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

[Spiritflier]

Evening all,

I've got a bit of cash that's burning a hole in my pocket and I've been considering adding a prime telephoto to my kit.

I already have the EF70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS USM which is a fantastic lens but I'd quite like a bit more reach for aviation and wildlife stuff. I also have a full-frame and crop body so I know I can already mix and match with what I've got.

So here's the question for those of you who've either owned or do own either the EF300mm F4L IS USM and/or the EF400mm F5.6 L USM (and an EF1.4x extender)...

Optically, does the 300mm with the converter on match the performance of the 400mm (or come very close)? I like the idea of having a faster 300mm and the IS but I don't really want to lose IQ for the sake of versatility!

Your experiences will be appreciated.
Cheers,
Si

 

[andyred]

Hi Si

I've the 300 F4 IS and it's a cracker of a lens - I haven't tried it with a 1.4TC yet, but I believe it takes it well and you still get great results.

Here's a couple I took with it...

When I was deciding between these 2 lenses, I opted for the 300 it'll take a TC well so have an option of 300mm F4 or 420mm F5.6 depending on what circumstances need...

Hope this is of some help...

 

[Canon Bob]

They're both have good optics and there's little to choose other than AF speed (400/5.6) or IS (300/4). Add the Extender and the difference becomes more obvious....but the IS is still useful.
One a nice sunny day it's 400 all the way. But when the clouds arrive...I'd want my 300 with IS.

Bob

 

[SLRUser]

This question comes up fairly regularly, along with a 3rd choice which is the Canon 100-400mm L IS.

The 400mm prime is the sharpest of the lot, sharper than the 300mm with the 1.4x II TC (420mm) and sharper than the 100-400 L at 400mm.

I own a 300mm f/4 L IS and a 1.4x II TC and it can produce excellent results. The TC slows down focussing a bit and of course you lose one stop. I chose the 300mm over the 400mm mostly because of the IS, close focus distance and it is one stop faster. If you are shooting BIF (bird in flight) shots, IS doesn't help and probably hinders, though of course you need decent light for that.

If you purely want image sharpness when light is good, then the 400mm is the way to go. However only you know if that is the only deciding factor.

Have a look at The Digital Picture, he has got write-ups on most of Canon's lenses:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Spiritflier]

Mornin' all,

Thanks for your responses... Ironically, I'm no closer to figuring out what to do though!

I live in Wales so cloud is the norm rather than the exception which makes the 300mm the more attractive option. Having said that, I've already got that exceptionally good 70-300mm so all I'd gain is the stop of extra light (which may or may not be a deal breaker).

I'm leaning towards getting the 300mm and the 1.4x TC simply because of the versatility. Unfortunately, the 70-300mm won't accept a TC or I'd have gone straight for the 400mm!

Ah, decisions... decisions!

Thanks for the help guys.
Si

 

[StewartR]

Having said that, I've already got that exceptionally good 70-300mm so all I'd gain is the stop of extra light

...PLUS the option of adding a 1.4x extender to give you 420mm whilst still retaining the ability to autofocus.

 

[Spiritflier]

...PLUS the option of adding a 1.4x extender to give you 420mm whilst still retaining the ability to autofocus.

Hi Stewart,

That's the kind of reasoning I was using... I don't want to wander into a camera shop just to satisfy my curiosity (I don't that's fair on the shop) so any advice from the members here is very useful.

All I'm concerned about is the quality I'll get from the 300mm with the 1.4x TC attached... :shrug:

Cheers,
Si

 

[da_nige]

I feel I can offer my input because I've used both lenses extensively and I'm used to rubbish weather!

Until I got my 500 f4 I used the 300 f4 for all my wildlife. I was/am happy to use it at f4 as it is very sharp. Nearly all of my wildlife shooting is birds so I often had the 1.4II attached. With the converter attached it does go a bit softer at 5.6 so if I attach the converter I shoot at f8. Don't get me wrong it's sharp enough wide open but does improve at f8

My friend has the 400 f5.6 which I use if she borrows the 500. It is sharper than the 300+1.4 and I'll happily shoot it at f5.6.

