[Heathy]

I have about £1000.00 saved up and would like to buy one of the above lenses. I have friends who use both and both get excellent results. Is there one i should be leaning towards or personal preference. I know the second option will give me a 420mm lens. Any help appreciated.

Marc

[petermallett]

Hi Mark

If you are going to photograph birds I would say say go for the 400 5.6. I bought a 400 to replace my 300f4 about a year ago and have to say they are both excellent lenses but I feel the 400 on its own is better than the 300 + a 1.4. I often use the 1.4 on my 400 but if you are not on a 1D series camera that combo will not autofocus. If you decide to use an extender only use it in good light and at not too great a distance from your subject and you will get good results but if the light is poor or you are too far away the extender will disapoint.
Hope this helps
Peter

[petermallett]

Oppps sorry for spelling your name wrong Marc

[lmans66]

I vote 300mm....I love it...but on these boards the 400 outnumbers the 300. There are various reasons why and all of them from both sides are good.

The key is, know how you bird, what you would to carry with you, what each camera needs to get good results etc.... And you will be happy.

[postcardcv]

Both are very good lenses - the 300 f4 has the advantage of IS and a significantly better close focus (1.5m). It is very sharp and takes the 1.4x tc well with only a slight drop in IQ. The 400 f5.6 is faster focusing and is sharper than the 300 + 1.4x combo, but lacks IS and has a worse close focus (3.5m). It's definitely a matter of personal preference.

[JohnZ]

Behave yourself Jim !

[AMM]

My vote is for the 300 + 1.4 TC. I have never used the 400 5.6, so a one sided view.

I mostly photograph birds, but the 300 + 1.4 is great for butterflies and larger insects as well because of its relatively close focus. Also from my garden hide, the smaller birds are often only 2-3 metres away so again the close focus is good.

[RyanEustace]

To counter balance i vote for the 400mm f5.6 , its close focus lets it down a little 3.5m , but lets be honest there arent many scenarios when photographing birds where your within 3.5m , i certainly up to yet have not found myself stepping backwards to try and focus. Also lacks is but this is no massive let down , theres not much need for Is for bif as you'll be using high shutter speeds , it would be helpfull for perched birds etc , but i have found anything over 1/400 and you should obtain sharp images (even down to about 1/250) .Advantages are great focusing speed ( really good ) , Sharpest of the pair, and probably cheaper than buying a 300mm f4 and a 1.4 converter.

[dogbreath]

The 300+tc will give you more flexibility and IS. The 400 is likely to give you sharper images than the 300+tc.

If it is accepted that for birding, in most situations, length is all important, you should compare the 400 with the 300+tc. I am of the view that there are pros and cons for either solution and neither is wrong but a different set of compromises snd there will be advocates for both solutions. Your decision will depend to an extent on what you are prepared to compromise. Optical quality vs perceived flexibility? Weight? Cost? Usefulness or otherwise of IS in the field?

By own decision was a 400mm and I have never regretted it.

[jalethbridge]

FWIW I vote for the 400 f5.6. I have experience of both. For many years my bird lense was the older non-IS 300mm. I was very happy with this lense. IS had not been invented, so I didn't miss it. When I saw a 400mm for a good price, I bought it and hardly ever touched the 300mm again, and subsequently sold it.

Shortly after this I came across a 300 2.8 IS in a mega-deal, bought it, and started to use that all the time. A brilliant lense IQ-wise, but, I now realise, basically too heavy. I then sold the 400mm to raise funds, but missed the portability. If out birding, I wanted a camera, but not 4kgs worth. I decided I DID want IS post the 300 2.8, so bought the 300 f4 IS. My pictures were not as good, even WITHOUT the converter, as they had been with the 400mm. I didn't have a duff copy, as sometimes I would get a great image, but the consistency was not there. I sold it again, within about 6 months I think, and bought another 400mm. I use this lense more than I use the 300mm f2.8, which I think is on the limits of portability. A fine lense to be sure, but if I'm birding, it equates to too much kit. I'm a birder first and foremost, it is likely I will sell the 300mm and keep just the 400mm, which as I see it is a perfect birding lense, and no IS is no hindrance.