# Please give me an advice for an prime lens 300/400mm



## daniela (Feb 14, 2015)

Hi Guys!

As my children have grown up now, I can invest more time in my hobby. So I am looking for an mide-sized "L" prime lens to shoot animals. 
I saw the 300mm II 2.8 L an the 400mm 4 DO II. For the 300mm I would suggest buying an 2x III extender, for the 400mm an 1.4 III extender. 
_
Which combination would you prefer - if you look at the lens image quality?_

The cameras I would use with the lens would be the 6D and the 7D MK 1.

Does anybody own the new 400mm DO IS II and can tell me, if this lens is as sharp as the 300mm?


Greeting from the white Tyrol
Daniela


----------



## Jim Saunders (Feb 14, 2015)

Try a 300 f/4 and see if the extra stop is worth the weight and size; I had one and miss it. The 2.8s aren't monsters but the f/4 is light enough to hand-hold. 

Now to wander back to the question you actually asked, I don't know how the two lenses you mention compare without extenders but the 400 would do well to match the 300 f/2.8 (IS II) never mind improve upon it.

Jim


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 14, 2015)

If you're interested in a 300 f/4 L IS USM at a great price, get in touch with me!


----------



## NancyP (Feb 17, 2015)

What size animals or birds?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2015)

The 7D1 doesn't AF well with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC and I would not recommend the combination. It does work well with the 6D. There are insufficient reviews of the 400mm DO II. I love the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC with the 5DIII and am very happy with the new 100-400mm II on both the 5DIII (including + 1.4x TC) and 7DII although it isn't a prime. You really need to try out all three. The 300mm f/4 with an extender is not as good as the 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400mm II.


----------



## Karl XII (Feb 18, 2015)

Go for the 400mm DO II.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2015)

I'd go for the 400 DO, its definitely sharper than the 300 plus TC.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 19, 2015)

I have a 300/2.8L II and both Mk III Extenders. I haven't used the 400 DO II, but since it was announced I've been considering whether I should switch. At first it looks very attractive:
- 300 g lighter
- Theoretically better AF performance, and a further 100 g weight saving, due to using the 1.4x instead of the 2x.
- More chances to use no Extender, especially good for BIF.

But it has a couple of downsides:
- No 300 mm option. I don't get many opportunities to use the bare lens for wildlife but sometimes 400 mm is too long.
- Minimum focusing distance is 3.3 m, compared with the 300's 2.0 m.
- Still very expensive as prices haven't dropped much from launch price.

Also I would want to be certain there are no IQ issues associated with backlighting. Canon promises a big improvement compared with the original version but I'd need to be sure.

Unfortunately I can't afford to own both and see which works out best. For the time being I'm sticking with the 300 - and highly recommend it.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 19, 2015)

Do you want the best 300mm that Canon makes or the second best 400mm.

Your question is hard to answer, even though you say you shoot animals the answer would depend on how you shoot and when you shoot.

There is no beating the IQ out of the 300mm when you shoot and need the f/2.8.

I shoot wildlife in the field, out of the truck or wherever the opportunity arrises. If I had to choose just one of these two I would go with the longer focal length of the 400mm.

After upgrading my 500mm F/4L to 500mm F/4L II I have been looking at it to see what advantages I have gained.
The IQ in the corners is just slightly better, but that wouldn't really apply as much to the 7D. You do not use the corners with the crop. Overall the IQ difference isn't that great. The new version looses some weight which is nice. The new version IS is much better. But other than that the differences are not that great and the 500mm F/4 L I is still Canons second best 500mm and a superb lens.

I say all that to get to this. 
I wouldn't buy either one. I would find a good used 500mm F/4L and go with it.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Feb 19, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Do you want the best 300mm that Canon makes or the second best 400mm.
> 
> Your question is hard to answer, even though you say you shoot animals the answer would depend on how you shoot and when you shoot.
> 
> ...



Interesting input regarding the 500s. I am looking to get the mkii. I used the mki and loved it. As I plan to primarily hand hold I decided the weight and improved is was worth it. My main concern is the long term serviceability of the mki by canon.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 19, 2015)

Chisox2335 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want the best 300mm that Canon makes or the second best 400mm.
> ...



The *Weight and IS* are a huge benefit. Just holding it up I can tell the difference in how much steadier it is than the old version. Then with the 4 stops of IS I have been getting more keepers at the lower shutter speeds. 