When I bought the 300 it was to replace the sigma 50-500 and I chose it over the 400 and 100-400 because it's f4, it has IS and it's great for close up work.

It's a tough choice. I'd happily recommend both lenses. Why dont you hire both for a week and see which you prefer?

Neil

 

[Canon Bob]

To give you some idea, these were shot with a 300/4 + 1.4x on an 8Mp 30D a few years back;

http://www.boblatham-photography.net/photo4109583.html

http://www.boblatham-photography.net/photo4109606.html

http://www.boblatham-photography.net/photo4109576.html

Bob

 

[pete.rush]

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

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC

300mm f4

300mm f4

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC

Great lens, works well with the 1.4x TC but to get the best you need the light conditions. The bird Fraternity really like the 400mm f5.6 and its a fast focusing sharp lens, but I've seen it struggle, especially with aircraft in gloomy light, the f4 does make a difference over the f5.6, both very good lenses.

Peter

 

[vulcan2912]

Hi

You already have 300mm covered with the 70-300L.I would go for the 400mm.You can always dump a 1.4 tcon onto the 400 for extra reach if you need it(manual focus or 1D body only but worth remembering).
If you go for the 300 you would probably be better parting company with the 70-300 and getting the 70-200 F4Lis in it's place.
People will argue against this mentality but I firmly believe that if you are buying a lens to use mostly with a tcon attatched you are buying the wrong lens!

Cheers
Gary

 

[vaizki]

People will argue against this mentality but I firmly believe that if you are buying a lens to use mostly with a tcon attatched you are buying the wrong lens!

I agree 100% but this needs to be balanced with versatility as you normally can' t own every lens or at least carry them with you... Which is why the 100-400 is so extremely popular. If the new 70-300L took a 1.4x TC I think it would be even more popular even if it would be manual focus at the long end.

It's all been said before, the 400/5.6 is a cracking lens but a specialist tool at that with its limitations. The 300/4L is a great lens but not 400mm. The 100-400 is the ultimate in versatility but not without its faults.

This is one of the few areas where Canon spoils us with choice and I really hope they confuse us even more and put out a 400/4 IS non-DO like it's rumored. Or a 500/5.6 IS.

It's been so hard for me to decide that I just keep borrowing a 100-400 and using my 70-200/2.8L IS II with 1.4x or 2x TC even though I've been meaning to go 300/400mm for over a year now!

I think it's amazing what Canon did with the 70-200/2.8L IS II and I love that beast. It really shows the returns of pouring so much more money into zoom R&D than has been put into prime lenses which has been the trend for at least 10 years. The 100-400 will also probably get an update but it'll be expensive just like the new 70-200 was.. but it might be spectacular.

 

[Spiritflier]

If there's one thing I really like about this forum, it's the number of decent, helpful people that use it!

Thanks for the advice everyone... I'm still no closer to making a decision but at least I'm better informed than I was yesterday!

Cheers,
Si

 

[Bernie174]

I've used both for aviation, and the 300 with a 1.4x extender is so close to identical to the 400 in terms of quality, it comes down to choice.
The 300 + 1.4x is a more flexible option, especially when you can either gain a stop or the IS helps when the weathers not so clever...As it usually is!
I'd steer clear of the 100-400. It's OK, but soft ish at the 400 end. Even at its best it's no where near as good as the other 2 options.

 

[pete.rush]

A 100-400mm f4 or 200-400mm f4 would be better and without than :nono::nuts: 1.4x TC built in would really hit the nut on the head, but doesn't look likely at the moment.

 

[mjb123]

Hi Si

I've the 300 F4 IS and it's a cracker of a lens - I haven't tried it with a 1.4TC yet, but I believe it takes it well and you still get great results.

Here's a couple I took with it...

When I was deciding between these 2 lenses, I opted for the 300 it'll take a TC well so have an option of 300mm F4 or 420mm F5.6 depending on what circumstances need...

