300mm f4 v 400mm f5.6

T

telscossie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
96
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
Hi I am looking to get a lens for wildlife to use on Canon 5D mk lll , I don’t have a huge budget so was look at at 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 I know the 300 has IS , so has anyone used these and what are there thoughts on my setup any other options would be helpful as well . Thanks
 
Never had the 400f 5.6 but I used to have the 300 f4 and coupled with a 1.4 TC it was fine.
I used it on a 7D Mk1 and AF was fine and it retained sharpness even with the TC
 
Ok thanks , do you know if it would work with the 2x lll extender
 
I've had both (on a 5D3), my personal preference is the 300 because it has IS and at F4 you can put a 1.4 converter on and it becomes a 5.6 and 420 so almost identical to the 400 5.6 but still with IS. Performance wise you'd be hard pressed to see any difference when the 1.4 converter is mounted unless you are really fussy. A 2x converter will give you a 600 F8 so central focus point only will work and tbh I found it unwieldy in terms of trying to stay on track when using it for birds in flight but that's lack of technique on my part, so you may be better at 600mm.
I had both lenses at the same time so I was able to do side by side comparison and I always preferred the 300, the 400 is however very good so you wont be dissapointed with either. I also have a 100/400 (mk1) but that for me is bulky and unless you need the zoom the primes are better (but not by much imho). The testing I did wasnt exhaustive as I am only an amateur snapper but the 300 soon became a big favourite of mine.
No point in getting a mk3 teleconverter as it wont give you anything a mk2 will.
 
Last edited:
With wildlife length is everything (especially on full frame) plus a zoom is often quite handy.

Personally I would (and do use) look at the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm lenses, there is a thread on the Sigma 150-600mm (C) HERE which would probably be in your budget.
 
Last edited:
I have 400mm f/5.6. It is mighty sharp wide open. I use it on tripod for landscapes mainly so no IS is not a dealbreaker. Anything moving fast needs fast shutter speed anyway. It is the low light action in between that is a little harder to do. And a very long MFD. But it is a great sharp lens regardless.
 
MatBin said:
I've had both (on a 5D3), my personal preference is the 300 because it has IS and at F4 you can put a 1.4 converter on and it becomes a 5.6 and 420 so almost identical to the 400 5.6 but still with IS. Performance wise you'd be hard pressed to see any difference when the 1.4 converter is mounted unless you are really fussy. A 2x converter will give you a 600 F8 so central focus point only will work and tbh I found it unwieldy in terms of trying to stay on track when using it for birds in flight but that's lack of technique on my part, so you may be better at 600mm.
I had both lenses at the same time so I was able to do side by side comparison and I always preferred the 300, the 400 is however very good so you wont be dissapointed with either. I also have a 100/400 (mk1) but that for me is bulky and unless you need the zoom the primes are better (but not by much imho). The testing I did wasnt exhaustive as I am only an amateur snapper but the 300 soon became a big favourite of mine.
No point in getting a mk3 teleconverter as it wont give you anything a mk2 will.
Click to expand...
 
At the moment I am using 70-200 2.8 mk ll and a 2x lll extender so would there be much difference between that and the 300mm or the 400mm on the 5d mk lll
 
Probably not a massive difference in AF Speed/IQ (depends on how fussy you are) but the 300 and 2x will give you 600 but with an effective f8 so you'd lose some focus points (read the manual to see which you'd lose as compared to 70/200 with 2x) but gain another 200mm so it's your call as to whether it's worth the outlay. Plus the 300 without 2x would give you a very nice prime plus an extra 100mm. I have a 70/200 f4 (IS) and do feel it's worth having the 300 too.
 
Last edited:
I had the 400 for many years, it’s supersharp and because it Doesn’t have IS, it is much lighter enabling hand holding for birds in flight. For hide shots, you don’t need IS, field shots should be on mono/tripod anyway. A 1.4 converter wil give you a 560 f8 of better quality than a 600 f8 using a 2x on the 300.
 
I have had both lenses....the 300mm f/4.0 was used mostly with a 1.4x iii, sharp lens and light too, which I never used a tripod/monopod with when out and about. The 400mm f/5.6 is another sharp lens too although I didn't use it with the 1.4x iii, it was sharp too and easily hand holdable, both lenses you get good prices secondhand and I don't think you will be dissappointed with either lens.
 
