400 f/5.6 vs. 300 f/4 IS for bird photography

HarryLally said:

Please excuse my ignorance, but
what does t-stop mean?

Click to expand...

Transmission stop, usually a measurement for filters and old manual lenses from the times when coatings weren't near as effective as they are today. But comparing the 100-400L and 400L the difference is noticable and thus the prime is better to use hand held and for manual focusing...

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808

no text...

I had the 400 5.6L for about a year and I used it mostly for birding. It is amazing. Very fast focus and it produces sharp photos so long as it at least partly sunny. It takes getting used to and with practice, you will probably be able to get sharp bird pics on cloudy days shooting handheld. It helps to take lots and lots of photos of the bird and then pick the best one. I'm sure you know that though!

God Bless

Charlie
http://natureshots.smugmug.com

I have both lenses.... the AF speed on the 400mm is significantly faster resulting in better flight shots. Otherwise, for birding it is a wash. I use a monopod (with legs) with both lenses for non-flight shots, the IS helps a bit, but is not necessary.

Outside of birding the 300mm starts to be more useful. It has a shorter minimum focus distance and is a stop faster. It's a fantastic zoo and animal portrait lens. Does a great job with dragonflies and does well with extension tubes.

I am so glad to have both lenses and use them for different purposes. I find the optical quality of the 300mm to be very slightly better (sharper, smoother background), but that may just be down to inidividual copies.

--
Sayer
Galleries: http://PBase.com/Sayer
Website: http://sayersweb.com/photography/

If I had never owned a 300 f/2.8, I would be drawn to look at which one of the three alternatives (300 f/4, 400 f/5.6 or 100-400) were the sharpest.

But in my opinion, they are all just as sharp, if you get a good copy or have it calibrated.

So if we discard the sharpness debates, and max aperature is "close enough" for practical purposes, you should compare the "look" of the images produced by the three lenses.

I have not tried them all but I've seens a lot of samples and none of them are ever going to have that "pop" which the 300 f/2.8 has.

You could maybe do some PP to make your subject stand out to simulate. But you gotta accept the look of small glass is what it is: not the same as a big prime.

So they all basically have the same look, pretty good bokeh and as sharp as you want, given your patience with Canon Factory Support.

Based on all that I'd choose the zoom, 100-400. Easier to track birds in flight, too!

littleroot said:

Based on all that I'd choose the zoom, 100-400. Easier to track birds
in flight, too!

Click to expand...

Having both (100-400 for 2.5 years, 400 a few days) I can attest that this is untrue. The 100-400 is practically worthless for tracking birds as the autofocus can't keep up, IS is impractical, the 100-400 has to be stopped down to f/7.1 to claw back a bit of the sharpness difference against the 400 f/5.6L which. The 400 f/5.6L delivers faster shutter speeds at the same aperture because of less transmission losses - so in the end it is a whole stop faster in effective useage.
The bokeh of the 100-400 sucks noodles, the 400 is buttery smooth..

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808