I would think were a few years away from Canon not servicing the version I.


----------



## daniela (Feb 19, 2015)

Hmmmm.....

Thats tricky for me.
Yes, an 500mm would be my first choice. But a new 500mm II is to expensive for me. I have been looking for one some weeks ago, but the 500mm lenses, where I am sure, that the product is ok, is still beyond 8500-9000€ (2-3 years old and signs of usage).
(I learned from an mistake I made some years ago, buying an 70-200mm 2.8 IS from an photographer, where the Is was not working correct and I had to invest another 600€). If you know an serious seller, tell me.

I like to shoot birds and other animals that are not near to me, so the longer the focal lenght is, the better it is.

I tried the 400mm II DO on monday in combination with the 1.4x extender in an shop. But the AF did not work proper with my 7D (long time of hunting for sharpness) the 6D was much faster. And I was allowed to use the 300mm 2.8 with and without the 1.4x extender. The 300mm 2.8 is a dream. An super image quality, but only 300mm... The shop assistent told me not to use an 2x extender, as the picture quality will go down al lot. 

So there is still an big "?", what to do... 6500€s or more are still a lot of money for me


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 19, 2015)

daniela said:


> And I was allowed to use the 300mm 2.8 with and without the 1.4x extender. The 300mm 2.8 is a dream. An super image quality, but only 300mm... The shop assistent told me not to use an 2x extender, as the picture quality will go down al lot.



That's shop assistants for you ;-) Standard advice probably learned from another shop assistant. The 300/2.8L II with the 2x III is a very popular choice for wildlife photographers who don't want to be weighed down by a 500/4 or 600/4 and a big tripod. I know several and we all get superb results. I'm not saying there is no penalty at all - a bare lens will always be better - but the Mark II 300 with the 2x is very, very good.

But, if you know the downsides of the 400 DO II won't be a problem for you then you nicely side-step this issue anyway.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2015)

I am getting very tempted by the 400/4 DO II. I'd be using it with the 2xTC, having seen the resolution the 100-400mm II gives, but at an inconvenient f/11 and liveview. So, any first-hand reports would be most welcome.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 19, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I am getting very tempted by the 400/4 DO II. I'd be using it with the 2xTC, having seen the resolution the 100-400mm II gives, but at an inconvenient f/11 and liveview. So, any first-hand reports would be most welcome.



I do agree, but any advantage over the 300/2.8 II is going to be "evolutionary not revolutionary" so I'm going to wait for prices to drop which probably means not this summer. In the meantime I'll be looking out for any opportunity to gather information on image quality.


----------



## Tiosabas (Feb 19, 2015)

You couldn't go wrong with either of these lenses really. However I myself am looking forward to Sigmas revision of their telephoto range.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 19, 2015)

If I was buying right now, I would strongly consider the 400 DO II. According to the handful of reviews out there, the lens is excellent and has the best IS of any Canon lens yet. 300mm can seem a bit short at times and unless you're shooting large animals (deer, bears, etc.) you'll probably want the 1.4x and 2x all of the time. I had the 400 f/5.6 and it's an excellent lens but the lack of IS makes it much harder to use. Here's a review of the 400 DO II and you can compare it to the 300 f/2.8 II - pay particular attention to their notes in the IS test.

400 DO II
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747

300 f/2.8 II
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1369/cat/10


----------



## krisbell (Feb 19, 2015)

I own the 300II and use it almost 100% of the time with a 2x extender. As others have mentioned the image quality is still excellent though it does often focus hunt for me (with 5DIII). If i was starting again now I would probably go with the 400 DO II with 1.4x instead. I can afford a 500/600mm but portability is a must so the 300 and 400 plus extenders are the only options. Like others I am also waiting for more reviews to back up what looks to be an excellent new DO lens.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> If I was buying right now, I would strongly consider the 400 DO II. According to the handful of reviews out there, the lens is excellent and has the best IS of any Canon lens yet. 300mm can seem a bit short at times and unless you're shooting large animals (deer, bears, etc.) you'll probably want the 1.4x and 2x all of the time. I had the 400 f/5.6 and it's an excellent lens but the lack of IS makes it much harder to use. Here's a review of the 400 DO II and you can compare it to the 300 f/2.8 II - pay particular attention to their notes in the IS test.
> 
> 400 DO II
> http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747
> ...



