Hi guys!
I'm new to photography, and have just upgraded to a Canon 20D from a Panasonic FZ30 Point'n'shoot. Now I need a bird lens that won't break the bank.
I was debating between these two combinations, based on the fact that I will be shooting mostly handheld on hikes or in a canoe.
Canon EF 400 f/5.6L or the EF 300 f/4L IS+1.4TC
The 300+1.4 costs about 500 more, has IS, weighs marginally more, and has 20mm more reach. Would it be as sharp as the 400? would it focus as fast? would having the IS on the 300 outweigh the lower cost of the 400 or any sharpness advantages it may have? so many questions!
I believe I would choose the 300+1.4 for several reasons. First it is a more versatile lens. The IS makes it hand-holdable even at 420 ( 672 effective) millimeters. You may not always need the 1.4 and the extra light can come in handy if you're a morning or evening birder. You really need a lot of light to operate the 400, especially without IS. The thing the 400 has going for it is the focus limiter. I would imagine that it would focus faster than the 300 under similar conditions. You will often find me at woods edge with a 300 f/2.8 L IS + 1.4 slung over my shoulder, and I survive, so the f/4 will be even more managable.
Go with the 400 if you're focusing on bird photography. Rule number one in bird photography (think I'm quoting Arthur Morris or somebody here)...go for the longest focal length you can get, regardless of lack of IS or other considerations.
First of all...the 20D and the 400 5.6 is what I use pretty much exclusively for my photography. I'm at a stage now where I could afford the 500mm...but...why? My favorite method of birding/photography is just taking a walk through the forest or prairie. The 400 gives you quite a bit of reach, but isn't so heavy that your arms fall off. And yes, you can hand-hold with excellent results.
Yes, I wish it had IS. Yes, I wish it were faster than 5.6. However, at least 80% of the shots on my website were taken hand-held. I've got over 2000 shots on the website of well over 200 species, so I'm doing pretty darn well with the 20D, 400 5.6, and usually hand-holding the combo. The shot on my front page of my website right now, an Eastern Towhee, was taken hand-held, in cloudy conditions. Hey, you're shooting digital!! With a supposedly "slow" lens like the 400 5.6, or when it's cloudy, just dial up the ISO and you're generally good to go.
The other reason to go with the 400 5.6...focusing speed. Granted, I haven't tried the 300 plus 1.4 combo, but I'd imagine with that 1.4 attached, you're compromising focusing speed/accuracy a bit. I'd think the 400 5.6 would be faster.
I'd even go ahead and get the 1.4x with the 400 5.6. Yes, with the 20D, you lose autofocus. No, I don't use the 1.4x a huge amount of the time. But most of the time when I'm all set up with a tripod, I'm shooting relatively stationary birds, or I'm in a blind situation (often from my car) waiting for birds to show up at a specific location. In those situations, having to manually focus isn't that big of a deal.
Hey guys, thanks for both perspectives. To Terry Sohl: If the rule of thumb is to go with the longest focal length, the 300mm+1.4 is 420mm 5.6 IS vs the EF400 f/5.6. I imagine the slower autofocus would be because the 300 combo wouldn't have the 400's focuslock, but it WOULD have 20mm more reach and IS... still can't decide.
With the teleconverter, yes, of course it's more reach. However, 20mm is negligible, and certainly not worth compromising focusing characteristics.
Keep in mind sharpness as well. Any time you add a teleconverter, you'll lose some sharpness. That's an awfully big sacrifice to make for 20mm. The 400 5.6 is one sharp lens, and will give you sharper shots than the 300 with the 1.4 attached.
Terry: Thanks for the input... and one last thing to consider: Does the Sharpness of the 400 outweigh the IS of the 300+1.4? considering I have PSE4.0 and noise ninja should I just use ISO as my IS and go with the sharper, lighter, and cheaper lens?
P.S. I love your work! some very nice shots on your site.
Dustin.
Thanks for the post. Your picture is wonderfully sharp, and I suspect that the 300 2.8 is optically worlds apart from the 300 f/4 I'm considering. Maybe the heavens will open up and a new magic 800 f/1.4L DO IS will plunk onto my front lawn! (with a warranty card of course)
Is a 500mm out of the question for you? I know that they are expensive, but not too bad on the used market. Then you will still want a 1.4X TC! (I do keep handy a 300mm on a second body for those grab shots.)
