# 300mm f2.8 II vs 200-400mm f4.0 TC1.4 your opinion



## 1982chris911 (Sep 30, 2011)

For a choice of a medium to long Supertelephoto lenses which of the two options do you thing makes more sense ?

The upcoming *200-400mm f4.0-5.6 TC1.4x Lens *

or the 

Combination of *300mm f2.8 L II* and *TC 1.4 III + TC 2.0 III* which gives the three distinctive focal length of 300mm f2.8 : 420mm f4.0 and 600mm f5.6

Also think about issues like weight, transportability, handling etc ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2011)

1982chris911 said:


> For a choice of a medium to long Supertelephoto lenses which of the two options do you thing makes more sense ?
> 
> The upcoming *200-400mm f4.0-5.6 TC1.4x Lens *
> 
> ...



I think it's probably a premature question. What does the optical performance of the 200-400mm look like? How much does it weigh?

Generally, a prime will beat a zoom every time, at least at native focal lengths. If the new 200-400mm has performance similar to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, it will give primes a run for their money (and that's a lot of money, in these cases!).


----------



## LuCoOc (Sep 30, 2011)

I hope you don't want an IQ opinion 
Before I want to tell you whats on my mind, you need to remember that the 200-400 is not yet anounced. It's only anounced to be in developement and nobody knows when it will be available. So if you need the lens now, get it now.

My opinion is:
The 200-400 is way more flexible and it`s easier and faster to frame a moving subject with it. The 300mm advantage is the f 2.8 aparture which will make it easier to stop action. The 200-400 will allow you to frame wider than the 300mm but lacks 40mm at the long end. However the missing mm at the long end will not matter as much as the 100mm on the wide side.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2011)

1982chris911 said:


> For a choice of a medium to long Supertelephoto lenses which of the two options do you thing makes more sense ?
> 
> The upcoming *200-400mm f4.0-5.6 TC1.4x Lens *
> 
> ...



Yet to be announced, price unknown, weight unknown, and image quality, focus speed, etc unknown. How could anyone make a comparison except that the 300mm is a prime and f/2.8, and primes are usually better than zooms.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 30, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > For a choice of a medium to long Supertelephoto lenses which of the two options do you thing makes more sense ?
> ...



Zooms are usually considerably more versatile than primes. Isn't that part of being "better"? Granted there are lots of unknowns about the 200-400 but, as the owner of a 300 f/2.8, 1.4X TC and 2X TC, I am impatiently waiting for the 200-400.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Zooms are usually considerably more versatile than primes. Isn't that part of being "better"? Granted there are lots of unknowns about the 200-400 but, as the owner of a 300 f/2.8, 1.4X TC and 2X TC, I am impatiently waiting for the 200-400.



I'm not passing judgement, but some people think that the best possible IQ is better, while some think that excellent but not best IQ along with versatility is better. It depends on which side of the fence you are on.

I use a prime wherever possible, but if a Zoom was the best tool for the job at hand, I would not hesitate to use it.

So, if the OP values versatility, and can live with f/4-f/5.6 rather than f/2.8, the zoom would be better for him.


----------



## mreco99 (Sep 30, 2011)

just compare them both here..

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404

simple as.


----------



## lol (Sep 30, 2011)

As others have said it really depends on the usage, and also what the final specs of the 200-400 are when it's ready. Personally, having owned the oldest version of the 300/2.8, I'd have no hesitation in going for the 200-400 for my personal uses (primarily wildlife). A prime to too inflexible unless you have a very specific target. Fitting extenders in the field is not fun and a good time waster. The 200-400 is a dream lens in that respect, and assuming Canon don't totally balls that up (unlikely) then I'm sure it'll be a huge seller, and that's with realistic assumptions on price and weight. I'd even prefer the Sigma 120-300/2.8 over a 300/2.8 prime.


----------



## Ziggy (Sep 30, 2011)

Personally, I am looking forward for the release of the 200-400mm lens. Currently have a 400 F2/8 IS. Which is a completely wonderful lens. But for some of the items I shoot, it can get real tight. and I am unable to back up. 

