# Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm do I Choose?



## PhotoShine (Mar 1, 2013)

I currently own FF and focal lengths 85mm and below

I was looking at Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM and EF 300mm f/4L IS USM to use for outdoor events. what is your experiences and advice. . . handheld, IQ, aperture difference, IS difference, etc.

I want the 400mm but the f5.6 and having no IS pushes me toward the 300mm. 

Thanks for your help


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2013)

*Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm*

I've rented both. The 400 is a bit sharper, but the 300 combined with a 1.4x TC would be ok...however, best of all would be a 100-400 zoom. It gives you the convenience of zoom, it gives you the same amount of IS as the 300 (2 stops)...and it very likely is close to, if not equal to, the sharpness of the 300 with 1.4x converter. The 300 alone is a bit sharper and a lot faster aperture than the zoom.

It really depends also on what you will be shooting, in how much light...and how fast the subject is moving.

The only downside to the 100-400 that I have seen, is that its zoom "pumping" action tends to pump dust inside the lens. If you will be shooting in very dusty conditions, that alone would make me not want that zoom.

The 400 Canon prime lens, is difficult to use in less than very bright light, due to the lack of IS. I was however able to make it autofocus accurately in extremely dark light, but my camera's ISO quality wasn't up to the task.

I decided to order a Sigma 120-400 just today. I think, assuming I can get a good copy (and based on the pictures I have seen online), that the sharpness will be very comparable to the Canon zoom, for half the price. If however, I can't get a copy that doesn't have focus issues or other problems, I will work toward getting something else.

I hope Sigma or Canon will make a new lens category at some point. Such as an f/3.5 300, an f/5 400, or a zoom with limited range but fast aperture, such as a 250-450 f/5, or 200-350 f/4.5...all of which with stabilization. It's kind of annoying that telephoto lenses go from the $1500 range, to the $3500-$13,000 range...with nothing in between.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 1, 2013)

The 300 IS f4 is a great lens, and works really nicely with a 1.4X Extender to become a 420mm f5.6. Love mine.


----------



## helpful (Mar 1, 2013)

Are you shooting baseball and doing it mostly in the daylight? Go with the 400mm f/5.6. It will do much better for baseball outdoors.

If you want a general purpose lens, then the 300mm with IS and f/4 would be better. But there is no way to get the same reach out of the 300mm f/4 lens without reducing the image quality significantly below the quality of the raw 400mm lens. In terms of megapixels, the 400mm lens offers about 77% higher resolution at the same distance compared to the 300mm lens, plus a slight sharpness advantage on top of that.

However, unless you are desperate now is probably not the time for either one. I have a feeling that at least one of them will be replaced, perhaps both, with new and much improved versions.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 1, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> The 300 IS f4 is a great lens, and works really nicely with a 1.4X Extender to become a 420mm f5.6. Love mine.



Ditto, its a really nicely balanced light lens too

here is a 100% crop of the 300f4L with a 2x TC on wide open on 5Dmk3

so 600mm f8 
with a 1.4TC its sharper
and bare lens is very sharp


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2013)

Helpful, that's good advice.

Wombat, nice crop. I too combined the 2x with the 300. I found it to be decent but not "tack sharp" in the image center...but it also had some odd waviness outside the center. I posted a shot of a jet at altitude in another thread at 600mm.


----------



## PhotoShine (Mar 1, 2013)

helpful said:


> Are you shooting baseball and doing it mostly in the daylight? Go with the 400mm f/5.6. It will do much better for baseball outdoors.
> 
> If you want a general purpose lens, then the 300mm with IS and f/4 would be better. But there is no way to get the same reach out of the 300mm f/4 lens without reducing the image quality significantly below the quality of the raw 400mm lens. In terms of megapixels, the 400mm lens offers about 77% higher resolution at the same distance compared to the 300mm lens, plus a slight sharpness advantage on top of that.
> 
> However, unless you are desperate now is probably not the time for either one. I have a feeling that at least one of them will be replaced, perhaps both, with new and much improved versions.



I won't be using this lens (300mm or 400mm) for any sports. 

