EF 300 f/4 L IS opinions

while canon 300 is a fine lens but i would not recommend it for wild life and birding because it doesn't meet the minimum length for that sort of photog.

again, while your canon 70-200 f4.0 non IS is a superb lens and produces some awesome files, it is not even qualifies for wild life lens. keep it for everyday shooting!

if budget is tight, you could find a nice canon 400 f5.6 prime at a very reasonable price online! i have this prime and have taken some of my most beautiful bird shots with it. although you need good afternoon sunlight to make this lens shine!since now i have the big canon primes, i haven't used my 400 f5.6 in long while but won't hesitate to reach for it at any moment if it is near me! when the light condition is favorite, the photos taken with 400 f5.6 can rival any canon white prime, IMO. here is an example:

good luck finding your lens

mkphoto79 wrote:

So for birds and small wildlife a 400mm is the shortest lens I should be looking at? Used those aren't too much more than the 300 lens so its a possibility. Even with the 1.4 extender the 300 wouldn't be recommended even if bird in flight aren't the primary target? I thought the IS, even though old, may be a benefit.

true, a 400mm lens is a bare minimum for wild life. a 300mm will leave you high and dry, craving for more reach! the canon 400mm f5.6 takes a 1.4x TC very well. here is a shot with 400 f5.6 and a 1.4x II:

i didn't say anything negative about the IQ of 300 f4.0 in my post but its reach is not enough, as your 2nd shot attests to that!

mkphoto79 wrote:

RockingJ wrote:

No doubt more reach could be used in many situation.

I guess the same argument could be made for the EF 400 f/5.6 vs getting a 500mm lens as well

of course, if you can get a 500mm, it'll be better than 400mm--but this argument is about the usefulness of 400mm compared to 300mm for wild life! sometimes i use a 1.4x III TC on my canon 600 f4.0 II, which makes it about 840mm and believe me, it is not near long enough as it sounds but hey, if you have the budget, sky is the limit.

I have the 300 f4L and the 400 f5.6L. As others have said, the 300 is way too short for wildlife, especially birding. It's a superb lens whose particular strength is its very short MFD. The 400, I also find too short for wildlife, even on a crop camera. It needs very good light so it depends where you live . I've seen some superb shots taken with it but they all seem to have been taken in Florida or California where the light is superb. Here in comparatively grey London UK, it's not the solution I sought. I joined the RSPB to go along to their wetlands and shoot from their hides, but the birds were so far away, they were just a small dot in the centre of a large frame. So I gave up and haven't used it for a long while. To be sold soon, even though it's an excellent lens.

mkphoto79 wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

mkphoto79 wrote:

RockingJ wrote:

No doubt more reach could be used in many situation.

I guess the same argument could be made for the EF 400 f/5.6 vs getting a 500mm lens as well

of course, if you can get a 500mm, it'll be better than 400mm--but this argument is about the usefulness of 400mm compared to 300mm for wild life! sometimes i use a 1.4x III TC on my canon 600 f4.0 II, which makes it about 840mm and believe me, it is not near long enough as it sounds but hey, if you have the budget, sky is the limit.

Thats the problem, dont have the budget for the big whites

It sounds like even with a 1.4x TC the 300mm would still be considered short for most wildlife even on a crop camera. Maybe the 400 is worth another look.

Many great options presented here,

how many days on average , per year will you use the 400? Maybe staying with the 200 and renting the 400 IS II on weekend deals for now is workable? Lets you kick the IS II tires w/o huge cost. Last summer they had deals here for $ 40 or 50 for 4 day long weekends, Fr, Sat, Sun, Mon.

FY resolution & other comps,

Here is the Optical Limits Canon FF page and DP .coms graph page

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/overview#canon_ff

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=674&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG

I'm with you on that one

ditto 70 - 200 F4 @ 200 mm hand held no IS

Microprism wrote:

Taken with a 70--200mm f/4 L. In some situations it is enough. My serious birding friends were surprised by this photo. They all recommend a 600mm, but this Red-Tailed Hawk "knows" me and I can approach well within 10m of it.

that is a nice bird shot! unfortunately, not too many of use has bird friends to let us that close to take its photo you try that lens taking pictures of a small bird see how successful it will be!

mkphoto79 wrote:

Rodger in Edmonton wrote:

how many days on average , per year will you use the 400? Maybe staying with the 200 and renting the 400 IS II on weekend deals for now is workable? Lets you kick the IS II tires w/o huge cost. Last summer they had deals here for $ 40 or 50 for 4 day long weekends, Fr, Sat, Sun, Mon.

Thats a good idea. I checked at a local camera shop and they have both the EF 300 f/4 L IS and the EF 400 f/5.6 L available for rent, right around $50 per lens for a 4 day long weekend. I think I'll rent each one and see how useful each ends up being for how I shoot first.

I am at the same crossroad - 6D + 70 - 200 F4 IS, rented the 100 - 400 IS II and loved it , used a small astro sweeping tripod but my reality is ...more architecture & landscape than BIFs, the % of my shooting time dedicated to wildlife beyond 200 mm is very low.

My fear was it would sit idle 99 % of the time.Its a wicked lens, wicked sharpness , wicked AF , easy to use no beefs on QC.

Maybe if you have a shooting bud, you could half that again and bag your targets

Rodger in Edmonton wrote:

mkphoto79 wrote:

Rodger in Edmonton wrote:

how many days on average , per year will you use the 400? Maybe staying with the 200 and renting the 400 IS II on weekend deals for now is workable? Lets you kick the IS II tires w/o huge cost. Last summer they had deals here for $ 40 or 50 for 4 day long weekends, Fr, Sat, Sun, Mon.

Thats a good idea. I checked at a local camera shop and they have both the EF 300 f/4 L IS and the EF 400 f/5.6 L available for rent, right around $50 per lens for a 4 day long weekend. I think I'll rent each one and see how useful each ends up being for how I shoot first.

I am at the same crossroad - 6D + 70 - 200 F4 IS, rented the 100 - 400 IS II and loved it , used a small astro sweeping tripod but my reality is ...more architecture & landscape than BIFs, the % of my shooting time dedicated to wildlife beyond 200 mm is very low.

My fear was it would sit idle 99 % of the time.Its a wicked lens, wicked sharpness , wicked AF , easy to use no beefs on QC.

Maybe if you have a shooting bud, you could half that again and bag your targets

if you are referring to 100-400mm, it is a very versatile lens and it is not for wildlife or birding alone! i use my 100400mm II mostly for landscape than wildlife. however, if any lens that will sit on the shelf for 99% of the time, then obviously it is not for you if i was to start collecting lenses today all over again, i'd get the canon 24-70 f2.8 II and 100-400 II, that would be it, no more lenses. those 2 lenses cover just about everything i want to shoot, and in high quality!