FromTarn said:
I have had both lenses....the 300mm f/4.0 was used mostly with a 1.4x iii, sharp lens and light too, which I never used a tripod/monopod with when out and about. The 400mm f/5.6 is another sharp lens too although I didn't use it with the 1.4x iii, it was sharp too and easily hand holdable, both lenses you get good prices secondhand and I don't think you will be dissappointed with either lens.
Click to expand...
did you ever have a problem with the 400mm not having IS
 
telscossie said:
did you ever have a problem with the 400mm not having IS
Click to expand...
Personally I find I shoot sharper images with IS lenses regardless of shutter speed selected, maybe that's just me or maybe it's some IS lenses are better than non IS lenses?
In theory a fast enough shutter speed will negate the IS, I have no hard evidence to prove one way or another just an indication of what works for me.
 
I had exactly the same conundrum about 3 years ago, and ended up getting the 400.
At the time i also had the 70-200 mk 2 IS and had tried it with a 2x converter and was really disappointed with the image IQ degradation!
 
I started off with the supersharp 400mm F/5.6L but missed too many important shots just because a Dragonfly or Bearded Tit was too close for the lens' 12ft Minimum Focal Distance (MFD). An opportunity came up here on TP Classifieds (where I had bought the 400mm) to buy a 300mm F/4L IS with about 5ft MFD and so I did so thinking that having both to experience I would then be able to decide which of the two to sell. However, I ended up keeping both as they each offered me something slightly different. The lack of IS on the 400mm was never a problem.

I sold both to buy a Canon 100-400mm L II IS when it was released and which has about 3.5ft MFD and is just as sharp. Because I shoot a lot of Dragonflies I needed the much closer MFD and find it a very versatile lens for wildlife but your post suggests it might be outside your budget - Worth investigating though as HDEW today offer it new for £1,299 and then back to £1,349 probably.

https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-2980-p.asp

HDEW also offer the 300mm F/4L and 400mm F/5.6L on their website.
 
RedRobin said:
I started off with the supersharp 400mm F/5.6L but missed too many important shots just because a Dragonfly or Bearded Tit was too close for the lens' 12ft Minimum Focal Distance (MFD). An opportunity came up here on TP Classifieds (where I had bought the 400mm) to buy a 300mm F/4L IS with about 5ft MFD and so I did so thinking that having both to experience I would then be able to decide which of the two to sell. However, I ended up keeping both as they each offered me something slightly different. The lack of IS on the 400mm was never a problem.

I sold both to buy a Canon 100-400mm L II IS when it was released and which has about 3.5ft MFD and is just as sharp. Because I shoot a lot of Dragonflies I needed the much closer MFD and find it a very versatile lens for wildlife but your post suggests it might be outside your budget - Worth investigating though as HDEW today offer it new for £1,299 and then back to £1,349 probably.

https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-2980-p.asp

HDEW also offer the 300mm F/4L and 400mm F/5.6L on their website.
Click to expand...
What camera body do you use
 
telscossie said:
What camera body do you use
Click to expand...

.... When I had the 300mm F/4L and 400mm F/5.6L I used a 70D and then traded it in for a 7D-2.

I continued with the 7D-2 when I sold those two lenses and bought the 100-400mm L II.

I then last year added a 5D-4 to try full-frame. I found I prefer full-frame and so six months later I traded it for my 1DX-2.

Since having the 1DX-2 I then found I have hardly used the 7D-2 and so I recently sold it to help buy an EOS R.

So I now shoot with a 1DX-2 and mirrorless full-frame EOS R.
 
RedRobin said:
.... When I had the 300mm F/4L and 400mm F/5.6L I used a 70D and then traded it in for a 7D-2.

I continued with the 7D-2 when I sold those two lenses and bought the 100-400mm L II.

I then last year added a 5D-4 to try full-frame. I found I prefer full-frame and so six months later I traded it for my 1DX-2.

Since having the 1DX-2 I then found I have hardly used the 7D-2 and so I recently sold it to help buy an EOS R.

So I now shoot with a 1DX-2 and mirrorless full-frame EOS R.
Click to expand...
Do you think using full frame is better for wildlife even though you use the crop factor effect
 
telscossie said:
Do you think using full frame is better for wildlife even though you use the crop factor effect
Click to expand...