I do see a noticeable better sharpness in 400mm by ISO 12233.

Does the 400mm f/5.6 not having IS much trouble outdoors if handheld vs 300mm f/4 IS?


----------



## Rat (Mar 1, 2013)

Never mind the shooting, IS is great when composing images. I won't buy telelenses without it anymore, and I would not get the 400 for that reason.

But may I ask why, if you haven't more than 85mm of reach, you're not considering one of the 70-200's? Insanely sharp, brilliant IS, about your price range if you choose the f/4IS. With a 1.4TC you have a 280/5.6 IS lens that is only lacking a bit in corner sharpness if you ask me. OK, maybe a little more than a bit if you take a mark II TC... AF speed is significantly lower though.


----------



## PhotoShine (Mar 1, 2013)

Rat said:


> Never mind the shooting, IS is great when composing images. I won't buy telelenses without it anymore, and I would not get the 400 for that reason.
> 
> But may I ask why, if you haven't more than 85mm of reach, you're not considering one of the 70-200's? Insanely sharp, brilliant IS, about your price range if you choose the f/4IS. With a 1.4TC you have a 280/5.6 IS lens that is only lacking a bit in corner sharpness if you ask me. OK, maybe a little more than a bit if you take a mark II TC... AF speed is significantly lower though.



wildlife (less time) and events outdoors (more time).

I was think EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM for the events and a 300mm or 400mm for wildlife (mostly zoo for now). Any of these three focal lengths i will use. I'm just not sure.


----------



## Mr Bean (Mar 1, 2013)

I love my 300 f4L IS. A great sized lens, which is tack sharp. I use it for bird pic's (at the moment), and its a nice balance (on the 5D3). About to buy the 1.4 TC III for that extra reach.


----------



## CanNotYet (Mar 1, 2013)

*Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm*



CarlTN said:


> I hope Sigma or Canon will make a new lens category at some point. Such as an f/3.5 300, an f/5 400, or a zoom with limited range but fast aperture, such as a 250-450 f/5, or 200-350 f/4.5...all of which with stabilization. It's kind of annoying that telephoto lenses go from the $1500 range, to the $3500-$13,000 range...with nothing in between.



I am thinking Tamron might step up here. They now have VC and USD capable enough for this area. A good way to differentiate themselves from Sigma/Canon would be to provide some new combinations of fast primes, like 250mm f/2.5, 350mm f/3.5, and 450mm f/4.5... They would probably end up in the space 2-5k$ (keeping my fingers crossed)


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 1, 2013)

Why not just rent a lens or lenses see which one fits you best? For example: I didn't really care for the 100-400mm, but I understand others may enjoy it and is a wonderful tool for them. Sigma 100-300mm f/4 from what I hear is good as well. For the zoo I may choose a zoom lens over a prime. Like the Canon 70-300mm L or the 70-200mm L. Also would consider if I was renting a prime lens EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM (around 4.bls) it is heavy maybe a pound or so than the 300mm or 400mm (around 3.bls), but it has IS and it's 400mm at f/4.

I understand the 400mm is sharper than the 300mm and I usually want more reach went capturing BIF, but if your not just capturing birds then the 300mm would be my choice. The lack of IS on the 400mm generally not a problem, but in a zoo environment it could be with some of the exhibits with not as strong lighting and if the subject is too far away for flash. I've not used Flash X-Tender (Better Beamer Flash Output Booster) at the zoo before. Also a monopod may help too, but again I usually rent before going to an event to see if the lens will work for me or not.

(Different subject) Another item I might use at the zoo is lenskirt on the glass enclosers to prevent reflections and glare and certainly a shorter/wider focal length.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 1, 2013)

Does it have to be a prime? The 300 f/4 is a very good lens, but it's barely distinguishable, if at all, from the 70-300L, which has better IS, is superbly built and, is obviously more versatile. I would also consider the Sigma 50-500 OS, which is about as sharp as the 100-400L but has smoother bokeh and better stabilization. Ideally you could do what I did and rent first (after renting the 300 f/4, 100-400 L and Sigma, I bought the Sigma and the 70-300 L; you might, of course, decide otherwise).