See also: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons
and 
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm-lens-review-26785


----------



## NancyP (Feb 19, 2015)

The 400 f/5.6L is a budget bargain and extremely lightweight, a great bird-in-flight lens, but as it has no image stabilization, there is a steep learning curve and there is a need to use ridiculously high ISOs when hand-holding and shooting moving subjects at dawn or dusk. I think that it is one of the lenses a beginning bird photographer ought to consider, before they are ready to take the plunge and buy one of the $8,000.00 to $13,000.00 lenses.

Do you have any lens rental businesses accessible to you? Why not rent your top contenders, one at a time, to see which has the feel and reach you need?


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 19, 2015)

Choosing between 300mm and 400mm should be made based on what you will be shooting. I love shooting long, and own a 400mm f2.8 IS. It is great for for sports but can often be too long, especially on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body. But I own both teleconveters and love shooting at 560mm and 800, even on crop bodies. Surfing contests for example.

I also own a 300mm f4 IS. For 10 years if has been my go-to travel telephoto. So light and compact, and great.

But I now also own a Sigma 120-300mm. And i freekin love it. 300mm f2.8, yea, I got that that? Press pit to the batter at home base, perfect. Play at first base and I can zoom back to 150 or 200. Yes, so much yes. 

So anyway, hope that helps.


----------



## tphillips63 (Feb 19, 2015)

I am pretty much in the same boat as you and I ordered the 400 f/4 DO IS II.
I have the 200 f/2 and the 400 weighs even less!

From everything I have read, this is going to be the best lens for me. Also I am not willing to spend 10K+ on any one lens. I just can't wrap my head around that and the weight of the bigger whites will for sure make it a much less used item.


----------



## sulla (Feb 19, 2015)

Ha, I asked myself the exactly same question: 300 2.8 II or 400 DO II: They are priced nearly identically and have nearly identical image quality, size and weight. (I'm just not yet willing enough to shell out this kind of money...)

A tough decision. It depends, what other lenses you already have. I made up my mind: I want the 400 f/4 lens, because:


I have the 70-200 2.8 lens already. With a 1.4 converter it will go to 280 f/4 just fine with still great IQ. A native 300 would not be enough difference for me. That kind of money for 1 stop more of light is just too much for me.
Then, the 400 is perfect at 400, said to be still excellent at 560 f/5.6 with a 1.4 converter.
Theoretically, it should still have very very good IQ with a 2x converter at 800 f/8 and my camera shlould handle the AF at f/8.

So, for me a 300 would give me:
200mm from my zoom, 280 from 200x1.4, 300 from the 300, 420 from 300x1.4, and 600 form 300x2.

The 400 would give me:
200mm from my zoom, 280 from 200x1.4, 400 from the 400, 560 from 400x1.4, and 800 form 400x2. More attractive to me.

Besides, don't be afraid to use the 2x teleconverter: Yes, it degrades IQ, but - oh no, I feel I am just starting a shitstorm - in my view *IQ is greatly overrated*. Look at all those great images taken with really horrible lenses, then you immediately know IQ is just a minor ingredient in a good photo. I once saw a very impressive reportage in a very respectable magazien (Nat.Geo) shot with the EF 28 1.8, fantastic images, really impressive. But the lens itself is quite a bad one with loads and loads of weaknesses. Actually, I sold mine because I was not happy with it, but still: Others have taken impressive images with them.

So, bottom line: Try to figure out which of the lenses will fit better in your current lineup in terms of focal length. IQ will be fantastic with both lenses, with any extender.


----------



## tomscott (Feb 19, 2015)

Thing is 400mm is usually short for birds in flight. I find 500-640 a good balance. 

First 640mm lens I had was the original 70-200mm L 2.8 with a 2x extender with 40d just struggled without a stabiliser and the shots were a little soft. Bought a 70-200mm MKII IS and it's great with a 2x extender just never got on with the 7D kept it about 2 months the IQ just wasn't what I expected. I bought the 5D MKIII and that combo has worked well for me it's a very versatile 2.8 from 70-200, 110-320 f4 with a 1.4x and 140-400mm f5.6 with a 2x. I find the AF is a little slower with the 2x but it's definetely usable. I've shot Motorsport and wildlife because it gives you such a vast range and got some epic shots used in newspapers etc.

The 70-200mm MKII with a 2x gives you slightly better results than 100-400mm MKI at 400mm.

