DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 300mm 4.0 IS L vs. 400mm 5.6 L
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/15/2005 08:56:34 AM · #1
(welcome to my months of back and forth mental games before buying a new lens)

These 2 lenses are only separated by $50.00 (new). I'm in the process of e-baying my 70-200mm f4 for a few reasons, one of them being I want more reach (there are other reasons that I won't get into, just wasn't 100% happy ... I know it's a great lens)

My original intent was to buy the 200mm 2.8L (see pitsaman's gallery) and then either the 1.4x or 2x extender (which I still may do), but for the same price, I get also get one of these 2 lenses.

My question I guess is why wouldn't you buy the 400mm over the 300mm? Is the 400mm dificult to hand hold? Does the IS really help that much in real life situations? Is 300mm on a 1.6x crop factor long enough for midsize to smaller birds in the woods?

I know Beagleboy has the 300, does anyone here have the 400? Denis, do you ever wish you had more reach?

is this enough questions? :)
 02/15/2005 08:59:01 AM · #2
Originally posted by hopper:

is this enough questions? :)


No. We need three more to get a full assesment.
 02/15/2005 09:01:56 AM · #3
Originally posted by hopper:
(welcome to my months of back and forth mental games before buying a new lens)

These 2 lenses are only separated by $50.00 (new). I'm in the process of e-baying my 70-200mm f4 for a few reasons, one of them being I want more reach (there are other reasons that I won't get into, just wasn't 100% happy ... I know it's a great lens)

My original intent was to buy the 200mm 2.8L (see pitsaman's gallery) and then either the 1.4x or 2x extender (which I still may do), but for the same price, I get also get one of these 2 lenses.

My question I guess is why wouldn't you buy the 400mm over the 300mm? Is the 400mm dificult to hand hold? Does the IS really help that much in real life situations? Is 300mm on a 1.6x crop factor long enough for midsize to smaller birds in the woods?

I know Beagleboy has the 300, does anyone here have the 400? Denis, do you ever wish you had more reach?

is this enough questions? :)


Sometimes 400mm is too much reach. It very much depends what you want to shoot. In a similar way, why would you buy a 12mm prime instead of a 300mm prime ? Because you want to shoot things that that focal length is appropriate for.

If you want to shoot people at a baseball game, 400 might be too much but 300 might be just right, for example. (with maybe a 70-200 on another body)
 02/15/2005 09:10:00 AM · #4
The main reason I went for the 300mm f4 IS is that I wanted a bigger lens with more reach than my 70-200 f4 but I didn't want to be tethered to a monopod or tripod. The IS is pretty amazing. I have taken very sharp images with shutter speeds as slow as 1/80th, maybe even 1/60th.

I decided to sacrifice the extra reach for the IS. It's that simple and I don't regret my decision.
 02/15/2005 09:15:57 AM · #5
Beagleboy, your photos is a good enough sales pitch for anyone.

02/15/2005 09:18:26 AM · #6
yup

Originally posted by terje:
Beagleboy, your photos is a good enough sales pitch for anyone.
02/15/2005 10:11:18 AM · #7
Originally posted by hopper:
(welcome to my months of back and forth mental games before buying a new lens)

These 2 lenses are only separated by $50.00 (new). I'm in the process of e-baying my 70-200mm f4 for a few reasons, one of them being I want more reach (there are other reasons that I won't get into, just wasn't 100% happy ... I know it's a great lens)

My original intent was to buy the 200mm 2.8L (see pitsaman's gallery) and then either the 1.4x or 2x extender (which I still may do), but for the same price, I get also get one of these 2 lenses.

My question I guess is why wouldn't you buy the 400mm over the 300mm? Is the 400mm dificult to hand hold? Does the IS really help that much in real life situations? Is 300mm on a 1.6x crop factor long enough for midsize to smaller birds in the woods?

I know Beagleboy has the 300, does anyone here have the 400? Denis, do you ever wish you had more reach?

is this enough questions? :)


I haven't used either one of those you are looking at but have experience with Tamron's 200-500. It's about the same size and weight. The 300 IS would be best for hand holding but won't do as well for the small-bird-in-the-woods shot. I usually crank my Tamron all the way out to 500 for these. With lenses of this size the use of a monopod/tripod is for support and balance as much as for stability. The 300 IS with a teleconverter might be your best bet if you really want to be untethered.
02/15/2005 10:16:33 AM · #8
Originally posted by coolhar:
The 300 IS with a teleconverter might be your best bet if you really want to be untethered.


very true ... unfortunately, now we're up to $1500.00

:(
 02/15/2005 10:35:04 AM · #9
Looking at Coolhar's photos, that Tamron 200-500 looks pretty sweet! Price seems to be in the $800s. Size of the lens looks small compared to some of the Sigmas.