----------



## AlanF (Mar 1, 2013)

bwfishing said:


> The 100-400mm L needs an update to it's IS and the dust issue is a deal killer, but it would be the easy choice if not for the issues.


Many of us have used the 100-400mm without any dust problem - it seems to be an urban myth, which may affect a few users. As pointed out by Neuro, the dust problems should be no worse than other lenses that change length during zooming, such as 24-105 etc. The IS is not bad - although described as 2 stops, it seems to be a fraction better than that. Two good stops of IS are certainly much better than having none on the 400mm f/5.6!

The Sigma 50-500mm is very soft at long focal lengths - see the tests in the-digital-picture.com.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2013)

PhotoShine said:


> wildlife (less time) and events outdoors (more time).
> 
> I was think EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM for the events and a 300mm or 400mm for wildlife (mostly zoo for now). Any of these three focal lengths i will use. I'm just not sure.


Really, it does sound like the 100-400L is the best choice for your needs.

But...what's your budget?

If you've got the funds, I'd consider the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with the 2xIII teleconverter. The 70-200mm range with an f/2.8 aperture is more useful for outdoor events where subjects aren't too far away, and you may want to blur the background with a wider aperture. The 70-200 II does very well with a 2xIII, IQ is slightly lower than the 100-400 based on test charts, but in real world shooting there's no noticeable difference. That applies only to the 70-200 IS II - the other 70-200 lenses will not stand up well to a 2x TC. But the 70-200 II + 2xIII combo costs double what the 100-400L costs. I'm guessing based on your post title that the 70-200 II isn't an option, unfortunately.

The 70-200 II + 2xIII is my 'zoo lens' setup. Usually, I'm taking my kids so the 70-200mm is great for capturing them. The f/2.8 aperture is great for enclosures - the better foreground blur you get is useful. The examples below are of an ABE in a wire mesh enclosure. Both are shot with the 70-200 II, but the first is at 200mm f/2.8 and the second is at 200mm f/5, which would be wide open at 200mm with the 100-400mm lens. You can see the difference the wider aperture makes in blurring out the wire of the enclosure.

For subjects that are further away (e.g. wildlife or bigger zoo enclosures), the 2xIII gives an excellent 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. The third shot below is with the 70-200 II + 2xIII, the bird is in a net enclosure.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 1, 2013)

I currently own the 400/5.6, 300/4, and 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. I have owned the Canon 100-400 in the past.

- If you need length, then the 400/5.6 is your best choice. It also takes a 1.4 extender much better than the 300 takes a 2x. I photograph mostly birds with it, so I am using a high shutter speed in the first place and IS isn't really necessary.

- What I like most about the 300/4 is the close focusing distance. I therefore use it for dragonflies. I also use it for the zoo (where animals tend not to move so much), darker situations, and for lizards.

- The 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III is more versatile, but the image quality just is not what I prefer. The two lenses above are much sharper than the 70-200 with extenders. The AF is also quite slow, making birds in flight much more difficult.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma 50-500mm is very soft at long focal lengths - see the tests in the-digital-picture.com.



As far as I can tell, they haven't reviewed the 50-500 OS. The lens that shows up their comparison tool is the predecessor of the 50-500 OS; and they may not have had a good copy. The one I rented from lensrentals pleasantly surprised me. Roger Cicala's blurb on their site reads:

After playing around with it for an afternoon, I’m totally impressed (obviously on limited data but totally impressed nonetheless). It is as sharp as the original 50-500, which is sharp indeed. The OS is spectacular and really does appear to be 4 stops worth. We have some nice 500mm images shot at 1/125 second. Autofocus speed is adequate to the task and accuracy has been good, up until the items discussed below [don't know what he means by that - there's nothing below!]. My summary: once again Sigma has designed a spectacular lens, and while the price isn’t cheap, it’s a good value for what you get.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 1, 2013)

bwfishing
You wrote that the IS and dust problems are a deal killer, which I think is unfair on a very good lens. 

