More lens advice please. (1 Viewer)

My demise;

Canon 400 f5.6 L
or
Canon 300 F4 L IS

Both would be used with 1.4x.

IS is very tempting as I wonder and stalk my subjects. My other lens is 70-200 L non IS. Light is one thing to consider also. Distance to subjects could be very close to 70 yrds away.

Body is 7d.

Regards
Colin

Only the 300 will allow AF when used with a 1.4x on a 7D. Both are superb lenses it just a matter of deciding if you want the IS, excellent close focus and faster aperture of the 300 mm or the faster AF of the 400mm.

It depends if you intend to use the 300 bare (good for dragonflies/butterflies...) or always with a 1.4x tc attached. If you are intending on using the 300 with a 1.4x converter most of the time then in the right hands the bare 400/5.6 will not only be faster focussing but will also give better IQ - see HERE for a comparison. In the wrong hands then it does not matter a jot which one you use - 'garbage in = garbage out' so to speak.
BTW the 7D will only AF up to f5.6 so if you intended to use a 1.4x with the 400/5.6 then you will need to trick the camera into thinking the tc is not there (Taping the pins,using a non reporting tc or a Kenko DGX either way it very hit and miss especially on the centre AF point) or use manual focus - When I had a 400/5.6 I found it to take a 1.4x tc very well IQ wise but you did need fair light.

While I lread tests undertaken in controlled conditions, I make my own assumptions based on real life shooting. Having used both 400/5.6L and 300/4L IS + 1.4x for around five and a half years I find it hard to tell the IQ between the two. Both do an excellent job. AF is a bit faster with the bare 400, but it really does not make that huge a difference for me and I do photograph birds all the time, not just once a month or so. Although both lenses sit in a draw now that I have the 500/4L IS.

A lot of results come down to the photographers' level of experience and skill and light at the time. I have personally found the IQ of the 400/1.4x combo not so good in all honesty. On the other hand, I love the 300/1.4x and even 300/2x combo. Stacking the converters will still make good images with a slight degradation in IQ on my 300/4L IS.

The IS is a God-send as I was usually hand holding with both lenses. I would only use the 400/5.6 for birds in flight in good light (mostly), but as long as the light was good and shutter speeds were faster than 1/1000th.

Don't expect much IQ if you shoot subjects 70 yards away, especially smaller birds and hugely cropped images. It's always best to get as close as possible.

mr_birdman said:

While I lread tests undertaken in controlled conditions, I make my own assumptions based on real life shooting. Having used both 400/5.6L and 300/4L IS + 1.4x for around five and a half years I find it hard to tell the IQ between the two. Both do an excellent job. AF is a bit faster with the bare 400, but it really does not make that huge a difference for me and I do photograph birds all the time, not just once a month or so. Although both lenses sit in a draw now that I have the 500/4L IS.

A lot of results come down to the photographers' level of experience and skill and light at the time. I have personally found the IQ of the 400/1.4x combo not so good in all honesty. On the other hand, I love the 300/1.4x and even 300/2x combo. Stacking the converters will still make good images with a slight degradation in IQ on my 300/4L IS.

The IS is a God-send as I was usually hand holding with both lenses. I would only use the 400/5.6 for birds in flight in good light (mostly), but as long as the light was good and shutter speeds were faster than 1/1000th.

Click to expand...

I have used the 400/5.6 hand held in the past with good results - its just a matter of getting the right technique and shutter speed. I still have a few 4 stop IS lenses (unlike the old first generation IS system on the 300/4) but shooting with the 400/5.6 I did not miss the IS at all, its just a case of working with the tools you have.
For a couple of years I had the 300/2.8 IS and in my honest opinion the 400/5.6 is right up there in term of IQ albeit it is obviously slow at f5.6.
As for the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc I have got great results from the combo BUT I do like the use a tripod and also I like to stop down one.

Of course I agree that it comes down to the "photographers' level of experience and skill and light" which is why I said that in the wrong hands it does not matter a jot which of the two lenses you have.

Roy C said:

in the wrong hands it does not matter a jot which of the two lenses you have.

Click to expand...

AMEN to that! |;|

The eternal question of chicken or egg for Canon's budget telephotos (or paper, rock and scissors if one includes the 100-400). One thing to take note for TC use is the loss of IQ may force one to stop down 1 stop or so. You'll be able to shoot on a bare 400mm 5.6 at f/5.6 while the 300mm + 1.4x TC may require you to stop the aperture down to f/8, thereby reducing the light reaching your camera's sensor by half. The 20mm penalty can be overcome by taking a step forward.

Hor Kee said:

The eternal question of chicken or egg for Canon's budget telephotos (or paper, rock and scissors if one includes the 100-400).

Click to expand...

Yep, Rock, Paper, Scissors.

400 f5.6, 100-400 zoom, 300 f4 +1.4x

Pick one. They all have pluses and minuses. They all can give great pictures

I have a 400 f5.6 but now I only use it on a tripod with a 2x (manual focus but great for stationary birds).
I have "upgraded" to a 70-300mm. It's small, light, focuses to 1.2m, has IS, lets me frame environment shots and 300mm is plenty really for my blog photos, especially with the 7D's croppability.

Basically, the choice depends on your shooting habits.