# 300/2.8 L (IS MK1) or 400/2.8 L (non-IS)



## DanoPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

I have squirreled away enough of my "allowance" over the past several months that I have approx $3000 to invest in a second hand "big white".

The question I have for the group is, based on my budget, which of these two lens gives me the most "bang for the buck"?

I will likely have the lens on a monopod (kids sports) or tripod (birds and such), so would the only benefit for IS be for framing the shots?

Thoughts? Advice?


----------



## Flake (Apr 16, 2012)

Well thoughts & advice you might not be prepared for!

Firstly a monopod is not going to give enough stability to render IS redundant. You'll get about a one stop advantage with a monopod, a far cry from the 4 stops IS gives.

300 & 400mm are both two short for birds so you'll be needing a teleconverter for those, my suggestion is a new or recent second hand Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS lens. Amazing image quality and takes a teleconverter very well, plus 4 stop OS system. With a 2X you get 240 - 600mm f/5.6 or with a 1.4X 170 - 420mm f/4 This is the most flexible range of focal length possible and gives the biggest bang for your buck, the image quality is really very good so no worries there.

If money was no object then I'd buy both of the big whites - new! However most of us live in the real world and are forced to compromise. If I were buying new I'd still think about the Sigma simply because of its sheer flexibility, when considering an older design I'd definitely go for the Sigma. You really do benefit from IS / OS especially at these focal lengths and the 400mm f/2.8 is a very big & heavy lens, no IS means a tripod - always. Both the Sigma & Canon 300mm f/2.8 lenses are heavy but not as bad as the 400mm f/2.8

Of course your main priority might be to own one of the big white lenses and showing off might be the biggest attaction of owning one of these lenses (it is for many owners). It doesn't last though as it's just too high profile for many, and you may well consider buying a camoflague cover especially for birds!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 16, 2012)

For sports, you'll be using a fast shutter. Between the big aperture and the monopod, you'll be just fine without IS. And, with a tripod, you'll again not be needing IS.

(Of course, given a choice between IS and no IS, IS is always welcome. It's just a very minor factor in the types of shooting you're describing.)

Both of your subjects will also benefit from the extra reach of the 400. The 400 is the go-to lens for big-people sports, and kids fill less of the frame. And you can never have enough reach for birds, unless they're chickens in the back yard.

From what you describe, the 400 is the way to go.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

@Flake - Thanks for the third party lens perspective. I have been one dimensional (Canon only) for so long that was not part of my consideration. I love the focal range the Sigma offers, as I would be using extenders to get the reach I want for birding (on top of the 1.6 the 7D provides). As far as the reality check of who is looking at me or showing off, it would be too little, too late (past that stage in life).

Will definitely look at the Sigma, but what are your thoughts about the IQ of an "older" 400 (non-IS) versus a relatively "younger" 300?

thanks!


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

@Trumpet - thanks for the feedback. What do you think about the IQ of the lenses, based on the relative age of each?

I love the 100-400, but find myself almost always shooting at the longer end and lose AF with extenders.

Thanks!


----------



## xROELOFx (Apr 16, 2012)

i have never used the 400 but can tell you the 300mm + 1.4x + 7D kicks ass! you'll get quite some reach with it (672mm compared with fullframe) with a max. aperture of f/4. that's really great! it's large enough to get nice blurry backgrounds and fast shutterspeeds. i can tell you i'm really happy with this combination.

i used to have a 100-400 before i bought my used 300mm. the 300 is better in every way. it has faster AF, is weather sealed and has way better IQ. also the larger aperture is a big plus. it lacks a bit of flexibility (without zooming like the 100-400), but i used to use my 100-400 at longest end most of the time.

anyways, good luck with your choice! spend your cash wise


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 16, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> What do you think about the IQ of the lenses, based on the relative age of each?



