Canon 400mm f/5.6 or Canon 300mm f/4L IS?

P

PauloD

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to buy either a Canon 400mm f/5.6L or Canon 300mm f/4L IS to use mostly for wildlife photography.

I'm attracted by the extra 100mm offered by the 400mm but put off by the fact that it's f/5.6, thinking that I'll have to wait for sunny days and only take shots of birds and animals that don't stay in the shade!

However, I've read reviews which rate the 400mm f/5.6 over the 300mm f/4L, especially with regard to sharpness.

Any views on this would be greatly appreciated!
 
Mmmm. Tough call, Paulo. We have both of these lenses at www.LensesForHire.co.uk and I've used them both, but not extensively.

They're very similar in size and weight, so there's really no difference in the ergonomics. The 400 is really sharp, definitely, but the 300's hardly bad. You can put a 1.4x TC on the 300 to give you a 420mm f/5.6, but then the image quality will definitely be somewhat worse than the 400.

The 300 has IS. But if you're using a monopod or tripod then the IS isn't of any use to you, and if you're shooting fast-moving things then you need a high shutter speed so the IS isn't going to be of any help either.

I'm not sure there's an easy answer. Either lens will let you get photos that the other can't. The key issues are, I think (a) whether the conditions in which you'll be working favour the extra reach or the extra stop of aperture; and (b) whether you want the IQ from the 400 over the flexibility of the 300 with/without TC.

If I were a real pimp, I'd suggest you might consider hiring one or other (or both!) to try them out, and see which you get on with best. But I'm not so I won't. ;)
 
Paolo,

I have both of these lenses and this is exactly due to what you have already stated.
The 400/5.6 can be a little slow and the 300/4 a little short. From shots that I've taken with the 300/4 and a 1.4x T/C it becomes quite clear that some detail is lost...feather detail on birds would be a good example.

If you have to choose one lens then I'd go for the 300/4 (especially if you're in the UK as there are more days with poorer light) but never ever look through a 400/5.6 unless you're prepared to buy one too.

Bob
 
Agree with most of what has been said already, but have to say that the IS is a valuable tool for the 300 irrespective of tripod or monopod use.... Its so light its easily handholdable for a week ;)
 
I was in your exact position and bought the 300 f4 but this was only because I needed it for sports as well as wildlife but it is still great for wildlife (see my threads). It depends on what body you will be using it on.....
 
I have the 300mm f4'L' and use it on both a 1.3 and 1.6 crop body, it's a stunning lens image quality never fails to make me smile, IS is great to have, takes a 1.4x convertor without any problems (imho), and can be used fo a multitude of subjects.

Alan
 
I guess the question really hangs on whether you think the 300mm is long enough?

I've always been told that you need a bit longer than 300mm even on a APS-C sized body for truly successful wildlife pics...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top