• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Switching from 400mm f5.6 to 300mm f4? (1 Viewer)

MiguelM

MiguelM

Well-known member
Hello,

I'm considering selling my 400mm f/5.6 and buy a 300mm f/4 + 1.4x (I can't afford f/2.8)

After reviewing my photos I came to the conclusion that most of them are of still, small birds, whether in bushes/trees or on the shoreline/wet lands. Only a few are BIF.

Most of my birding sessions take place when I go out for a hike in the countryside or in forests, sometimes light is not plenty

I often wish I had IS when I find myself trying to focus a bird handheld, and I know many of my "missed photos" are due to the lack of it.

I know 400mm f/5.6 quality is better but I don't think it is overwhelming better than the 300mm f/4 1.4x combo (correct me if I'm wrong).

So am I thinking right? Should I change?

Thanks,
Miguel
 
Hi Miguel and welcome to Birdforum from all the staff.

I have used both the 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4 1.4x combo and there really isn't much in it for image quality. The 400 does focus slightly faster but then the 300 has IS and a much better close focus. If you feel that the IS will help you then it would make sense to make the change. The 100-400 IS is also worth a look as it is also of the same quality.
 
Hello,

Thank you for the welcome :)

About the 100-400mm, it really never caught my attention. I don't like its zoom system and I assume I would use it on 400mm most of the time. Although it's the cheaper option...

Hor Kee,
Thanks for your post, it's very informative. Now I'm almost positive that a change to the 300mm makes sense for my case. I wonder if you had tested with canon converters (mark II or III) your results would have been better. It's something I'm going to investigate

Thank you
 
I moved from 300 to 400 and feel the results are better...I am satisfied..so as each of us has our own needs and feel best with different lens's...here is a great example.

The IS, is not needed.... if you are continually shooting in poor light conditions, your images won't be the best anyhow, (keepers but not 'great').... so I would say keep the 400 and just learn the lens. Also, try a mono-pod. Since using one I have found that it helps out quite abit, low light or light. Much easier to carry around than a tripod and I always have my camera attached to mono-pod and it makes it a lot easier to carry to as I carry over my shoulder, as opposed to hanging from your neck which is terrible for the back. jim
 
Hi Miguel,
i have and use the 300 f/4L IS with 1,4x III Extender. It's a very nice combination of a 420 f5.6L IS lens.
I used both the 400 f/5,6 and the 100-400L. They are both nice lenses, the first one had a great handling, fast focus and was very sharp, but didn't have an IS and also had a close focus of 3,5m. This may not a problem for most although.
The second was also sharp, almost the same level as the 400 f/5,6, had an IS, but i didn't like the push-pull zoom. It was sharper when using a 7,1 aperture but at 5,6 i had many missed shots. And that was not mine fault. It' s also not really fast, and it's not that great when using the camera on AI Servo for moving objects.

So i tried the 300 f/4L IS. That lens is very sharp, has a close focus of just 1,5m which is very nice for photographing butterflies, flowers and other things.
When using it with the 1,4 III Extender, it becomes slower but keeps a sharp image. In good conditions, it will be hard to notice a difference with the Extender or not, and that usually when you crop a lot, or watch your image at a 100% view.
For making it faster, noticeably, use the focus lock from 3m to infinity, instead of 1,5. This makes a lot of difference.
For me it's the best combo when i am hiking on a mountain or forest.
And you still can use it with out the Extender if you need to, the f/4 is very useful many times (in more lowlight situations).
For me it's an excellent lens and combo, i will think of an upgrade only if there is a 400L IS version with closer focus and better optics, or a new 300 f/4L IS with better abilities. Even then, i will consider the price as a main factor, because the present combo it's still very very good.

I have some very nice and sharp images even at 1/125 of speed.
Improving the shooting technique will improve the image quality too (in low speeds).
George
 
The 300 only has advantage when birds are at closer range, less then 3.5 meters and in poor light. There is not a huge difference though. I have both lenses and like them both do if I had to choose one it would definitely be the 400...
 
