Canon 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8

A

Armitage

Suspended / Banned
Messages
44
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
I am in a dilemma. I have a big birthday coming up and my good lady wife has given me a £3500 birthday fund to get a new lens. my main interests are Wildlife, Studio with a bit of sports (take a look at my flickr site to see wha t I shoot at the moment). I have a 7D with a 100-400 at the moment. I can get a new 300mm or a 2nd hand 400mm. I will be using x1.4 & x2 TC. But I am worried about the weight of the 400, but will I all ways miss the extra reach of the 400. In an ideal world I would get the 300 and the 500 f4, but she don't love me that much :( help!
 
If you're not absolutely certain of what you want, hire one first from our friend StewartR at www.lensesforhire.co.uk The 400 2.8 especially is an acquired taste - fabulous thing, but absolutely massive :eek:

300 2.8 is a safe bet - manageable, versatile, easy to sell on. 500 4 is the birders' choice for hand-holding I think.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you're not absolutely certain of what you want, hire one first from our friend StewartR at www.lensesforhire.co.uk The 400 2.8 especially is an acquired taste - fabulous thing, but absolutely massive :eek:

300 2.8 is a safe bet - manageable, versatile, easy to sell on. 500 4 is the birders' choice for hand-holding I think.
Click to expand...

500 for handholding but 600 ideally for birds and even then i am found wanting more at times
 
The 400mm F2.8 is a monster of a lens - heavy and big.

In your situation I would look for a decent used 300mm then get both the 1.4x and 2x converters to match it along with a gimble head for your tripod.
 
What are you hoping to gain from the new lens, probably best to think exactly what you want from it then see what suits the best

Neither of those will give you much more than the 100-400mm apart from being faster obviously, no point spending out just for the sake of it
Two of the largest and heaviest lenses made by Canon so are they suitable for your needs

I know you can't afford it now, but personally would go for the 500 f4, gives a bit of everything and the extra 100mm will always be welcome
 
300 f2.8 +1.4xTC = 380 f4, stll short of the 400 f2.8.

I had a 400 f2.8 when I shot sports and motorsport professionally (back in the days of film). Iy was a heavy beast, but hand holdable for a days shooting (stood in the middle of a windswept field for 3 full days doing The Waterloo Cup, yet I could swing it hand held to keep up with the greyhounds. The bike GPs and the early days of the Superbikes (likes of Eddie Lawson and Raymond Roche and Philippe Tardozzi) was the same, I could swing it for panning shots and use the top of the tyre wall for holding still, or taking up a rifle shooters stance - you couldn't hold it there for long though.

I changed to the 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 combo - and always wished I stayed with the 400 f2.8 and just got a 300 f4 for the times when a 400 was too long. Is your camera a crop type of full frame (I know nothing about Crapon!)

I think for what you want, the 400 is the way to go - provided you can live with the weight, they are about 15lbs on the end of your camera body. Hand holding, even with a rifle stance, will pull your rib muscles if you do it for any length of time. So part of your decision has to be made by your physical ability.

With the fast iso performance of modern cameras the 300 with a 2xTC is much lighter and yet only one stop up on the scale at f5.6 - so going from 200iso to 400iso is not going to lose you loads of quality like it did on tranny film! You can work with the same shytter speed. That changes the modern decision making process too.
 
Why not buy a 2nd hand 300 and the new mk3 converters they are meant to be even beter than the mk2's. The only prob will be manual focus when using the 2x converter. Some of the 3rd party converters are meanttto maintain focus.
 
Ziploc said:
Why not buy a 2nd hand 300 and the new mk3 converters they are meant to be even beter than the mk2's. The only prob will be manual focus when using the 2x converter. Some of the 3rd party converters are meanttto maintain focus.
Click to expand...

With a 2x TC either the 300/400mm f/2.8 will be an f/5.6 so will still AF on any body. Could always look for a used 400mm f/4 DO?
 
Not found one yet. Unless the 400's drop a bit more in value because of the bad press about it's weight
 
I went for a 300/2.8 in preference to a 500/4 (or 400/2.8) purely for the weight/bulk factor. As I never shoot from hides but go walkabouts for my shots the 300 was certainly right for me (I am a weakling OAP :lol: ).

I knew the 300 would be mega at 300/2.8 and very very good at 420/4 but what has surprised me most is just how well it takes a 2x tc. I have even had some very reasonable shots with stacked 1.4x and 2x tc (840/8). Click HERE for some sample images at 600mm - Maybe not up to everyone's requirements but certainly good enough for me.
 