I agree that the 70-200 isn't enough reach for telephoto. I have often wondered myself if it's really worth keeping mine, or if I'd be better off selling it and carrying around a second body--a panasonic Z20 which has an image stabilized 420mm F2.8 lens (and cost less than my 70-200). Not only is it smaller than my 70-200 to carry, it would also save me from changing lenses. (Though I would have to deal with additional batteries, memory cards, etc.)

The Tamron is even tempting me.
 02/15/2005 10:45:52 AM · #10
Why not just get the 70-200 2.8 is and get a couple of the teleconverters...
 02/15/2005 10:52:18 AM · #11
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Why not just get the 70-200 2.8 is and get a couple of the teleconverters...


cuz that puts me back to $1500.00 ish ... plus if I'm just gonna permanantly attach a teleconverter to it ... I'd like to just get the longer lens.

(side note, am i the only one who has a constant internal struggle with where i want to go with my photography? a big part of me just says scrap the long lens and make better what you do best/most ... which for me is portraits .... still, i can't NOT have a long lens :)
 02/15/2005 10:53:11 AM · #12
Why don't your look at the Canon 100-400 IS L lens.I had it for a while and you can hand hold at 100 iso at 400mm. Of course a good solid tripod is the best wat to go even with the IS lens. The big question is will you get enough use out of it. The question I ask myself first is will the lens pay for it self in sales of photos. If the answer is yes I get it. If not then I have to decide if I just want it no matter what. Needless to say I sold my 100-400 IS L lens. It was a fun lens, but I didn't do much work that required it. I hardly even use my 70-200 f4.
 02/15/2005 10:55:43 AM · #13
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It was a fun lens, but I didn't do much work that required it. I hardly even use my 70-200 f4.


exactly ... wise words yoda

ps ... i don't think i'd like the push-pull design
 02/15/2005 11:31:44 AM · #14
Originally posted by hopper:
(side note, am i the only one who has a constant internal struggle with where i want to go with my photography? a big part of me just says scrap the long lens and make better what you do best/most ... which for me is portraits .... still, i can't NOT have a long lens :)


You are not alone, I struggle with those demons all the time. Doesn't everyone?
02/15/2005 11:45:28 AM · #15
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Why don't your look at the Canon 100-400 IS L lens.I had it for a while and you can hand hold at 100 iso at 400mm.


This is my primary walk around lens, I shoot everything with it. It is awesome, definately get the IS and break free from carryingaround the tripod!! It covers a huge range, and yet is light enough to carry around.
 02/15/2005 11:51:35 AM · #16
for those who're maybe watching this thread, according to photozone - the 300mm f4 IS is sharper than the 400mm 5.6

i did not know that ... i thought they were about the same
 02/15/2005 11:58:14 AM · #17
It is nice to have long lens with f2.8 or wider for indoor,1/80 of a second will make or break the photo .


F3.5,ISO 800 1/80 sec at 200 mm.
 02/16/2005 06:30:49 PM · #18
While I don't own the Canon 400mm f/5.6L, I did have the opportunity to briefly try one out last weekend. It is incredibly hard to handhold. Remember that as a rule of thumb, without IS you want 1/focal length or faster as a shutter speed to avoid visible camera shake in your photos. That means you want at least a 1/400 shutter speed on this lens, and at f/5.6 that is a very tall order in anything less than daylight.

You might also consider the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM for $749.95. The reviews I've heard on this lens are excellent (the main complaint I have heard is that the autofocus is a hair slower than on the Canon version). You could then add a 1.4x teleconverter ($109.88), making this lens effectively a 98-280mm f/4 lens when the converter is attached. You could also consider a 2x teleconverter ($179.99), which when your attached makes this lens an effective 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. Even if you bought the lens and both teleconverters, you would spend a total of about $1,040 -- comparable to the lenses you are considering, but with a for a faster lens and additional flexibility.

-Terry
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 02:23:48 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 02:23:48 PM EDT.