Which one would you pick

[Chukie]

I am after a prime canon lens but don't know which one to go for I use a 400D at the moment the two lenses I am looking at are the canon 300mm f4 is or the canon 400mm F5.6 there must be pro's and con's with both these lenses but reading the reviews on both they both seem top class I am edgeing towards the 300mm as it has got is plus on a 1.6 crop camara it may be a better alround lens plus with a tc it would only put the lens to either f5.6 or f8 any help would be helpful from anyone
Thx in advance
Trev

[david156]

Hi.

Cant really compare the 300 to the 400. Have tried the 400 F5.6 but ended up with the 100 - 400 zoom which is image stabilized whilst the 400 F5.6 prime isn't.
With the 300 you would have IS and at F4 you could use the 1.4 converter and still have auto focus.

David

[glsammy]

I've had both.
Whilst the image quality of both is exceptionally good, the 400mm wins so far as AF performance goes. I found the AF on the 300mm F4 to be unacceptably slow.
Where the 300m F4 wins is in closer focusing distance, making it an ideal lens to use for subjects such as butterflies, plus it works well with a 1.4XTC, although the sluggish AF becomes even worse. If you were using a 1D camera then perhaps these weaknesses wouldn't show, but with my 40D they certainly did.
I swapped the 300mm for a 400mm and the AF performance was much superior.
You lose the close up capability, but if action shots are important the 400mm F5.6 is a much better option.
I found the IS to be way overrated. It often caused more problems with images when I forgot to switch it off for flight shots, or forgot to change the option. I ended up switching it off permanently.
I don't now own any of them, as I've simplified my kit and decided to stick with my Sigma 50-500mm.

[Foz]

A tricky question......
I find the 300f4LIS to be a great lens, fast AF, good IS, close up focus and fitted with EF2511 extension tube a great macro lens.
The 400f5.6 is a fantastic lens, but no IS. If you use a mono or tripod for most shots and need the extra reach I would choose it.
I do not find the 1.4x very good on the 300, slows the AF down and degrades the image, but still on par with the 100-400 but behind the 400f5.6 on IQ.
Not being nasty, but I dont think you will notice much difference between any of the lenses on a 400D AF wise, it only starts to show on the more recent bodies (50D, 7D and 1 series).
And yes I have used these lens on a 400D, 40D, 50D, 1dMk11N and 1DMk111.
If possible try before you buy, and remember that a good lens will serve you well for most of your life, a body will soon wear out.

[Geoff F]

I had been thinking about the 400 mm recently; 300 mm just wasn't long enough. But what put me off it, besides no IS, was the rather long minimum focusing distance; which I think is around 11 ft, so that could mean frequent lens changes every time a butterfly etc settled closer. Otherwise, it is a popular lens.

At this lens size, particularly if you add a converter, we are bordering on tripod only territority so IS might not be quite so important.

Eventually I went for the Sigma 150-500 as I thought that 400 mm plus converter equals 500 mm anyway. Although if the minimum focusing distance on the 400 had been shorter it would have been a difficult choice.

[Foz]

Put a EF25 11 Extension tube on the 400f5.6 and it brings the min focus down to 7'.

[Hobjob]

What are you going to shoot?

If its birds, then go for reach.

(gi fir the 100-400 - it is so versatile )