Theres an article on luminous landscape which explains how the 400 5.6 L is sharper than the 100-400 IS zoom. It is proven by a ton of people that 100-400 IS is sharper than 300 IS + TC wide open at 5.6 which is the aperture you would mostly use the lens at. So in the order of sharpness : 400 f/5.6 , 100-400 IS, 300 IS + 1.4 TC
Bottomline if your concern is absolute sharpness and the focus is only on birds get the 400 f/5.6. Its a tailor made lens for flight shots, but then Art Morris has posted some great flight shots with the 100-400 IS.
If you have situations where you cant afford to have a tripod, shoot in extreme low light, shoot from a boat or canoe, then get the 300 IS + 1.4 TC.
Both these are great lenses in their own perspectives but the 400 mm lens is a lot lighter, and easily hand holdable. However the 300 IS focuses closer, and has IS which is a boon for many photographers.
Discussion
10 repliesI'm new to photography, and have just upgraded to a Canon 20D from a Panasonic FZ30 Point'n'shoot. Now I need a bird lens that won't break the bank.
I was debating between these two combinations, based on the fact that I will be shooting mostly handheld on hikes or in a canoe.
Canon EF 400 f/5.6L or the EF 300 f/4L IS+1.4TC
The 300+1.4 costs about 500 more, has IS, weighs marginally more, and has 20mm more reach. Would it be as sharp as the 400? would it focus as fast? would having the IS on the 300 outweigh the lower cost of the 400 or any sharpness advantages it may have? so many questions!
Thank you in advance,
Dustin.
First of all...the 20D and the 400 5.6 is what I use pretty much exclusively for my photography. I'm at a stage now where I could afford the 500mm...but...why? My favorite method of birding/photography is just taking a walk through the forest or prairie. The 400 gives you quite a bit of reach, but isn't so heavy that your arms fall off. And yes, you can hand-hold with excellent results.
Yes, I wish it had IS. Yes, I wish it were faster than 5.6. However, at least 80% of the shots on my website were taken hand-held. I've got over 2000 shots on the website of well over 200 species, so I'm doing pretty darn well with the 20D, 400 5.6, and usually hand-holding the combo. The shot on my front page of my website right now, an Eastern Towhee, was taken hand-held, in cloudy conditions. Hey, you're shooting digital!! With a supposedly "slow" lens like the 400 5.6, or when it's cloudy, just dial up the ISO and you're generally good to go.
The other reason to go with the 400 5.6...focusing speed. Granted, I haven't tried the 300 plus 1.4 combo, but I'd imagine with that 1.4 attached, you're compromising focusing speed/accuracy a bit. I'd think the 400 5.6 would be faster.
I'd even go ahead and get the 1.4x with the 400 5.6. Yes, with the 20D, you lose autofocus. No, I don't use the 1.4x a huge amount of the time. But most of the time when I'm all set up with a tripod, I'm shooting relatively stationary birds, or I'm in a blind situation (often from my car) waiting for birds to show up at a specific location. In those situations, having to manually focus isn't that big of a deal.
Keep in mind sharpness as well. Any time you add a teleconverter, you'll lose some sharpness. That's an awfully big sacrifice to make for 20mm. The 400 5.6 is one sharp lens, and will give you sharper shots than the 300 with the 1.4 attached.
P.S. I love your work! some very nice shots on your site.
Dustin.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=44724&b=mp&st=0&la=5&ph=5&sid=5020&u=5020
Be yor own judge!
Kelly
Dustin.
Nathan
Bottomline if your concern is absolute sharpness and the focus is only on birds get the 400 f/5.6. Its a tailor made lens for flight shots, but then Art Morris has posted some great flight shots with the 100-400 IS.
If you have situations where you cant afford to have a tripod, shoot in extreme low light, shoot from a boat or canoe, then get the 300 IS + 1.4 TC.
Both these are great lenses in their own perspectives but the 400 mm lens is a lot lighter, and easily hand holdable. However the 300 IS focuses closer, and has IS which is a boon for many photographers.