IQ with any supertelephoto prime is phenomenal, as good as it gets. Yes, the newer versions have even better IQ, but the old ones still beat anything else in the lineup that's not a supertelephoto. The improvements with the newer versions have little to do with IQ and much more to do with IS and reduced weight -- both of which, of course, can have a substantial impact on usability and therefore IQ, but not in any way that you'd be able to measure on a lab bench.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## pwp (Apr 16, 2012)

If you're shooting sports f/2.8 is a must. Pure & simple. You need to keep your shutter speed as high as practical. And a f/2.8 lens does focus faster... a must with sports if you want consistent results. Unless you have muscles like Mr Universe you'll need the monopod for anything longer than a couple of minutes work.

You have not mentioned the body you are working with. Plenty of photographers including myself who use the f/2.8 300 on a Mk4 with the x1.3 crop are effectively shooting at 390mm. When we transition to the FF 1DX we'll lose that reach and a 400 f/2.8 will become a required purchase.

If you shoot APS-C with x1.6 crop you'll find the 300 f/2.8 a very satisfying useful lens for sports. For birds with a 1.4 extender you'll have an f/4 420mm on FF, and a healthy 672mm f/4 on an APS-C like the 7D. 

Because of the likely transition from 300 f/2.8 to 400 f/2.8 by a good number of sports shooters there MAY be more 300 f/2.8 glass coming available second hand as the 1DX reaches the market. This may also put upward pressure on pre-owned 400 f/2.8 lenses as people like me with 1DX bodies on pre-order look around for low cost entry to a good 400.

Optically and performance wise either lens is a stellar performer with the capacity to continue to surprise with its very rapid AF and unique image qualities.

Paul Wright


----------



## Harv (Apr 16, 2012)

In my personal opinion, the 300 f/2.8L IS gives you a lot of flexibility when coupled with extenders. For years, I used a 500 f/4L IS and finally gave up on it because of the weight. The 400 f/2.8L IS is even heavier than the 500. It's a brute and weighs over 6 pounds more than the 300. I am not familiar with the non-IS version, but I'm sure it's a pretty heavy lens as well. Monopod or not, you still have to carry your gear around.

I shoot mostly motorsports and birds and am amazed at how the 300 performs in those venues. The AF is incredibly fast and accurate. The image quality, simply put..... is outstanding.

*Don't forget to click on the images to enlarge them.*

Here are some images using the lens without a converter (300mm).....

















Here are some images using the 1.4x converter (420mm).....





















Here are some images using the 2x converter (600mm).....





















I'm using the Mark III converters and found the 2x is much better than the previous model, although did not see much difference with the 1.4x to the older model.

I normally shoot a 1D Mark IV but also use the above combos on a 7D which also handles them very well.

They will have to pry my 300 f/2.8L IS from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 16, 2012)

Dano,

As you can see from Harv's photos, the 300 is a superlative lens -- though, to be sure, what's behind the camera is generally more important than what's attached to its front. And he makes an excellent point about weight; the new 400 is a reasonably light 8 pounds, but the old one is about 12 pounds. And crop factor certainly comes into play, as well.

But I'll still stand by my recommendation for the 400, with all of Harv's caveats. If you can live with the weight and especially if you're now or will be shooting with a non-crop body, the 400 is the better fit for the shooting you describe.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

@ Paul - I am using the 7D for sports and wildlife, so I am excited about the reach and flexibility with extenders. AF and fps are as good as I can get...will migrate to a 1D system (hopefully, some day, budget allowing). This is just a passionate hobby for me, do not have the raw artistic skills you pros have, (yet?).

Thanks, Dan.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

@ xROELOFx & Trumpet - this is the type of real life experience I was looking for. Shooting on a crop body for now (1D some day). I will mull over the pros (many) and cons (few) of each. weight seems to be a big differentiator.

do not think either will be a bad choice...sort of like splitting hairs on a bald man.

@ Harv - DAMN NICE work!


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 17, 2012)

Given the choice I'd say 300/2.8 L (IS MK1). Even on a tripod, the IS can be very helpful. 