Hope this is of some help...

Those pictures are cracking I assume your sat next to some kind of mountain goat to get those sort of results??

 

[andyred]

Those pictures are cracking I assume your sat next to some kind of mountain goat to get those sort of results??

Haha yes near as damit, thanks very much for the kind comments...

The first 2 were in Wales, the 3rd was in the lakes.

Cheers

 

[mjb123]

I thought Wales, I was on holiday last year up by barmouth and they were dog fighting all day long!!

 

[Buttkicker]

Evening all,

So here's the question for those of you who've either owned or do own either the EF300mm F4L IS USM and/or the EF400mm F5.6 L USM (and an EF1.4x extender)...

Optically, does the 300mm with the converter on match the performance of the 400mm (or come very close)? I like the idea of having a faster 300mm and the IS but I don't really want to lose IQ for the sake of versatility!

Your experiences will be appreciated.
Cheers,
Si

I have owned two 300F4 Lenses and now have the 400mm F5.6 both are optically about the same with the 400mm shading it just

for birding and general aviation I would not even consider getting the 300mm when you already have a 70-300mm zoom
get the 400mm I have a 1 series camera and its works brilliantly with the canon 1.4x converter

I also have a Canon 300mm F2.8IS which works great with both converters but when I go to airshows I always take the 400mm its a joy to use and tack sharp and the 300mm stays at home

Low level flying photography is a different kettle of fish though if you dont have a camera that can take high ASA well you would struggle on bad light days

having said that I will always own the mighty 400mm lens while I use Canon gear - and also will never buy the 300mm f4 ever again not that its a bad lens but I think other options are better
my 2p
Chris

 

[SLRUser]

I have owned two 300F4 Lenses and now have the 400mm F5.6 both are optically about the same with the 400mm shading it just

for birding and general aviation I would not even consider getting the 300mm when you already have a 70-300mm zoom
get the 400mm I have a 1 series camera and its works brilliantly with the canon 1.4x converter

I also have a Canon 300mm F2.8IS which works great with both converters but when I go to airshows I always take the 400mm its a joy to use and tack sharp and the 300mm stays at home

Low level flying photography is a different kettle of fish though if you dont have a camera that can take high ASA well you would struggle on bad light days

having said that I will always own the mighty 400mm lens while I use Canon gear - and also will never buy the 300mm f4 ever again not that its a bad lens but I think other options are better
my 2p
Chris

Did you own the 300mm f/4 L IS or just the 300mm f/4 L?

There is absolutely no point getting the 300mm without IS as that is the only real benefit of that lens over the 400mm.

 

[Buttkicker]

Did you own the 300mm f/4 L IS or just the 300mm f/4 L?

There is absolutely no point getting the 300mm without IS as that is the only real benefit of that lens over the 400mm.

300f4 non IS
the OP already has a 300mm with IS and its reach he wants not another lens at 300mm to be used with a converter

I shoot aviation extensively and IS is turned of at most airshows (must add on my 70-200mm or 300mm F2.8IS)

 

[SLRUser]

the OP already has a 300mm with IS and its reach he wants not another lens at 300mm to be used with a converter

This is precisely what the OP is asking.

If he strictly wants reach then the 300mm with 1.4x TC will be effectively 420mm which is longer than 400mm.


This is my 2p worth, IF the OP only wants to shoot airshows or BIF then the 400mm wins hands down. However IF the OP wants to use it for wildlife under less than ideal lighting conditions, which is 80% of the time in this country, or where IS or 1 stop faster is required then the 300mm with and without the TC is a very good lens combination.

 

[StewartR]

IF the OP only wants to shoot airshows or BIF then the 400mm wins hands down. However IF the OP wants to use it for wildlife under less than ideal lighting conditions, which is 80% of the time in this country, or where IS or 1 stop faster is required then the 300mm with and without the TC is a very good lens combination.

I think that's a pretty good summary.