Peter Ericsson said:
The 300 only has advantage when birds are at closer range, less then 3.5 meters and in poor light. There is not a huge difference though. I have both lenses and like them both do if I had to choose one it would definitely be the 400...
Click to expand...

As i remember, most shots to be very sharp need speeds of 1/1000 and above with the 400 f/5.6. Someone can take sharp photos with 1/500 and even less, but
with the IS of the 300 f/4 (420f/5,6) there is surely an advantage. And with the focus limiter at 3m to infinity the focus speed is almost equal..

For me, and for people who like to take photos in more low light situations (forest, cloudy days, early mornings-late afternoons) IS is a must.
George
 
Sorry, but your memory must seriously fail you. The 400F5.6 is seriously sharp at all speeds ...the only question is: 'what speed can you hold it at?'.......I can hold it at ease at 1/250....sometimes at 1/125 and at the rare occasion 1/60.....
 
I use a mono-pod for the occasions when light is low. If the light is low and you are in the 1/125 are or 1/60...you are not going to be taking stellar shots with any lens so don't worry about it.

I too have had both.... I think they are close but for birds in flight, the 400 has the upper hand and yes, there are times when you need/want to take birds in flight, especially as they take off.

For up closeness...the 300 has the upper hand as I have found a few instances where I was too close for the 400, but you know what...I just take 'step backwards'.... not hard.

So all in all, the 400 is a better lens for birding. If you are interested in taking butterflies upclose etc...than get the 300.
 
I was going to start a thread which is almost identical..300+1.4 or 400 5.6..I require a walk around lense..also might consider 100-400 but out of the three which will be the lightest ?
 
Peter Ericsson said:
Sorry, but your memory must seriously fail you. The 400F5.6 is seriously sharp at all speeds ...the only question is: 'what speed can you hold it at?'.......I can hold it at ease at 1/250....sometimes at 1/125 and at the rare occasion 1/60.....
Click to expand...

You certainly have arms of steel!
 
I have the 400mm 5.6L and I think it is a fabulous lens, very sharp, very quick and easy to handle. From a birding point of view you will hear many say "you can never have enough reach" Many looking at the 100-400 will find themselves using it almost exclusively at the 400 end, but it is not actually 400mm and it is not as fast or as sharp as the 400 prime.
I have since taken the plunge with a 500mm F4 second hand, which means I can add the 1.4 tele convertor and keep autofocus on the 7d. but it is a real lump to carry round, so then I revert to the 400, which is fine unless the light is poor and then it suffers, but thats the compromise before you spend serious cash!!!

Good luck,

Neil
 
Thank you for all your advices. I'm going for the 300mm. It suits my needs better...

I have an offer for one in second hand, but it was manufacured in 2006 (UU0609). Is it too old?
 
Peter Ericsson said:
Sorry, but your memory must seriously fail you. The 400F5.6 is seriously sharp at all speeds ...the only question is: 'what speed can you hold it at?'.......I can hold it at ease at 1/250....sometimes at 1/125 and at the rare occasion 1/60.....
Click to expand...

If you can really do this....................WOW
 
Peter Ericsson said:
Sorry, but your memory must seriously fail you. The 400F5.6 is seriously sharp at all speeds ...the only question is: 'what speed can you hold it at?'.......I can hold it at ease at 1/250....sometimes at 1/125 and at the rare occasion 1/60.....
Click to expand...

Not sure about 1/60, but I've often held my 400 5.6 down to 1/125. I think as we've relied upon the technology of photography such as IS, people have forgotten much of the basic techniques. Most of the photographs I've taken with the 400 5.6 (and my Sigma 500 4.5 for that matter) have been hand held with the remainder using a mono-pod.

With regards to the original query, I brought my 300 f4 after the 400 as it was ideal for photographing deer in woodland. The focal length would be just over your existing 400mm so if you feel this would be enough reach and you need the IS, then that would probably be your best bet, though you might find you miss your 400.
 
MiguelM said:
Thank you for all your advices. I'm going for the 300mm. It suits my needs better...

