Canon 300mmf4 +x1.4 v 400mm f5.6

[Gaza]

Hi guys.
I am hoping that some one, that may have used both these lens, can advise me.
After a previous thread on the forum, and listening to advice on both the Canon 300mm f4 IS and the Canon 400mm f5.6

I rightly or wrongly, purchased the 300mm f4. Which i have to say, is a fabulous lens to use. Fast and sharp, ( compared to what I have been using ) even though i often use a 1.4 teleconverter with it. I am very pleased with it.

Right. My question is.

The 300mm f4 + x 1.4 telecoverter gives me 420mm f5.6

If I compared using this with the 400mm f5.6 Would i notice any difference.

I realise there would be 20 mm difference and that the 400mm does not have IS.

But would the 400mm give me even faster focus and even sharper photo's

Hope this makes sense.

[zan]

I use the 300 + 1.4x converter, and have never used the 400 5.6. However, I have always been a bit hesitant about using the converter because I had read in various places that it caused a bit of degradation in the quality of the image, and having used it myself in the field found I wasn't getting images as sharp as I would have liked with it.

Anyway, I had my camera set up the other day to run through the micro lens adjustments to see if I could improve the 300 at all, and figured I should do the same with the converter on it while I was there. Long story short, I didn't need to make any adjustments to either lens, and I actually couldn't see any difference in the image sharpness at 200%. Turns out the issues were with the way I was using the system rather than anything to do with the lenses (basically expecting too much from shutter speeds that were too slow for the focal length), and since I've adjusted how I shoot I couldn't tell any real difference between the images shot with the 300 with or without the converter (and the 300 is a SHARP lens!).

Like I said, I can't speak for the 400, but the 300+1.4x is a cracking combination and I would be surprised if you could find a noticeable difference between the systems.

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Gaza

Hi guys.

Right. My question is.

But would the 400mm give me even faster focus and even sharper photo's

In a word, yes, there woudn't be a massive drop in IQ but I reckon the difference in the AF speed would be noticable if you have the 1.4x on the 300mm.

I have the 300mm and 1.4x and am only basing my opinion of what I've read on here about the 400mm.

The thing you'll lose if you swap is the close working distance of the 300mm - 1.5m compared with 4.5m(?). Add an extension tube and you can get even closer which gives you a very decent close up/macro(ish) lens. This is the main reason why I hang on to my 300mm.

[glsammy]

I've had both the 300mm F4 with a 1.4X and the 400mm F5.6.
I couldn't fault the quality of the lens both with and without the 1.4. In my tests I couldn't see much if any improvement by going for the 400mm F5.6.
However, that's exactly what I did, and I don't regret it for one minute.
The main advantage I found was a much better AF performance. Now for me, that's important. I also didn't like the IS effect on my 40D camera. I found it slowed the continuous shooting rate, especially when using with the 1.4.
In the end I turned the IS off. Much better without it.
The only thing you lose if you change is the close focusing distance. The 300mm F4 makes a fine small insect lens, even down to damselflies, whilst the 400mm F5.6 struggles with its 3mtr. minimum focusing distance.

[Gaza]

Thanks guys, for your help.

I must admit, that i am pleased as punch with the 300mm f4. It is very sharp.
And I am very pleased with the speed of the AF

But ! I am still interested in the 400mm seeing that the AF is faster still.

To put you in the picture. My main photographic targets, are close range birds in flight. This is where i find the 300mm very handy.
But also i like to photograph birds in flight, at a greater distance. Hence the x 1.4 teleconverter.

Would i be wasting money by having both lens?
I mean. Would it be a silly extravagance? Or a good idea ?

I would love he 500mm. But alas. It is out of my reach

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Gaza

Thanks guys, for your help.

Would i be wasting money by having both lens?
I mean. Would it be a silly extravagance? Or a good idea ?

I would love he 500mm. But alas. It is out of my reach

Good idea - nothing wrong with having both but then you'd ideally need another body so you wouldn't miss any shots

I have the 500mm but I'd prefer the 400mm for birds-in-flight shots if I had the choice.

[Gaza]

Thankyou for that, BillyPilgrim.

Looks like another lens, that I am going to have to get.
Fortunately I do have a second body. But I usually keep my macro lens on that.

Third body ? Just joking.

Hmmm......Thats really going to please my wife !

[Gaza]

These two shots were taken after having had the 300mm f4 for a day.
Just wanted to play with the lens and see what difference the teleconverter made, to it's use.

This is just the lens, wide open. 50% crop




This one using x 1.4 teleconverter, also 50% crop





I am happy with the image quality, and have to say that I have taken lots of photos like this before, using another make of lens.
But these are far better image quality than my previous lens

[LoveT]

Very nice images Gaza - I like those very much .

From the 'other side of the fence' as it were, I have the Canon 400mm f5.6 and love it to bits - it's light and portable, fast focusing and is a cracking bit of glass, producing sharp images even wide open at 5.6 - and I use it with a Canon 7D. This is my first venture into Canon land, having owned Olympus gear for a number of years.

Quality-wise for birds in flight, I thought you'd like to see these:

Peregrine falcon in flight (they don't come much faster):


Peregrine again, but against a different background:


Lanner Falcon head-on (again, another fast bird):


And the lens is pretty darned good with larger, slower birds too:


I hope that gives you a flavour of what the 400mm can do. I am also hoping to get the 300mm f4 as well - I've seen some cracking butterfly photos taken with it. Unfortunately, I've also had a play with the 500mm f4 and the 300mm f2.8 a couple of times, and if money were no object I'd get one, but as I still haven't won the lottery yet, I'll have to get what I can afford

Thea

[Gaza]

Absolutely stunning images Thea
Very pleased that you have shown me these.
Have i seen the first shot of the Falcon in a previous thread ? Comparing it with the 500mm ?
You have helped convince me, of my next purchase.
The 7D is also on my will have list. But I think being that my 50D is only a year old. My money would be better spent on some decent glass.
I have the 300mm. It will not be long till I purchase the 400mm


Thanks all for your help.

Regards. Garry