 

[micloi]

The 300mm + 1.4 isn't sharper than the 100-400 and it is not a zoom lens either so I would look into that possibility too.

 

[Spiritflier]

Mornin' all,

Thanks for all of the extra suggestions...

First of all, the 100-400mm isn't anywhere near as sharp as my 70-300mm. I know this because I shot both side-by-side on the same camera at the same target at the same distance and with identical lighting conditions. I know it's not as anal as a 'proper' test but I'm a photographer, not a software engineer!

My missus has also asked me why I want 300mm with IS when I've already got it and to be honest, she has a point!

My reasoning is that a fixed 300mm F4 with IS will be more useful in certain situations than a 400mm F5.6 without IS (especially when you consider that the majority - but not all - of my photography is portrait and landscape based). I'm leaning towards the idea that the 300mm would see more use than the 400mm by virtue of the fact that I could use it on my 5DMKII for candids at weddings as well as for regular visits to the Mach Loop.

I guess I really need to put both lenses in front of me with the teleconverter and then make my decision... I guess I was being a bit optimistic that there'd be one clear-cut winner!

 

[micloi]

You tried a bad copy of the 100-400, it happens. Mine is almost as sharp as the 400mm prime I tested it against and very close to the 300mm 2.8 + 1.4 which is sharper than the 300mm f4

 

[ShrubMonkey]

You tried a bad copy of the 100-400, it happens. Mine is almost as sharp as the 400mm prime I tested it against and very close to the 300mm 2.8 + 1.4 which is sharper than the 300mm f4

Was about to say the same, my 100-400 is super Sharp, I was amazed by it compared to some primes

 

[Spiritflier]

You tried a bad copy of the 100-400, it happens. Mine is almost as sharp as the 400mm prime I tested it against and very close to the 300mm 2.8 + 1.4 which is sharper than the 300mm f4

Hi Michael,

I think you must have a brilliant copy!

I didn't try a bad copy... I tried a few copies! I have friends who also own the 100-400 and whilst I'll admit that it's a bloody good lens, it isn't as good as the 70-300 (although that's pretty understandable given its age)!

 

[micloi]

Hi Michael,

I think you must have a brilliant copy!

I didn't try a bad copy... I tried a few copies! I have friends who also own the 100-400 and whilst I'll admit that it's a bloody good lens, it isn't as good as the 70-300 (although that's pretty understandable given its age)!

Three out of four copies I tried were very sharp so you must be less lucky than me.

 

[desantnik]

There's something about the images from the 100-400 that I've never liked. Its not the sharpness, but the rendition of colours and the harsh contrastyness of it that isn't good.

The 300 f4 or f2.8 doesn't show this, the 400 5.6 is a bit the same as the 100-400.

Its older technology, I'm sure if they redid it now it would be massively better (but twice the price LOL!)

 

[pete.rush]

You tried a bad copy of the 100-400, it happens. Mine is almost as sharp as the 400mm prime I tested it against and very close to the 300mm 2.8 + 1.4 which is sharper than the 300mm f4

Yours must be unique, and a bit of a bold statement to say its very close to a 300mm f2.8 & TC.

The 100-400mm a very versatile lens no doubt and in the right conditions should take a good image, but as good as a prime at 400mm, I find that very hard to believe and several friend who have owned one (or several copies) have said the same thing and moved to prime lenses.

As the OP has a 70-300mm L, the 400mm f5.6 should meet his requirements as its a very good lens

 

[micloi]

The 100-400mm a very versatile lens no doubt and in the right conditions should take a good image, but as good as a prime at 400mm, I find that very hard to believe

Mine (both of the copies I owned) do not seem to be the only sharp ones put there:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is

 

[ShrubMonkey]

As I've also said my 100-400 us extremely Sharp. I'd choose a prime 9 times of 10 at other focal lengths. But the versatility of 100-400 makes it a win for me.