I own a 400 2.8 IS and love it, but it so big and heavy, the 300 2.8 IS is a great alternative.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 17, 2012)

Thanks, Tex. That is one of the bigger factors in the decision between those two lenses.

Will keep my eyes open for 300/2.8 pricing trends over the coming weeks/months, as Paul pointed out earlier, with more second hand copies coming available due to 1D4 to 1DX migration.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Apr 17, 2012)

The IQ of the 400 2.8L is great but you are going to be obliged to use a tripod or at least monopod at all times. Get the 300 2.8 IS instead - that thing is heavy too but you can use it handheld. I am even thinking about getting the 300 mk2 since i am tired of dragging around the heavy 400 2.8L beast...


----------



## xROELOFx (Apr 18, 2012)

you can use the 300 without a tripod, but i would recommend to use a tripod anyway. especially if you're shooting subjects that are above you, it can get heavy (pointing the lens upwards in an angle. if you guys know what i mean. don't know another way to say this ). your arms will get tired and you will have a harder time to keep the lens steady. the IS helps a great deal though, but won't be enough.

also, when lying on the ground, it's great to have a ricebag or tripod (on wich you can put the lens as low as possible to the ground) to relieve the weight from your arms.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 18, 2012)

Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting : .

I could use tripod when sitting, but not laying down.

I have a buddy that will lend me a gimbal head to test drive once I make a decision. Is a gimbal head overkill, good idea or a necessity?


----------



## bchernicoff (Apr 18, 2012)

First off, there are two pre-IS 400mm f/2.8 L lenses from Canon. I own the Mk II and it is phenomenally sharp. I have been told the Mk I lens did not use modern coatings and has much worse IQ. So, if you are going to go with a non-IS 400mm f/2.8, get the Mk II. I shot this entire gallery(with the exception of the anteater) with mine at f/2.8 on the 5D Mk III. I used a monopod and had no problem keeping it steady enough, but this was in bright daylight with a shutter speed around 1/750s. This lens is heavy, so be prepared for that. Also, it's worth noting that the 5D Mk III's AF works much better with this lens than the 5D Mk II...at least I have noticed much less hunting.

http://photos.benchernicoff.com/Animals/National-Zoo/22223116_4kGtfF#!i=1775226153&k=bHKwt4F


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 19, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> First off, there are two pre-IS 400mm f/2.8 L lenses from Canon.


 
Thanks, Ben. Do you know when they made that production change? most date codes I have seen look to be in late 1990's, so thinking that would be the MkII (?)

Really nice pix !


----------



## bchernicoff (Apr 19, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > First off, there are two pre-IS 400mm f/2.8 L lenses from Canon.
> ...



According to the Canon museum, 1996: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_400_28lii_usm.html

The second one is clearly labeled II. I will take a picture of mine tonight.

Also, Dano.. I see you live in Pennsylvania. If you feel like driving down the Washington DC area (I live in Alexandria, VA) you are welcome to try mine out.


----------



## xROELOFx (Apr 20, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting : .
> 
> I could use tripod when sitting, but not laying down.
> 
> I have a buddy that will lend me a gimbal head to test drive once I make a decision. Is a gimbal head overkill, good idea or a necessity?


so far i have only used a normal ballhead, but i do think a gimbal head is a good idea. it's on my wish list to buy.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 20, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting : .
> 
> I could use tripod when sitting, but not laying down.
> 
> I have a buddy that will lend me a gimbal head to test drive once I make a decision. Is a gimbal head overkill, good idea or a necessity?



Have to be careful about that ricebag... Don't use real rice if you're in tropical areas. I tried a DIY one, was fine till one day I found beetles all over my bag... was wondering where they came from, especially when they kept reappearing despite multiple "vaccuum treatments"... Finally realised it was from the bag =(

That said, I made a new one with a handful or two of uh... "borrowed" styrofoam beans from my sister's beanbag... Works a charm. Might want to get be wary of getting it damp though - I carry a waterproof foam mat around for that as well, just in case. 

