Reading mode: Light Dark

Selling Bigma, 400L or 300IS L?

Go to last post
S

Sulac0

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
283
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am selling my Bigma because I have L envy. I had a 70-200 f/4L and never should have sold it. Anyway, now I want a tele prime and I have it narrowed down to either the 400 f/5.6L or the 300 f/4L IS. I really like the idea of having IS with slower glass but is it worth it over the extra 100mm of the 400? Also, when using the Canon 1.4x TC, is the difference that big?

Oh and if anyone is interested or knows anyone who might be, my Bigma is listed at Fred Miranda.
 
of the most asked questions with regards to tele-primes. The basic point is that if you need 300 get the f4 L if you need 400 get the 400 f5.6. If you're going to be using the 300 + 1.4x, get the 400 prime instead. The 300 + TC is good but it isn't AS GOOD as the bare prime.

--
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.” Michael Reichmann
 
That is what I figured the general consensus would be. I would prefer to have more focal length, but if we remove the teleconverter from the equation and just compare the two lenses side by side, is the sacrifice in aperture and IS worth the extra 100mm's? I hope that makes sense and thanks for the reply.
 
I tried both of those lenses at norman camera a week ago on my 350d, I found that I liked the IS and had to go with the 300mm to get that. I can latter add a 1.4 if I find I need reach plus IS will still work. Just my 2 cents. Oh I am realy happy with the 300mm!
--
http://www.pbase.com/kazman/root
 
Thanks for the info kazman, it looks like you got a good copy. I am thinking along the same lines as you too.
 
Sold my Bigma 2 months ago on eBay and had the same question as you. I'd used the 400 and ended up buying the 300 f4IS.

The decision ultimately rests on your needs. Mine were more kids sport based and I felt the 400 was just too long and likely to be less used. The IS also also was a major influence.

The results so far with the 300 are excellent. it's a pleasure to use in the field and the image quality as you'd expect, is stronger than the Bigma.

I'll get the 400 at some point.

Good luck
Rob
Sulac0 said:
I am selling my Bigma because I have L envy. I had a 70-200 f/4L
and never should have sold it. Anyway, now I want a tele prime and
I have it narrowed down to either the 400 f/5.6L or the 300 f/4L
IS. I really like the idea of having IS with slower glass but is it
worth it over the extra 100mm of the 400? Also, when using the
Canon 1.4x TC, is the difference that big?

Oh and if anyone is interested or knows anyone who might be, my
Bigma is listed at Fred Miranda.
Click to expand...
 
I plan to get the 300. I will use a 1.4x TC when I need it, which will not be all the time anyway. If the 400 had IS it would be more of a close contest, but the fact that the 300 does and the 400 doesn't was enough to make up my mind.
 
bigma is a zoo lens!
400mm is a birding type lens!

300mm is sweet and very useful: sporting events - soccer, baseball etc, some closer birding if you dont scare them away, and some candid portraits..

anyway im clueless about lenses so dont trust my words..

troy

If you want to see my gorillas click here - http://windoze.smugmug.com/
Animals Thank You!
 
Hi!

Had exact the same dilemma. Got the 300 2 hours ago - unfortenantly its dark here so no pics. I did a front/back focus test because I have read a about it and it seemed fine. The lense comes with a nice semi hard case. I hope i did the rigth choise. My resoning was that 300 mm is probably enough for what I mainly shoot (sailing) and that it can be used for other things which migth be fun. I migth try a 1,4 TC in the future - all in all I think there is more applications for this lense than the 400 which seems to be mostly prefferd by people shooting birds which I'm not interested in at all. It's also faster than the 400 and that is always a good thing. There is also a switch to shut off IS if it turns out to not work in certain situations. What will You use it for?

/
 
I think the 300 is the way to go. From what everyone is saying, it is better suited to all-around use where the 400 is a little more limited in its usage.

I will use whatever I get for zoo's, sports, nature (birds & animals) kids, auto racing and whatever else I can justify its use for.

Thanks everyone for the input. Even if I already know what you are going to say, it helps to get the latest buzz when spending this kind of money.
 
Sulac0

Hi there again. With this usage the 300 is probably going to be the best prime. Though be aware that 300mm is NOT usually long enough for birds. In fact 500mm + is preferable.

Good luck
Rob
Sulac0 said:
I will use whatever I get for zoo's, sports, nature (birds &
animals) kids, auto racing and whatever else I can justify its use
for.
Click to expand...
 
I struggled with a 300mm lens without IS, so the choice was easy for me - I got the 300mm. I can't imagine what would be like to have a 400mm without IS - unless, if course, you plan to shoot birds in flight on bright sunny days.
 