 

[pete.rush]

Mine (both of the copies I owned) do not seem to be the only sharp ones put there:

Don't part with them

Would be very interested if canon every release an upgrade, say a 100-400mm f4, now we're talking but very happy with both my 300mm (f4 and f2.8) primes

 

[squishy]

Don't part with them

Would be very interested if canon every release an upgrade, say a 100-400mm f4, now we're talking but very happy with both my 300mm (f4 and f2.8) primes

Except that wouldn't be an upgrade but a different class of lens, like the 200-400 f/4 that's been announced. Probably priced closer to the supertele f/4 primes.

What I would like to see canon do is release a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II with a similar construction to the 70-300L, weather sealed with the new IS and resolve any still lingering quality control issues (I.e, make them ALL perform like the super-copies, it must be possible). Then I reckon they could keep the price under £2k, still justifiably the same class of lens as the current one.

I wouldn't buy one (my 100-400L is great for me, any step up would be to something longer or faster), but I think it would be an excellent move by canon.

But if canon bought out a 100-400 f/4 for under £2k I wouldn't be complaining

 

[pete.rush]

Except that wouldn't be an upgrade but a different class of lens, like the 200-400 f/4 that's been announced.

Update: On Nov 15, 2011, Canon announced that this lens has been delayed until an unknown future date :thumbsdown: but I didn't like the built in TC with this lens :bang:, what were canon thinking a straight 200-400mm f4 would have been fantastic

 

[desantnik]

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

 

[Buttkicker]

The Nikon one is 4k..and nowhere near the quality of the long primes

No zoom is as good as of the L primes some are very close but if someone is comparing a 100-400mm canon zoom against a Canon 300mm F2.8 prime - they have been comparing it against a broken one

the 100-400mm is a nice lens but the autofocus on a reasonably cloudy day needs a lot to be desired its dog slow hunting all over the place and at 400mm its no where near as sharp as any of the primes mentioned in this thread
to be honest I cannot actually believe that some one has compared one to a 300 prime - is it April 1

put a 2x converter on a 300mm prime and the autofocus is still twice as fast as the zoom (and sharper) you can even stack a 2x & 1.4x converter on a 300mm and the center focus point still works

put a 1.4x converter on the zoom and when the first cloud appears you will lose the will to live if you are used to Canons good prime lenses

 

[micloi]

put a 2x converter on a 300mm prime and the autofocus is still twice as fast as the zoom (and sharper)

Even if you are talking about the 300mm 2.8 that costs 5 times more than the 100-400 the AF with the 2x is not twice as fast as the AF on the 100-400, if at all faster.

If you are talking about the 300mm f4 then I will not comment at all ...

Are your comments from personal experience, testing the lenses next to each other or from what you read online?

I have owned and tested all of these lenses against each other for extensive periods of time.

 

[Buttkicker]

Even if you are talking about the 300mm 2.8 that costs 5 times more than the 100-400 the AF with the 2x is not twice as fast as the AF on the 100-400, if at all faster.

If you are talking about the 300mm f4 then I will not comment at all ...

Are your comments from personal experience, testing the lenses next to each other or from what you read online?

I have owned and tested all of these lenses against each other for extensive periods of time.

I own or have owned every Canon Lens mentioned in this thread and the canon 100-400 is a nice lens the autofocus sucks big time in any thing other than bright days
adding to that my brother also owned the canon 100-400mm along with a huge array of canon primes and he said exactly the same as I have in this thread

I shoot with my Canon 300mm F2.8IS and 2x converter all the time and I am telling you it locks on quicker and more accurate than the zoom does on its own
must add I have also got a 400mm prime and used to have a canon 500mm F4 as well so yes I am talking from first hand knowledge

I am not here to slag off the zoom - many of my friends have it and love it
as a test if you think its that good go try a bit of Low Level photography in the Lake district in the shadowy fells and you will see just how poor the autofocus is when the first cloud passes over
both the 300 F4 prime and 400mm F5.6 autofocus system is far better than the zoom - not just a bit better (FAR) better

and just to add I also own a Canon 200mm F1.8 prime which also focuses way faster than the zoom with the converters