I have an offer for one in second hand, but it was manufacured in 2006 (UU0609). Is it too old?
Click to expand...

It should be fine. Best to send it to Canon for a check-up (its free of charge except if parts need replacing). You may want Canon to check for lens to body calibration if your body has no micro Af adjust - I think that this is the source of most of the 'soft' copies of this lens.
 
Peter Ericsson said:
Sorry, but your memory must seriously fail you. The 400F5.6 is seriously sharp at all speeds ...the only question is: 'what speed can you hold it at?'.......I can hold it at ease at 1/250....sometimes at 1/125 and at the rare occasion 1/60.....
Click to expand...

I think you are an ecxeption or just simply overeacting.
I believe the second, but it doesn't matter.
If you really can 'handhold' it like that, it doesn't mean that many can do so.
So in this regard the 300 is better.
George
 
After reading this thread I started to wonder if a 300 F4 would be better for me than my 400 5.6. Anyway to much red wine and a ebay account saw me bid and WIN a 300 F4.

Had a couple of quick trips out with it this week with a 1.5 kenko non reporting converter attached giving me a 450mm focal length. I am TOTALLY blown away with sharpness and feather detail I am getting with this lens and the close focus and IS has me wetting my pants :-O

Tons times better all round than my 400 5.6 which I have had for a good 12 months + used on a 40d and 7d. I just could never get real sharp photos and cuz of no IS had to use high shutter speeds that pushed the ISO up to much for both my cameras.

Although reading other peoples comments about how good the 400 5.6 L is, has got me thinking, do I have a dodgy lens :eek!: So I have booked it in with H.Lehmann Ltd for a calibration check £60+ Vat which I could do without, but I have to be sure now.

So for me the 300 f4 is the dogs dangly bits :t::t:B :)
 
punta said:
Tons times better all round than my 400 5.6 which I have had for a good 12 months + used on a 40d and 7d. I just could never get real sharp photos and cuz of no IS had to use high shutter speeds that pushed the ISO up to much for both my cameras.

Although reading other peoples comments about how good the 400 5.6 L is, has got me thinking, do I have a dodgy lens :eek!: So I have booked it in with H.Lehmann Ltd for a calibration check £60+ Vat which I could do without, but I have to be sure now.
Click to expand...
There is no way the 300/4 + 1.5x tc will be sharper/ better IQ than the bare 400/5.6 unless your long lens holding technique was suspect or the AF was way out and you needed to do some MA. To this end did you ever check the sharpness by mounting on a tripod and using a remote release or the built-in timer? Then you would be able to tell if it was user error or something wrong with the AF.
I do not have any birding lenses now but I never found the lack of IS any problem with the 400/5.6 (I have a couple of 4 stop IS lenses so do know what IS is about) it was just a case of working with what you have - with the 7D all you have to do is to stick it in Tv mode and Auto ISO and dialling in the shutter speed you were comfortable with - I am a weakling OAP but could get sharp shots hand held at around 1/800 sec no problem. Coupled with the fact that the 7D is fairly noise free up to ISO 1600 and getting good sharp shots with the combo was a snap.
Of course if you are shooting hand held and the light is too bad to get the shutter speed you want then you will struggle but I find it amazing that you could never really get sharp shots with a lens that is known to be one of Canon's sharpest lenses.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Andy Hall
Sony FE 300mm f2.8 OSS G Master Lens
Replies
10
Views
2K
dakuan
dakuan
O
Canon EOS 80D always slightly "fuzzy"
Replies
14
Views
2K
nikitasius
N
MrYama
Fuji 70-300mm +1.4 TC vs +Cropping (w/ X-T4)
Replies
2
Views
405
Ignatius
Ignatius
Steve Heath
OM-1 with Olympus M.Zuiko 150 x 400mm TC Pro
Replies
12
Views
3K
DCC1976
D
K
R7 ideas for birds in flight and in low light situations
Replies
3
Views
3K
timmyjones
timmyjones

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top