able to make tea and watch TV with it next :cuckoo:
 
They pander to them because they haven't bought Canon DSLR kit yet... so its all new $$$$ thats what its all about.
 
FWIW I had both the 300 f4 and the 400 f5.6 last year which I mainly used for low level aircraft stuff at the Loop. As I had to ditch one of them, I decided to keep the 300mm and my 1.4TC. This gives me the chance of 420mm f5.6 (with only a small amount of IQ drop), 300mm f4, but also gives me the chance to use the 300mm as a macro lens for insect etc which the 400mm didn't offer.
The 400 is a superb lens but the 300 with the TC just gives a few more options IMHO.
 
Your reasoning matches my own Gareth... The postman can't get here fast enough! :)

You've got some cracking images on your website too! :)
Cheers,
Si
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top