.... Personally because I owned both a crop-sensor and a full-frame D-SLR at the same time, I was interested in the same question and was able to investigate this by regularly swopping bodies on the same lens and on the same days and hence lighting conditions. This was with a crop-sensor 20MP 7D-2 and a full-frame 30MP 5D-4 swopping onto a Canon 500mm F/4L II on a tripod.

In the majority of shooting wildlife cases, but not always, the subject needs enlarging when processing. 'Reach' is always desirable but the higher MP image quality of full-frame offers the opportunity to regain or match the 'reach' of the crop-sensor in enlargement. I only shoot RAW and consequently the data on the image file is maximised - Every little bit helps!

I don't consider myself a pixel-peeper but noise performance on full-frame is better. However, there are lots of other factors which also influence noise regardless of the camera body.

The frames-per-second burst rate is very important indeed when capturing images of wildlife while in action. The crop-sensor 7D-2 can shoot 10fps but the 5D-4 only 7fps and so I traded my 5D-4 for a 1DX-2 which can shoot 14fps. Expensive but it's my main 'hobby' and my lifestyle revolves around photographing wildlife - Getting out there is good for the soul and I am retired and divorced and can do as I please.

I have now sold my 7D-2 because since owning the 1DX-2 I simply wasn't using it. The 1DX-2 is only 20MP but somehow Canon's flagship still delivers high image quality.

For insect / mini-beast photography I bought a mirrorless EOS M5 to live on my Canon 100mm Macro lens. It has virtually the same sensor as the 7D-2 and I don't need a high burst rate for macro shots but I found the M5 body too small and uncomfortable physically so I sold it and have replaced it with the mirrorless full-frame EOS R which also has a poor burst rate but isn't a problem for my use.

In other words, I personally much prefer to sacrifice the initial 'reach' of a crop-sensor body for full-frame image quality which can be better enlarged when desired.

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... Personally because I owned both a crop-sensor and a full-frame D-SLR at the same time, I was interested in the same question and was able to investigate this by regularly swopping bodies on the same lens and on the same days and hence lighting conditions. This was with a crop-sensor 20MP 7D-2 and a full-frame 30MP 5D-4 swopping onto a Canon 500mm F/4L II on a tripod.

In the majority of shooting wildlife cases, but not always, the subject needs enlarging when processing. 'Reach' is always desirable but the higher MP image quality of full-frame offers the opportunity to regain or match the 'reach' of the crop-sensor in enlargement. I only shoot RAW and consequently the data on the image file is maximised - Every little bit helps!

I don't consider myself a pixel-peeper but noise performance on full-frame is better. However, there are lots of other factors which also influence noise regardless of the camera body.

The frames-per-second burst rate is very important indeed when capturing images of wildlife while in action. The crop-sensor 7D-2 can shoot 10fps but the 5D-4 only 7fps and so I traded my 5D-4 for a 1DX-2 which can shoot 14fps. Expensive but it's my main 'hobby' and my lifestyle revolves around photographing wildlife - Getting out there is good for the soul and I am retired and divorced and can do as I please.

I have now sold my 7D-2 because since owning the 1DX-2 I simply wasn't using it. The 1DX-2 is only 20MP but somehow Canon's flagship still delivers high image quality.

For insect / mini-beast photography I bought a mirrorless EOS M5 to live on my Canon 100mm Macro lens. It has virtually the same sensor as the 7D-2 and I don't need a high burst rate for macro shots but I found the M5 body too small and uncomfortable physically so I sold it and have replaced it with the mirrorless full-frame EOS R which also has a poor burst rate but isn't a problem for my use.

In other words, I personally much prefer to sacrifice the initial 'reach' of a crop-sensor body for full-frame image quality which can be better enlarged when desired.

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks a very interesting read much appreciated , I have done landscape photography for a while but wanted to do wildlife as well so I am using my 5d mk iii for landscapes and just purchased a 7d mk ii for wildlife I will have to experiment with what Camera I get better pictures with the lens set up I have at the moment , thanks
 
telscossie said:
Thanks a very interesting read much appreciated , I have done landscape photography for a while but wanted to do wildlife as well so I am using my 5d mk iii for landscapes and just purchased a 7d mk ii for wildlife I will have to experiment with what Camera I get better pictures with the lens set up I have at the moment , thanks
Click to expand...
telscossie said:
Thanks a very interesting read much appreciated , I have done landscape photography for a while but wanted to do wildlife as well so I am using my 5d mk iii for landscapes and just purchased a 7d mk ii for wildlife I will have to experiment with what Camera I get better pictures with the lens set up I have at the moment , thanks
Click to expand...
Do you have a Flickr page
 
telscossie said:
Do you have a Flickr page
Click to expand...