When I go out for nature photography, I take either my f/2.8 300mm II with 1.4 and 2xTC, or 100-400mm f/5.6 or a Sigma Tele Macro 400mm f/5.6. I particularly like the Sigma because it is a sharper lens than both the Canon 100-400 and 400 f/5.6, and, in public places you stand out so much carrying the huge white lenses - I once was accosted when carrying the f/2.8 by a local vigilante who thought I must be a spy, paparazzo or pedophile. And it is dirt cheap.

sdsr
I am pleased that there is now a good Sigma 50-500.


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 1, 2013)

I've updated the post. Sorry it was viewed as unfair to provide details regarding a dispointment I had personally with a lens I tried. For all I know I may have just gotten a bad copy of the lens. The post now reads: "Why not just rent a lens or lenses see which one fits you best? For example: I didn't really care for the 100-400mm, but I understand others may enjoy it and is a wonderful tool for them." 

I still believe you may be better off with a zoom then a prime at place like the zoo with so many varying conditions and setups to contend with. I'm sorry to the OP (PhotoShine) as I did'nt mean for the topic to change from "Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm (which one) do I Choose?" to "What do you think about the 100-400mm lens? Is it unfairly maligned?"


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 1, 2013)

Sigma has serious quality issues, which is why there is so much variance between lenses. My first telephoto lens was the Sigma 80-400 OS. I admit that I liked it a lot when I had it, but when I finally compared it to a Canon 100-400 there was really no comparison. They have come out with a few gems in the shorter focal lengths but I would stay clear of them for any telephoto. Most of those who really like their Sigma telephoto zooms have never used one of the Canon equivalents.

Interestingly their 400/5.6 has reviewed well but they discontinued it - meaning you may have issues with newer camera bodies.

Personally when I owned the 100-400 I really did not have dust issues and had no problems with the push-pull. It was a nice lens but was not overly different from the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III. It won slightly on sharpness and was about the same for AF. There was simply no reason to carry both in my bag. Since then as my skills have increased I have become more demanding on what to expect in sharpness and AF, so I now use my 400/5.6 for all birding.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Mar 1, 2013)

I'm facing a similar decision. I recently caught the bird photography bug while attending a workshop on the subject. I rented a 70-300 4/5.6L for the occasion and realized quickly that it just didn't have the reach but I enjoyed shooting with the lens. Then about 2 weeks ago, I decided to rent the 300 f4L for an upcoming bird outing. 

Unfortunately, I fell ill and couldn't shoot as much as I had planned. And instead of shooting wide open, I stopped the lens down to around f8-11 which produced unacceptable handheld shots of BIF. Granted, I'm no pro and I've got a lot to learn about bird photography but between the two lens rentals, the 70-300L in my hands at least, produced sharper images, which to me considering a prime vs. a zoom is a bit counter-intuitive. But I have to admit with the 70-300L, I was shooting at 5.6 almost all of the time. And even though the 100-400 is more versatile and would give me the reach, with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter at least in my mind is going to be slow, not to mention the loss of autofocus. For birds, that might not be so good.

Anyway, I'm also trying to decide on whether to get the 300 f4 IS, or the 400 5.6. I like the versatility of the 70-300L but the 70-300L lens was not designed to be used with a teleconverter, which means in those instances where I need the reach, I’m looking at other options. BTW I’m shooting with a T3i which I’m hoping to upgrade to the 7D or maybe the 7D II. Whichever lens I wind up choosing will see some time mounted to a 5D MK II as well.