Currently traveling north and South America and brought the 70-300mm L because it's a great size and great IQ I've been to some incredible places for wildlife - Amazon, colca canyon, smoky mountains many many national parks etc and got some great shots but 300 just isn't long enough with the 5D for most birds and wildlife. With a crop it would be nice but the IQ of crop for me... I'm spoilt with the 5D now.

I have an upcoming trip to Africa and I'm in the same situation. From my research the best option is the 500mm F4 L MKI because you can get them in the uk for 4.5k-5.5k and apart from weight and IS the MKII isnt a huge upgrade. I would say this lens will be mounted to a tripod so the IS won't be beneficial.

I would love one but they are just so big heavy and primes aren't as versatile. I also have thought about the 400mm F5.6 because it's just a bargain and with wildlife especially birds in flight I usualy turn IS off because of the 1/1000+ shutter speed.

But I've decided for price and range the tammy 150-600mm is what I'm going to try on my 5D. It performs better than the 100-400mm MKI throughout the range, pretty good up to 500mm 600 a little soft but seems to work really well on full frame and 500-600 is a good length. With it being £700 it's £4000 cheaper. To add to it I have the 70-300 and the 70-200mm with 2+1.4 ex.

People who say extenders are useless... Most wildlife photographers even with the big whites use them a huge amount of time. Check this vid

http://youtu.be/XKz7busHsfQ

Also here are a few pics I've taken with the 70-200 with 2x



BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Puffin in flight, Cliffside, Inner Farne, Farne Islands by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Sunbathing Lamb, Lowther Estate, Penrith Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Grey Seal, Farne Islands, Seahouses, UK by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Here are a few from my 70-300mm



Red Tailed Hawk, Cades Cove, Smoky Mountains by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



Winter Wren in the snow, Cades Cove, Smokey Mountains,Tennessee by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

But really wish I had 400mm in many of my 70-300mm sits all are crops.

One thing I have learned is to improve technique and do your homework on your subject. 2-3 steps = 100mm getting closer and knowing how can help you reduce cost of gear, reduce your weight and make your experience a huge amount better! 

For example birds always face into the wind because they don't like their feathers being ruffled and it means less damage to plumage. Being on the right side of the bird and knowing behaviour can really aid and guarentee you get the face so facing down wind and waiting is a good strategy. Also hunting techniques, camo etc is really important. In terms of ISO and F number, being on the right side of the bird is really important, a good rule is to always have the sun behind you and have your shadow pointing at the subject to give the best contrast, this not only aids with focus but hard light = sharp images soft light = soft images. Having your shadow pointing directly at the subject means you can shoot 15-20deg either side of the subject and not worry about hard shadows meaning pulling them out in post. Also less reliance on fast primes, and high ISO because the sun is where you want it. Also I find on full frame I usualy stick to F8 to get enough DOF, if you check the performance of any of the whites at f8 you will find they all perfom similarly... So could save you money if that's how you shoot.

Many people say being at the right place at the right time and luck is involved but also instead of getting stuck in right away and panicking get there earlier and watch and survey then when the light comes you will have worked out the best place to be sit and wait and hope your subject plays ball!


----------



## Somlu (Feb 20, 2015)

The 300 2.8 mk ii is a lens which I had and if u talk about the image quality its just SUPERB . It is very difficult to exceed this lens regarding its terrific image stabiliser, solid built and and awesome image quality . But as a wild life and specially bird photography enthusiast I was always complaing about the reach . I was using the very lens with almost always with a TC . Well the degradation with the TC s r not much but still if u always have to use it with TCs then its a bit frustrating . Regarding bird photography , I will say it is not the ultimate . The 500 MKii which I bought after that is very satisfying and superb in quality again . But that lens has got weight and for a short person like me is not possible to hand hold it for a long time . Then as a GOD sent gift the 400 DO mkii came in the market and I bought it . I am using it for last 2 weeks and starting to believe it to be the ultimate lens for hand holding in bird / flying bird photography. I did some birding last week and almost continuously carried it for almost 5 hours . The image quality is superb , the image stabiliser is superb , the build quality is 5 star and the weight is very comfortable . As I have used both the lenses 300 mkii and 400 mkii I am giving u the comparison what I felt 

300 2.8 mk ll  400 DO IS ll


Reach Less More
Birding dificult for small bird Much better
Reach Less More
IQ Superb superb
WT More (2.5) Less (2.1)
Takes TC With very slight degradation of IQ With very small degradation 
How fast Better with 2.8 Little less but OK with 4 
...for me it is the 400 DO IS ll anyday


----------



## Somlu (Feb 20, 2015)

Canon 7D MK ll with 400 DO IS ll 
Little ringed plover


----------



## Somlu (Feb 20, 2015)

Canon 7D MK ll with 400 DO IS ll
Rudy Shelduck


----------



## Somlu (Feb 20, 2015)

Canon 7D MK ll with 400 DO IS ll
Openbill Stork


----------



## candc (Feb 20, 2015)

Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 20, 2015)

candc said:


> Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?