With the 300/4 + 1.4x you can have IS at 420mm. That's why I have gone with the 300/4 IS. I bought a defective Bigma, and was displeased with what Sigma had to say about it, so I returned it to B&H. I then got a 100-400mm, and was disappointed with the image quality. Now I get very sharp pics with the 300, have IS, and have the versatility of adding the 1.4x without any noticable degradation in image quality.
 
Sulac0 said:
I am selling my Bigma because I have L envy. I had a 70-200 f/4L
and never should have sold it. Anyway, now I want a tele prime and
I have it narrowed down to either the 400 f/5.6L or the 300 f/4L
IS. I really like the idea of having IS with slower glass but is it
worth it over the extra 100mm of the 400? Also, when using the
Canon 1.4x TC, is the difference that big?
Click to expand...
yes the difference is there and depending on your taste, might be big enough.

if you're going to use the lens at 400mm and more most of the time, get the 400mm. the 300mm F4 with a 1.4x tc is not as sharp as the 400mm wide open, not even when you put a 1.4x TC on the prime.

in other words..put a 1.4x on both the 300mm and the 400mm, both wide open and the difference will be critical the 400mm with a 1.4x tc will outresolve your sensor, not the 300mm though, especialy not the IS version of that lens.
Sulac0 said:
Oh and if anyone is interested or knows anyone who might be, my
Bigma is listed at Fred Miranda.
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
Sulac0 said:
That is what I figured the general consensus would be. I would
prefer to have more focal length, but if we remove the
teleconverter from the equation and just compare the two lenses
side by side, is the sacrifice in aperture and IS worth the extra
100mm's? I hope that makes sense and thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...
100mm is quite major..yes and both lenses wide open are not equal. the 300mm wide open is not as sharp as the 400mm wide open. even stopped down to F5.6 my 400mm wide open is sharper than what my 300mm F4 IS was. the non IS version was about the same at F5.6 than my 400mm wide open at F5.6. the IS version is not as sharp as the non IS version usualy.

yes you get the IS but you pay in design as the IS version has more elements.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
windoze said:
bigma is a zoo lens!
Click to expand...
I agree with that..I woudl take my 70-200 F2.8 at the zoo instead of my 400mm..I did it once and got a lot of lion pano and close up! :) for the giraffe? I woudl have needed about 10 frame to make a pano of it! that's assuming it does too move at all.
windoze said:
400mm is a birding type lens!
300mm is sweet and very useful: sporting events - soccer, baseball
etc, some closer birding if you dont scare them away, and some
candid portraits..

anyway im clueless about lenses so dont trust my words..

troy

If you want to see my gorillas click here -
http://windoze.smugmug.com/
Animals Thank You!
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
another inconvenient of the 400mm F5.6 is the 11 feet focusing distance..that will be a bummer for you if you shoot kids and other subjects.

the 400mm is really a wildlife and birding lens. I recommand the 400mm when people will be using a 300mm f4 mainly with a 1.4x tc, then it's best to forget tabout the 300mm and get 400mm.

otherwise, you're much better off with the 300mm.
Sulac0 said:
I think the 300 is the way to go. From what everyone is saying, it
is better suited to all-around use where the 400 is a little more
limited in its usage.

I will use whatever I get for zoo's, sports, nature (birds &
animals) kids, auto racing and whatever else I can justify its use
for.

Thanks everyone for the input. Even if I already know what you are
going to say, it helps to get the latest buzz when spending this
kind of money.
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
Robert Holloway said:
Sulac0

Hi there again. With this usage the 300 is probably going to be the
best prime. Though be aware that 300mm is NOT usually long enough
for birds. In fact 500mm + is preferable.
Click to expand...
right..I am at 560mm with the 400mm and 1.4x and find that to be a minimum.
Robert Holloway said:
Good luck
Rob
Sulac0 said:
I will use whatever I get for zoo's, sports, nature (birds &
animals) kids, auto racing and whatever else I can justify its use
for.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
I went to B&H today and got a 300 IS L. I compared 3 lenses side by side, the 200 2.8 L, 300 4 IS L and 400 5.6 L. I came home with the 300 IS L. The 400 was just a little bigger but the lack of IS really swayed me to the 300. I thought the 200 was a possibilty because of it's smaller size and the inconspicuosness of a black lens but it seems to weigh about the same an didn't feel as well balanced and I thought it would look quite odd with a 1.4 TC.
--
see my profile for more info
http://pbase.com/treacle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top