If this was back in the day when ISO 1250 was the best you can get, then I would stick with a prime 2.8. But I know a far amount of Nikon shooters who love their 200-400 ever since the D3 first came out. If you need a lens now, then go get the 300mm, if you can wait like me, I would wait til the 200-400 comes out. 

Best of luck...


----------



## Flake (Sep 30, 2011)

Or you could save a whole heap of money & buy the Sigma 120 - 300mm EX OS f/2.8 and a couple of TCs. Maybe not quite as good as the Canon 300mm lens at the bleeding edge, but still an excellent lens capable of great IQ.

Or there's the monster 300 - 800mm f/5.6 which is also a great performer.

Or if you really have to have that fast aperture, and money isn't an object (which considering the lenses you're talking about probably isn't) there's the 200 - 500mm f/2.8 

It might be a Canon forum, but there are alternatives which can also give truly excellent results.


----------



## lol (Sep 30, 2011)

I think the Sigma 200-500/2.8 is a bit much to hand hold for most normal humans...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Sep 30, 2011)

Well the main reason for asking here is more general - about the field usage and the TC1.4x that is integrated seems to be quite a good thing ...

However I still think that the 200-400mm will be much larger and Heavier than the 300mm f2.8 II just by seeing pictures of it and I am not so sure if it is still hand holdable and easy to use on the run ...


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 1, 2011)

1982chris911 said:


> Well the main reason for asking here is more general - about the field usage and the TC1.4x that is integrated seems to be quite a good thing ...
> 
> However I still think that the 200-400mm will be much larger and Heavier than the 300mm f2.8 II just by seeing pictures of it and I am not so sure if it is still hand holdable and easy to use on the run ...



I use my 300 f/2.8 L IS (Not II) on a monopod about 90% of the time. The rest of the time it is used on a tripod. I don't think I've ever handheld it for any serious use. Most sports photographers using the 300/400/500 fast prime lenses do likewise. My guess (repeat, guess) is that 200-400 will be an 8 pound lens.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Oct 1, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the main reason for asking here is more general - about the field usage and the TC1.4x that is integrated seems to be quite a good thing ...
> ...



It is my understanding that Canon made the new lenses (300 400 500 600mm) so light (compared to the older models) that handholding for some time is an option, at least for the 300mm and the 500mm ... However I still don't know anything about the weight of the 200-400mm but guess that all these moveable parts will make it a much heavier lens as you said.


----------



## luxmariaj (Oct 1, 2011)

I think the 300mm is better becouse its fixed focal. www.luxmariaj.ro


----------



## Ziggy (Oct 1, 2011)

Ok, let's talk weigh

now this isn't an exact science but let's compare

Nikon 300 2.8 - 6.3lbs
Nikon 200-400 - 7.3lbs

Canon 300 2.8 II - 5.18lbs
1.4 converter - .5lbs

taking the difference between Nikons two lenses, you would get a Canon version of 200-400 @ 6lbs with adding an extra .5 lbs for the converter, for a total possible weight of 

Canon 200-400 with 1.4x - 6.5lbs

Now the main question is what are you shooting and what quality are you expecting from your lens.

I have used the Sigmoster - 300-800mm nice but isn't the sharpest lens, 

hope this helps

** I just wanted to crunch a little math as the Rain falls in the Bronx. I compared the weight of the Nikon 400 to the 300 and as well as Canon. the weight difference between the 400 to 300 is about 3% difference between Nikon and Canon, so I stick by my math comparison and will take my guess that the Canon 200-400 will be around 6.5lbs...


*** Ok, I am nuts and bored. Using the same math, I thought I look at the price, I come to a calculation of $8964 without the converter, so add the $500, you get around $9500. This is just my guess looking at the math, it is scary how the price difference between the Canon 400 to 300 is 63% and the Nikon difference is 62%. Now that's scary..


----------