And if you're lying down a lot, you can always consider a yoga mat from Kmart or Target or whatever store is near you - they're cheap, light, easy to carry around in a pinch if you ever want to do some low angle shooting



Sorry, gone off tangent. Get the 300mm IS imo, even with a monopod the 400 isn't going to be easy to handle


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 20, 2012)

Ben- I am trying to plan a long weekend to take the kids to DC in the fall. Thanks for the offer. I may take you up on that.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 20, 2012)

@ D.Sim & xROELOFx - thanks for the feedback. More things to consider in the process. Leaning toward the 300 due to size and IS. Fortunately, not a pressing timeline, so I can change my mind a few more times.


----------



## xROELOFx (Apr 20, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> DanoPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the beanbag/ricebag advice...did not think about, but similar concept to upward shooting : .
> ...


i got a bean/rice bag filled with these kind of things: https://www.lowlandphotoservice.nl/granulaatkorrels/440-rjs-granulaat-korrels-lichtbruin.html. the website is in dutch, but i guess there's similar products to be found in your country. they are lighter than rice (about 1 third lighter) and don't attract beetles


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 20, 2012)

xROELOFx said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > DanoPhoto said:
> ...



If its organic, it'll attract beetles. Or mold. Probably get moldy if you don't take care of it either way, but foodstuff does move ever so faster... which is an unfortunate site effect of living in the tropics

Those things look rather... hard though =/


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 20, 2012)

They look like some type of recycled plastic material. looking for my (Dutch to English) translator button to read the description. Fortunately, I do not do much tropical travel, but moisture is everywhere.

@D.Sim - did your sister ever figure out you were the "borrower"? I have two sisters and that would have been an interesting "discussion".


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 20, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> They look like some type of recycled plastic material. looking for my (Dutch to English) translator button to read the description. Fortunately, I do not do much tropical travel, but moisture is everywhere.
> 
> @D.Sim - did your sister ever figure out you were the "borrower"? I have two sisters and that would have been an interesting "discussion".



Well, as beanbags go, they tend to... deflate over time, if you will. Especially when theres a small hole in the corner that allows beans to fall out....


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 23, 2012)

Hey gang, as part of the "oh, by the way" discovery process, now I need to consider a bag or pack to tote one of these monsters to/from the ball fields.


Think Tank Galss Taxi looks good, but sure there are many more option out there


What do you use? Do you keep strap attached?


Thanks, Dan.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 23, 2012)

For my 400mm 2.8, I originally I used the hard case that it came in. I want all the protection I can get. Then I added an acrca-swiss plate and it would not fit. Now I use a wheeled pelican case. Also heavy but hey, it protects my investment, and I can sit stand on it. My monopod is long enough that I can stand on the pelican, getting me over the heads of others.

I keep a small bike lock in the pelican so if I'm going to leave the empty case someplace while I move on the sidelines of a game, it's not going to walk away.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 23, 2012)

Being a towering 5'8", that is a GREAT idea.


----------



## winoheel (Apr 23, 2012)

1) Reach, reach, reach for birds and you can never have enough.
2) 300mm 2.8L IS with 1.4x extender is great for large birds that are stationary in a tree or nest and you are somewhat stationary with mono or tripod help and a gimbal head. I use glass taxi as permanent storage, space for extenders, flash, pro body and easy travel. Great for field sports. I will never let it go!
3) 100-400mm is great and serves a separate purpose with much more flexibility, works well in tight quarters no mono or tripod, and travels well. Everytime I think about getting rid of it I use it one last time and change my mind!
4) 600mm 4.0L IS, used and I think that I have arrived at my final destination. With extenders, gimbal head on tripod and very heavy but I knew that getting into it!
5) All used on 50D, 5DII and 1D Mark IV (purchased used)

I use them all for different purposes and bought them over time but wonder if expectations can ever be met.


----------

