300 f4 or 400. 5.6

[rock662]

which lens would you get considering they are pretty much the same price (give or take 100 bucks or so). How do they compare optically? I would primally be using it for zoo shots. Is it better to have the shorter range but f4/IS?

-thanks

 

[rock662]

anyone with an opinion?

 

[the_scientist]

This is a decision that so many of us go through when choosing lenses of this reach. I recently went through it myself. If your objective is primarily zoo-ing, I'd go with the 300/4 IS. The IS will come in very handy for hand-holding so you don't have to tote a monopod or tripod, and the shorter focal length is better for zoos - you might miss some shots with the 400. Throw on a 1.4x TC for added reach (e.g. birding), and you'll have a nice image stabilized 420/5.6. The 300/4 IS is a great all-around lens, whereas the 400/5.6 is very very good for birding and wildlife in the field.

If your primary objective was birding or wildlife in the wild, I'd suggest the 400/5.6 - at least that is what I ended up choosing. It sounds like you want to go with a prime, but you might also consider the 100-400 IS.

I think Art Morris compares the two lenses (400/5.6 and 300/4 IS) very well and succinctly here:

http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html

Hope this helps...

 

[rock662]

yes..thank you very much...and thanks for the link. I will check it out.

 

[jvince96]

Reach with quality always becomes the issue. I've gone from the Bigma, the 100-400L, and now I'm pretty much settled on the Sigma 100-300f4 along with the 400 5.6L. I guess you really have to decide what you like to shoot. For me, I like the 100-300 f4 for my kids sports and I really like the 400 5.6 for birding/wildlife. I'll never be able to afford the 500 f4. :-(

If you plan on getting the 300 f4 and a teleconverter, consider a few things:

From what I have seen and read, you will lose a little image quality versus the 400 4.6.

For still objects, you will have a 420mm 5.6 with image stablization.

If you plan on using the 300 f4 with the teleconverter on all the time - just buy the 400 5.6.

Here's a recent Ruby Throated Hummingbird pic with the 400 5.6L. I've only had it for about a week, but so far, I am very happy with this lens. I really cannot wiat to hit the trails with it.
1/640s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso100 with Flash

 

[Lee Jay]

which lens would you get considering they are pretty much the same
price (give or take 100 bucks or so).

I'd get the 300/4 for sure for me. I think the IS and slight extra extra range would help me more than the slight sharpness advantage of the 400/5.6L.

Lee Jay

 

[RCDinsmore]

I'm going through much the same decision process. I also considered the Sigma 80-400 f 4-5.6 EX OS. You can read the thread hear

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13493728

Still not sure what to do.

-Bob

 

[dimitrir]

I just went through the same decision process - you may want to try a search - there were lots of threads on this very subject. Basically, it boils down to - 300/4 IS is more flexible, has IS, at 300mm it is a full stop brighter than 400/5.6, with 1.4 TC image quality is only slightly worse than 400/5.6 and better than 100-400 at 400. 400/5.6 has the benefit of a very, very fast AF.

So, if you want flexibility - 300/4. If you are a dedicated birder and super-fast AF is important - 400/5.6.

I choose 300/4 and very happy with it:



Short focusing distance of 300/4 is also very cool:

 

[cary1952]

I dont think it is a matter of which is better, but which you would use more initially. I bought both over a 3 month period. I started with the 400mm for birds because of the sharpness and reach. And I added the 300mm IS for low light and other uses including birding on cloudy days and zoos and mountain landscapes which i hope to do next month.. Get either one first, and if money permits get another one later. You will have the best of both worlds, like a few of us here on the forum!
Cary

--
http://www.pbase.com/cary1952

There are 2 ways to get to the top of an oak tree...... Climb it, or sit on an acorn and wait for it to grow.

 

[Zenon Char]

I had the 70-300 D0 and I traded it in for the 300 F4. The DO just wasn't sharp enough at 300. I'm pretty sure I made the right choice with the 300 F4. I probably will get the 1.4 extender as well.

 

[thx1138]

The 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC is plenty sharp and is maybe a tad behind the 400 f/5.6L, but the IS will ensure more keepers IMO and more than makes up for this.

Handheld f/6.3 @ 1/500 420mm

 

[Zenon Char]

Your shot looks pretty good to me. I can hardly wait.

 

[M J Valentine]

Hi Zenon,

I have a 70-300 and would like to get the 300mm f/4L IS. Don't you miss the 70-200 range of the DO? I also have a 70-200 f/4L and would need to sell one to get the 300mm f/4L IS.

I would appreciate your views.

Martyn

 

[Zenon Char]

Sorry for getting back so late. I have been testing the 300 L. I'm not sure about missing the range with the 70-300. I shot at 300 90% of the time. I may one day. I'm not sure about my 300. Does not seem that sharp to me. I have seen sharper pics on this site and the links. Can't tell if it's me or the lens.

 

[AJMonty]

400 5.6 as I intended to shoot birds in daylight and wildlife in daylight. I considered the 300 and the 1.4 as well as the Sigma 80-400 and 50-500. For me, the 400 5.6 was the best of the bunch for my use.

I am traveling to Alaska and feel the 400 will dome better for wildlife there as well.

Considering your use (zoo), the 300 may be the best. When you need more reach, slap on the 1.4x.
--
Andrew J. (A.J.) Montgomery
Gig Harbor, WA U.S.A.
My gallery: http://www.ajmontgomery.com
From the PacNW? Check out http://www.nwphotographers.net



'Grab a hat and let's go shootin'
Canon 20D, 17-40 F/4L, 70-200 F/4L, EF 1.4x II, 580EX and tid bits