.... If you are asking me, yes I do and it should be below in my signature. Please let me know if it's not displayed.
 
telscossie said:
You’re photos are fantastic I would be happy with pics half that good , would you mind if I asked you a few questions a bit later about settings on the 7d mk ii , thanks
Click to expand...

.... Many thanks for compliment!

You are the author of this thread so please feel free to ask and I'll reply as best I can. But please be aware, if you're not already, that settings don't absolutely guarantee the results - They can just contribute.
 
RedRobin said:
.... Many thanks for compliment!

You are the author of this thread so please feel free to ask and I'll reply as best I can. But please be aware, if you're not already, that settings don't absolutely guarantee the results - They can just contribute.
Click to expand...
I guess there could be multiple answers to these questions but will see how we go. so first one do you stick to any one type of metering mode ? , AF point selection ? Tv Av or manual ? , thanks
 
telscossie said:
I guess there could be multiple answers to these questions but will see how we go. so first one do you stick to any one type of metering mode ? , AF point selection ? Tv Av or manual ? , thanks
Click to expand...

.... Please bear in mind that all the answers I give are based on what works for me individually and that other photographers can achieve just as good (or better) results by different methods.

I nearly always shoot in Manual-mode so I can control the balance of aperture and shutter speed according to the ever changing circumstances I see in the viewfinder. I used to shoot mostly Av priority mode but switch to Tv priority when a faster shutter speed was wanted to freeze action - Shooting in M-mode is much quicker to prioritise either shutter or aperture.

The third component in the balance is ISO and until recently I set it to Auto but with an upper limit of ISO 3200. I still prefer an upper limit but will sometimes override the value which Auto selects - This is much easier to do on the EOS R than a D-SLR.

I have the AF-ON button set to Back Button Focus (BBF) so that all the shutter button does is meter and fire. It takes practice to get used to BBF but then muscle-memory kicks in and it becomes natural. I have the asterix button to its right set to toggle between ONE SHOT and AI SERVO.

Unlike most other photographers I don't move the central AF point around with the joystick. It is my habit to fire my camera in the same way I shoot a gun by centering and aiming on the target. I will often override AF with the lens MF Manual Focus - All my lenses offer that option with having to throw physical switches first. My chosen method may not suit you.

My advice on the various AF Cases is to use their defaults and not delve into trying to fine-tune them, at least at first - It's a minefield!

You might widen response to your questions if you post them in the 7D-2 Owners Thread : [I can't find it quickly and have to go!]
 
Ok tga
RedRobin said:
.... Please bear in mind that all the answers I give are based on what works for me individually and that other photographers can achieve just as good (or better) results by different methods.

I nearly always shoot in Manual-mode so I can control the balance of aperture and shutter speed according to the ever changing circumstances I see in the viewfinder. I used to shoot mostly Av priority mode but switch to Tv priority when a faster shutter speed was wanted to freeze action - Shooting in M-mode is much quicker to prioritise either shutter or aperture.

The third component in the balance is ISO and until recently I set it to Auto but with an upper limit of ISO 3200. I still prefer an upper limit but will sometimes override the value which Auto selects - This is much easier to do on the EOS R than a D-SLR.

I have the AF-ON button set to Back Button Focus (BBF) so that all the shutter button does is meter and fire. It takes practice to get used to BBF but then muscle-memory kicks in and it becomes natural. I have the asterix button to its right set to toggle between ONE SHOT and AI SERVO.

Unlike most other photographers I don't move the central AF point around with the joystick. It is my habit to fire my camera in the same way I shoot a gun by centering and aiming on the target. I will often override AF with the lens MF Manual Focus - All my lenses offer that option with having to throw physical switches first. My chosen method may not suit you.

My advice on the various AF Cases is to use their defaults and not delve into trying to fine-tune them, at least at first - It's a minefield!

You might widen response to your questions if you post them in the 7D-2 Owners Thread : [I can't find it quickly and have to go!]
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your help it gives me something to work with and hopefully find what works best for me
 
Good advice there from Red Robin.

I too prefer Manual mode on my 7D2 and 1DX, but I also use "Auto ISO". I find that this setup, with back button focus, allows me the most flexibility and makes my Point and Shoot compact appear hopelessly complicated!