----------



## Kiboko (Mar 1, 2013)

I've been through the whole lot! Started off with a Sgma 400mm f5.6 the build quality of which was dubious to say the least, (this was a good few years ago I hasten to add). Replacing it with a Canon 400mm f5.6 was the best decision I ever made. But the views of the professionals and advice from those in the know, eventually persuaded me that my wildlife photography would benefit from an f2.8 lens. It didn't! SO large, SO heavy, very impracticable, - shooting at f2.8 I found that the depth of field was so limited it was necessary to stop down to.... f5.6! Two years of huffing and puffing with the thing I traded it in for the new 400mm f4 DO lens. At last here was a lens I could use wide-open and still retain a resaonable d.of f. Unfortunately even the muscles I'd developed using the f2.8 hadn't the resiliance to keep going with it for long though, (and the hood was like a giant waste-paper bin)! - so I traded it in for a 100-400 f5.6 zoom. I soon got used to the push/pull mechanism, (never had any trouble with dust in it although I used in in both India and Kenya over a period of a good few years), it was smaller and lighter than my last two lenses, nor did I notice any difference in the IQ. A year ago, (getting fussier over IQ now), I traded it in for another f5.6, - there is definately an improvement in IQ but I do perhaps, miss IS. So over a period of some 20 years, a complete circle (shows how old the f5.6 is)! On a practical basis, I used it on my last photographic safari in Kenya with a bean-bag propped over the base of the open window of my jeep, so IS wasn't a necessity, but for most of my general shots I used a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6L IS which I love to bits. If you're using a crop body (7D or similar), I'd advocate the 70-300 IS zoom as a first choice. If you have F/F, the 100-400 zoom is fine, the 400 f5.6 is sharper but no IS, - take your pick!


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 1, 2013)

Over the years I've owned a couple 300/4 lenses, both with and without IS, a 400/5.6 and several of the 70-200 variations, so let me weigh in. And, while I've had only limited experience with the 100-400, I found it to be only "adequate" in terms of sharpness at the long end of its range. I suppose it's just the price you pay for such convenience.
While the 300/4 non-IS is an older lens and no longer in production, I found its image quality to be superior to that of the IS version (I've borrowed others to be sure I didn't have unusually good/bad examples). If you could find an excellent copy of one used, I would consider it to be a "best" option, that is, if you don't need IS. (But then, if you did, you wouldn't consider the 400 either!)
The latest model of the 70-200/2.8 IS and adding 1.4 and 2x converters is another consideration, though I would insist on getting the III version of the latter. You get all your focal lengths in, plus the added advantage of a sharp f:2.8 lens when you don't need all that reach.
Still, none of these possibilities compares with the IQ from a 300/2.8, which, even with extenders, gives great results (hardly any loss with the 1.4x model, and much better with a 2x than a 1.4 on the 400). If you could put up with the size and weight, you'd have an excellent set-up for most any situation. You might even find an older non-IS version for little, if any more, than what you'd pay for a new 300 or 400.


----------



## jasonsim (Mar 1, 2013)

hmmm... if your longest focal length lens is 85mm, why not look at one of the very good 70-200mm options? Or if you don't mine a variable aperture throughout the range, maybe look at a 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens. They are super sharp and lighter than the 100-400mm and has 4th generation IS. 

If you don't need f/2.8, the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS is very very good. The best in this range is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens, but if you don't need f/2.8 look at the f/4.

Hope this helps some.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2013)

*Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm*



CanNotYet said:


> I am thinking Tamron might step up here. They now have VC and USD capable enough for this area. A good way to differentiate themselves from Sigma/Canon would be to provide some new combinations of fast primes, like 250mm f/2.5, 350mm f/3.5, and 450mm f/4.5... They would probably end up in the space 2-5k$ (keeping my fingers crossed)



Yes, those larger primes you suggested would be nice too, however I think they might fall more into the $4000 to $8000 category, even from Tamron. I wouldn't count on any of our suggestions happening though, because none of the manufacturers seem very adventurous about new lens categories, other than for dedicated video (which is fine I guess for them, since there seems to be big demand.)

The one I would like most, would be either a prime or a zoom...but extremely fast aperture. Obviously it would be very expensive and difficult to make. So I'm kind of glad there isn't one available right now, because I couldn't afford it even if one existed. I am thinking along the lines of a 60-110 f/0.8, and a 110-170 f/1.2, 1.4, 1.6...whichever could be possible. Again, probably be next to impossible to achieve a design with good image quality with such a fast aperture, especially if it's a zoom...but it would be oh so cool if it could be done. Getting results that are in focus might also be difficult, but I think people could figure it out eventually.


----------