Armitage said:
I am in a dilemma. I have a big birthday coming up and my good lady wife has given me a £3500 birthday fund to get a new lens. my main interests are Wildlife, Studio with a bit of sports (take a look at my flickr site to see wha t I shoot at the moment). I have a 7D with a 100-400 at the moment. I can get a new 300mm or a 2nd hand 400mm. I will be using x1.4 & x2 TC. But I am worried about the weight of the 400, but will I all ways miss the extra reach of the 400. In an ideal world I would get the 300 and the 500 f4, but she don't love me that much :( help!
Click to expand...

to throw a cat among the pigeons you could pick up a s/h 500 F/4 for not much more than than s/h 400. I had both the 400 and 300 when i shot canon. the 400 is stunning but its not ideal if your going to walking long distances with it and for wildife are you ever going to need to shoot at F/2.8

300 is easily handholdable the 400 not so much

I would hire both from StewartR in fact if you hire the 400 off him you will be playing with my old one :D
 
Hmmm well, with the 100-400 you should have a clue about the focal lengths you most often shoot at - that should give you a clue as to whether or not the 300 + TC's is useful (ie your photos are shot between 300 and 400mm) or if you are at 400mm all the time and cropping then the 400 is the way to go.

Both lenses are much heavier than you are used to, and of course are primes not zooms which does take a bit of mental adjustment. On the weight issue, both change your equipment from "I'll just go walkabout and snap away" to having to think much more about what you are doing - both because of the lack of zoom and also because the weight will mean its no longer a casual day of stuff and some photos, but a dedicated photography outing and everything else is secondary.

The technical advantages are quite obvious to you I hope - the IQ from either lens even with a 1.4x TC is staggering compared to the 100-400. Both are gorgeous bits of expensive kit.

Me, I'd take the 400 probably - provided that your budget will let you get a reasonably recent version of the 400. Be careful about buying older, no longer servicable versions of the lens. If you can't afford a still supported one, take the new 300 instead.
 
Roy C said:
I went for a 300/2.8 in preference to a 500/4 (or 400/2.8) purely for the weight/bulk factor. As I never shoot from hides but go walkabouts for my shots the 300 was certainly right for me (I am a weakling OAP :lol: ).

I knew the 300 would be mega at 300/2.8 and very very good at 420/4 but what has surprised me most is just how well it takes a 2x tc. I have even had some very reasonable shots with stacked 1.4x and 2x tc (840/8). Click HERE for some sample images at 600mm - Maybe not up to everyone's requirements but certainly good enough for me.
Click to expand...

That's what makes the 300 2.8 the killer lens for me - it works so well with extenders. Look at it as a 300-600 2.8-5.6 'zoom' and it becomes very versatile, relatively manageable and affordable. And it's no surprise it's so popular :thumbs:

With the new version coming on stream any time now, there may be a few bargains about.

Another lens that hardly gets a look in is the 400 4 DO. As a result, used ones are usually marked down quite a lot. But those folks that have one really rate it, ie it's much better in reality than its reputation, and I know of one poster on here that had one, sold it, and then bought another one.

I've never used it for real, but I've played with one alongside rivals and it is a real delight to handle. So light, small, fast focusing, good IS etc etc. May be worth considering at the right price.
 
just had a play with the 400 in a shop. It's heavy. I knew it already, But feeling is beliving.

I think the 300 may win the day
 
500mm f4 IS are over £4k second hand but searching every day and making some stupid offers can result in one within budget;)

For me that would be the choice as can be used hand held without much issues.
 
Handhold a 500 f4?!

I've never used the Canon one, but I can tell you the Nikon one is not a handholder by anymeans - and the Canon isn't much smaller.

Besides the weight, the sheer size of the thing acts like a sail in even a slight breeze.

Prior to using it, I'd have said the 500 f4 was the weapon of choice, but now, I'd choose the 400 2.8, even though its heavier, thats largely by the by.
 
just a wild thought but what about sigmas 120-300 F2.8. Cracking lens and leaves a balance for, em, other stuff :D
 
The limit of my hand holding is the 400mm f5.6 and that's only for very short spells
 
I chose the Canon 300mm f2.8 mainly based on weight and seeing how good the results were with a 2x convertor. Of course the price compared to longer lens was also a major factor, but if money had been absolutely no issue I'm pretty sure I still would have chosen the 300mm f2.8. I really wouldn't want anything much heavier.
 
My general rule of thumb:
  • 300mm f/2.8 is hand-holdable
  • 500mm f/4 is portable but not really hand-holdable
  • 400mm f/2.8 needs a team of porters
I love using the 500, but like most people here I think the 300 has the edge in terms of practicality. Using an Extender to get 420mm at f/4 or 600mm at f/5.6, whilst still being hand-holdable, is plenty for me.
 
£3500 budget !?!: you could target a used Sigma 300-800 ... it's heavy and quite slow (no IS - f5.6) BUT it has very good critics (some say it's even better that the 800mmf5.6 prime from Sigma).

And the range is just :eek:
 
Aperture photographic have a 400 2.8 IS for £3990, best price I've seen for the IS model. For the non IS you're normally looking at £3000ish.
 
MarkEvan said:
Aperture photographic have a 400 2.8 IS for £3990, best price I've seen for the IS model. For the non IS you're normally looking at £3000ish.
Click to expand...

And the 400 non-IS I'd imagine is no longer supportable by Canon (if the 300 2.8 non-IS is anything to go by)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top