I fully agree with that. Get what you really need straight up. FWIW I have a 300/2.8 IS for shooting skittish or dangerous reptiles, like rattle snakes. For that the close focus capability is important. The 180 macro is not quite long enough for safety, so I occasionally use the 300 with an extension ring. I don't shoot bird or big wildlife, and chose the 300/2.8. That should tell you that a 300 on a FF body is not enough for birds. I have a TC1.4III for occasional convenience, but this is more for the odd shot here and there. I mainly shoot specialty natural history (slime molds, Nematomorpha), rather than the mammals & birds.


----------



## stein (Feb 20, 2015)

I've got the "old" 300/2.8L IS and is extremely happy with it for birding, often used with 1.4xIII if needed for reach (420mm/4), if you can get the new 300 and it will do a great job for you!
http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com/BirdsoftheNorth/GULLS-AND-TERNS/i-bPg9Pzc/5/X2/_MG_5329%20%282%29-X2.jpg
http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com/Mammals/Marine-mammals/i-kq3n9jq/1/X3/20131114-SNI_1964-X3.jpg

Stein, Norway


----------



## krisbell (Feb 20, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think about which lens and extender is best to get you the fl you want. Get the lens that is right for what you want to shoot. It may be bigger, heavier, and more expensive but you will be happier on the long run. If you are thinking the 300 + 2x vs. 400 + 1.4x then maybe you should be looking at the 500 or 600?
> ...



I agree with both of you in principle BUT portability for many of us is absolutely paramount, both in terms of carrying a lens on long hikes, hand-held shooting and for carry-on travel, for which anything larger than a 300 or 400DO just will not do. For those of us that need that portability and as much reach as we can get our only options for primes are the 300 or 400DO with teleconverters.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 20, 2015)

I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?

Comparison between that and the 400 DO:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2015)

tomscott said:


> One thing I have learned is to improve technique and do your homework on your subject. 2-3 steps = 100mm getting closer ....!



2-3 steps = 100mm? How on earth do you justify that statement? It all depends on how far you are away and the focal length of your lens. If you are 50m away, 2-3 steps makes close to zero difference, 2-3 steps if you are 5m away gives a factor of 2. Adding 100mm to a 20mm lens gives you a 600% magnification, adding 100mm to a 400mm lens gives 25% magnification.


----------



## candc (Feb 20, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



in that case i would go for the 400doii, if you want to get as much reach as you can then you want to start with the longer lens to begin with.


----------



## Vern (Feb 20, 2015)

I have the 600II and the 300II and use both with extenders. The 300II handles the 1.4XIII and 2XIII quite well (flare becomes a bigger issue with the 2X as far as IQ with backlit subjects). I backpack as often as I can and then I cannot carry the 600, so the 300 + extenders is a relatively light weight option. I am now wondering about the 400 II DO as a backpacking telephoto. I only have full frame cameras but toyed with getting the 7DII to increase pixels on target with a light weight tele option, but did not pull the trigger b/c I'm often in low light conditions and need the higher ISO performance from 1Dx and 5DMKIII. Also, landscape is a major component of backpacking, so have to have a full frame body.

Heading to Yellowstone to photograph wolves etc. on Saturday and I'm taking both the 600 and 300, 2 bodies and the 24-70 2.8II and the 70-200 2.8II. I will use the 600 when we drive along the Lamar valley and only walk a short distance from the snowcat, but want to have the 300 and converters for when we go snow shoeing. Maybe the 400 DO would allow me to take only one tele? For now, I can't imagine spending the time and $ to get there and not having my longest lens.

Unless you have lots of ideas for what to do with 300mm at f2.8 (sports?), go for the 400 DO.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 20, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.
> 
> However, just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II which is supposed to be very good as well, and gives you the range you were looking for. What do you think?
> 
> ...


