Hi Gerard,Hi, looking for opinions on how these two lenses compare. I have the 300f4 plus 1:4 tc but sometimes I wish I had a zoom lens for certain situations. I'd be interested in th iq out at 400 on the zoom compared to the 300 plus tc.
Regards Gerard.
Hi Gerard,
the 80-400 (new one) is a tad sharper than the 300 with a TC. Also it is sharp enough at f5.6 whereas the 300 and tc needs to be at f7.1 imo. .
I've used both for quite some time. The IQ at 420mm (with the TC 14e ii on the 300mm f4) is much better than the non-AFS 80-400VR at 400mm--at least in my experience. I've read that the new AFS 80-400mm has very good IQ at 400mm, but have no direct experience with this (yet). Zooms generally can't compete with primes for image quality and sharpness. If the new AF-s 80-400mm is as good as the Canon 100-400mm L, then it should be a definite hit for birders, and plenty sharp at 400mm!
The new 80-400 leaves the old one in the dust. No comparison (according to all reports and users of both). The VR is excellent too. It is also far better than Canon's 100-400L.
I have tried using the 80-400VR for birding but found the AF, IQ and f5.6 wide open doesn't compare to my bare 300/2.8VRII, or with the x1.4 TC on or with the 2.0TC either.
It's now consigned to do what it's best suited to IMHO, which is a general use lens (at which it excels) which comes on birding trips as an emergency back-up.
If you are serious about bird photography then, at the current price of the 80-400 VR, I think people should look for other options (e.g. an older 300/2.8), maybe even the new Tamron which won't be as good up to 400 but then it's much cheaper and reaches 600mm
Yes that is the one. Expensive (overpriced perhaps) isn't it.You mean the new AFS 80-400mm VR, at roughly $2500 dollars.
I don't use a tripod, never have. I use a large, but light & very strong CF monopod, the Benro C49T @ 0.72kgs (ca. US$119) and a CF gimbal, Nest NT-530H @ 1.36kgs (ca. US$300). I used cheaper, smaller, gimbals (under US$100) for over a year and didn't have any issues so long as you get one that locks the lens in place. I can easily get very sharp shots, if absolutely necessary, at 1/50 and 600mm on the mono.I agree About going for an older 300mm f2.8 (exactly what I did, for $2800), but then you also need to have a lightweight but sturdy tripod (not cheap), and a quality ball head/Gimbal head (not cheap)
Even so, this adds a lot of weight to carry around, as well as bulk. Birds notice when you're carrying around long tripod legs and lenses. Having a handheld set up can be the difference between being able to get closer to birds without frightening them--or not.
I mean't that the 300 and tc needs to be at 7.1 to equal the new 80-400vr at f5.6. AT f5.6 the 300 and TC is less sharp.Can't confirm. I never felt I need f/7.1 with the TC.
.
I mean't that the 300 and tc needs to be at 7.1 to equal the new 80-400vr at f5.6. AT f5.6 the 300 and TC is less sharp.
Well we would need to define what does it mean less sharp. I certainly don't feel any need to stop down the 300 f/4 with 1.4EII converter. f/5.6 is perfectly fine. In fact I have some good results with 1.7x converter wide open when the light is good. Even when looking 100%.
This is on 12mpx and 24mpx FX bodies. Not sure whether this could be any different on smaller sensors.
My only problem with 300mm f/4 is AF speed.
Check the studio comparison shots - 80-400 4.5-5.6G vs 300f/4 + TC14E (mouseover)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
If you look at these pictures, you can see that the new zoom has slightly better contrast in center compared at 400 vs 420mm, primarily due to chromatic aberration. At the same time the prime with or without converter is much better half frame and in the corners (and the difference is not small)
The best thing about the 300mm is that you can take the converter off and enjoy exceptionally good performance at 300mm @ f/4. At 300mm there is no competition - the prime is much better at every aperture.
I liked the AF speed on the 80-400G and VR. I would still prefer the 300mm prime for IQ and reach for birds (no focus breathing at short distances).
I am attaching 100% crop from 300mm with 1.4x converter wide open (f/5.6) to show that the output is OK.