I would suggest that you try changing one setting at a time and judge the effects for yourself, once you are happy then try changing another setting etc etc. You will quite quickly end up with a setup that suits your personal needs/preferences.

Happy experimenting.
 
Last edited:
telscossie said:
Do you think using full frame is better for wildlife even though you use the crop factor effect
Click to expand...
The best images will only come when you put in the time and effort so that the subject distance and focal length are a choice you get to make for composition, BG rendering, etc... Otherwise, all of the options are just a big circle of tradeoffs.
 
sk66 said:
The best images will only come when you put in the time and effort so that the subject distance and focal length are a choice you get to make for composition, BG rendering, etc... Otherwise, all of the options are just a big circle of tradeoffs.
Click to expand...

.... Obviously a responsible wildlife photographer will get as close as they can without disturbing the subject and fieldcraft with knowledge of likely species behaviour is key. Choice of lens will not only influence the distance but the chosen lens' performance will also play a major part in achieving the 'best' (highest image quality) results.

Anyone who shoots a variety of wildlife species will quickly learn out in the field that being able to compose the desired picture in camera and hence not needing any cropping in post-processing happens relatively rarely. Consequently, apart from the obvious benefits of zoom lens composition, we get back to the question of whether full-frame potentially and more regularly yields better results than crop-sensor. For the reasons I have already stated, I believe that full-frame does offer more reliable results.
 
RedRobin said:
I believe that full-frame does offer more reliable results.
Click to expand...
As I said, if distance isn't your choice then it becomes a circle of tradeoffs. All lenses receive essentially the same image/light; everything after that is just some form of cropping/magnification. And in that case FF really offers nothing other than exponentially higher costs to get to the same point.

FWIW, I use FF cameras (D5/D850 currently) and top level lenses (400/2.8, etc)...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
As I said, if distance isn't your choice then it becomes a circle of tradeoffs. All lenses receive essentially the same image/light; everything after that is just some form of cropping/magnification. And in that case FF really offers nothing other than exponentially higher costs to get to the same point.

FWIW, I use FF cameras (D5/D850 currently) and top level lenses (400/2.8, etc)...
Click to expand...

.... You appear to be contradicting yourself < As highlit in bold. So why do you use FF cameras? Or are you meaning something else?

All photography has trade-offs regardless of camera-to-subject distance.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... You appear to be contradicting yourself < As highlit in bold. So why do you use FF cameras? Or are you meaning something else?

All photography has trade-offs regardless of camera-to-subject distance.
Click to expand...
I use FF for the times where distance/FL are a choice.
I also use crop mode/sensors/cropping and TC's when distance/FL isn't a choice... but I do not expect that they will make my images "better;" I expect them to make my images "worse."

FF is not better when distance/FL is not a choice because:
Larger sensors receive/record more light when the recorded composition is the same. If the composition is different with the subject the same size on the sensor, then the larger sensor still records more light. But that "more light" comes from areas not included on the smaller sensor... and when you crop in post you throw that away. Using a crop sensor is effectively the same thing.

In order to get the same composition you could use a longer lens... but longer lenses are exponentially more expensive, and they have slower max apertures. Which basically means you have to use a higher ISO due to recording less light, or you have to make some other sacrifices.

You can also use TC's to extend the FL. That also reduces the max aperture (size). Plus they introduce their own optical errors (softness, CA, etc). Which again means using a higher ISO or making sacrifices.

And longer distances (increased magnification) also introduce environmental factors and an exponential increase in demand of technique, both of which can be extremely difficult to overcome.

The light per pixel consideration/debate is mostly irrelevant... it only relates to how an image appears to you on your display. It has little relevance as to how an image will appear to someone else on a different display or when printed. What actually matters is light per area recorded... ISO is not light/exposure.

*Edited to remove DOF considerations/error...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
.........

In order to get the same composition you could use a longer lens... but longer lenses are exponentially more expensive, they have slower max apertures, and they reduce the DOF.........
Click to expand...

You've erred there Steven. If the composition is the same and the aperture is smaller (slower) then the DoF will be greater. DoF is essentially a function of aperture and magnification and focal length is only relevent when distance is the same and composition has been varied as a result. The perspective will of course change if the subject distance changes due to the change in FL and this may make objects outside the DoF region appear more or less blurred.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top