This comparison is with the old 400 DO, the new version is not up on dp site yet and will look much better in the comparison.


----------



## FEBS (Feb 20, 2015)

daniela said:


> Hmmmm.....
> 
> Thats tricky for me.
> Yes, an 500mm would be my first choice. But a new 500mm II is to expensive for me. I have been looking for one some weeks ago, but the 500mm lenses, where I am sure, that the product is ok, is still beyond 8500-9000€ (2-3 years old and signs of usage).
> ...



Birds and not near to you. Then the answer is very easy: 400 Do II. You will need the reach, no doubt. Best performance would be the 400 DO II + 1.4x on 6D. I still have a 7D, and must agree that the AF of that camera, which was very impressing by the announcement of the 7D years ago, is now passed by other cameras, including your 6D. The difference in reach between the 7D and the 6D, can be cropped on the 6D.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 20, 2015)

I would echo "Vern's" comments, though my personal combination is a 1DX + 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and an 800 F5.6 L IS.
The Canon 300 F2.8 (any version) is simply a superb lens and takes extenders VERY well. If you can carry/afford a longer lens then that is a better solution. However if you need mobility then the 500+ mm lenses start getting in the way - this is where the 300 F2.8 scores.
The 400DO Mk2 is still a bit new on the market. I have tried a few of the Mk1 versions with mixed results. They varied from barely adequate to 2 of the sharpest lenses that I have ever used! The 400DO Mk2 is looking very interesting but I think we should give it a little longer to prove itself before making specific recommendations.
Combining reach and mobility is always difficult so you need to work out exactly what you need and then decide on an appropriate lens.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 21, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > I am a very big fan of the 300 f/2.8 ii and as others have said it is hard to beat.
> ...



You are right.

I was just highlighting that the new 100-400 may be an option.


----------



## FEBS (Feb 23, 2015)

Last weekend I tested the new 100-400 II extensively, If you would be on budget, then I would take the 100-400 II above the 400 5.6 or the 300 4.0.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2015)

FEBS said:


> Last weekend I tested the new 100-400 II extensively, If you would be on budget, then I would take the 100-400 II above the 400 5.6 or the 300 4.0.



+1 - the lens is fantastic, as sharp as the prime and with all the versatility of a zoom and IS.


----------



## luckydude (Feb 23, 2015)

I have the 300mm f4, the 400mm DO I, and the 600mm f4 II and both 1.4x and 2x TC. The 300mm takes the TC the worst of the bunch. The 400mm I have is a pretty good copy I think, this is 7DII, 400mm, 1.4x III:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/wren.jpg

There is a HUGE difference in size/weight between the 600 and the 400. I use the 400 all the time, hand held, it's awesome (and as soon as I can I'll upgrade to the 400mm II). If you want to walk around and shoot then the 400mm II looks to be a very nice lens.

I know that the 400mm I varies in quality, I recently ordered what I thought was the mark II version from Adorama and they sent me the mark I version. I put it on and took a few shots and was freaking out because the quality was worse than the one I already own. (Also, had to push like crazy for them to take it back, B&H gets my money going forward.)

The little 300 is a sweet lens in how small/light it is. Also has a close focus that is unusual. The 400mm is bigger but still very hand holdable. 

I've never held the 500mm but I suspect it is big enough you want it propped on something or mounted on a tripod. I find the whole tripod thing to be very limiting, I don't like it, so for me, the 400mm DO is just awesome. I wish they made a 600MM DO.

Good luck with your choice, my vote is the 400mm. Except I want one so buy something else


----------



## daniela (Mar 6, 2015)

Tired to get an 400mm DO IS II for an tryout. But no shop in the south of Bavaria or the Tyrol had one. 
And when I asked, why, the respone was: the lens is still rare. One big shop in Munich is waiting for 5 pieces. 
Does anybody of you know, why?


----------



## sulla (Mar 18, 2015)

Well, the lens is totally new. Deliveries have not yet started in sufficient quantities...
You'll have to wait a dew months.
I would NOT buy the old 400-DO-I, the v II is said to improve IQ greatly, especially the bokeh. Also, it should work much better with canons v.III extenders.

So, wait just A LITTLE. Prices are rather stable on the big whites, - the price on 400-i is 5800 and 400-ii is listed as 6500, so when the lens is in stock, i see no point in waiting too long, my expectation would be prices won't go down as quickly as with the smaller lenses - but i might be wrong.


----------

