Opinions on the EF 300mm or 400mm f/2.8L

[Terence]

Looking to co-own a prime lens in either of these focal lengths. Seems to be many options out there as we are considering both the newer and older models. Here's the list of what we're looking at, would appreciate your thoughts and comments. If you have any idea of used prices, please share.

1. EF 300mm f/2.8L USM
2. EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
3. EF 400mm f/2.8L II USM (Mark I version too)
4. EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

Would be using the lens with EF extenders and mainly for aviation photography, maybe some wildlife. Seems like the price for the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM may be lower than a new 400mm, wounder if this is something to consider.

Thanks!

[ST1100]

i'm not an avian shutterbug, but i'm told that generally the sports folks like the 300s and 400s while the bird and wildlife folks prefer the 500 and 600.

The 400/2.8 costing more that the 500/4 is expected. It has significantly more glass.

The 300/2.8L non-IS has appeared once or twice in the local shops, going rate is 3 to 5 k, dep on condition. i've never seen the IS versions appearing second hand locally. Try Ebay?

There's a Tokina 300/2.8 in TCW, i think it's Canon mount, though i'm not sure EF or FD. Consider also the Sigma 120-300/2.8... quite a good buy.

[clive]

szekiat has a 400/2.8. he can shed soem light on ur queries

the only 400 i tried was the DO lens on 10d body at marina south. for a speeding bike at 100~200 meter away, 400x1.6=640mm is just nice for framing. the other aspects of the lens i assume all v gd one. and one mroe thign it is surprisingly very very very light. can walkabout n handhold it all day

[clive]

Originally Posted by ST1100 There's a Tokina 300/2.8 in TCW, i think it's Canon mount, though i'm not sure EF or FD. Consider also the Sigma 120-300/2.8... quite a good buy.

that one is EF mount. good build, the AF is smooth but slow even on eos3. its been there for almost 2 years already

[Terence]

I am checking out Szekiat's 400mm this afternoon, hope the weather holds out. It looks like I might be checking out its water resistant capabilities if the heavens open up.

I need something even wider than a f/4 because I need the AF with the TC mounted, might even be stacking 2 of them on some occasions. And there have been many opinions about the 400mm f/4 DO being not as sharp as the 300mm. I've seen some test images which seem to substantiate that claim.

Am not considering other makes other than the Canon Ls. Call me biased for that's what I am.

The large primes are not easy to come by, especially on the used market. I have been checking on ebay every day and looking around at some other sites. There are some which occasionally come up but the demand can be quite great at times.

Please keep the opinions rollings in, the more I know the more informed my decision will be when I finally pick one out.

[nickmak]

Originally Posted by Terence I am checking out Szekiat's 400mm this afternoon, hope the weather holds out. It looks like I might be checking out its water resistant capabilities if the heavens open up. I need something even wider than a f/4 because I need the AF with the TC mounted, might even be stacking 2 of them on some occasions. And there have been many opinions about the 400mm f/4 DO being not as sharp as the 300mm. I've seen some test images which seem to substantiate that claim. Am not considering other makes other than the Canon Ls. Call me biased for that's what I am. The large primes are not easy to come by, especially on the used market. I have been checking on ebay every day and looking around at some other sites. There are some which occasionally come up but the demand can be quite great at times. Please keep the opinions rollings in, the more I know the more informed my decision will be when I finally pick one out.

Hi, i guess the 300mm f4L IS would not be on your list right? So far using it there's one thing i can say: damn sharp!!!!

[erwinx]

A consumer DSLR like D60/10D may not have enough resolution to show visible differences between 400 f/4 DO and the 300 f/2.8L. I tried both at the Canon Clubsnap zoo outing (as did many other clubsnappers). My D60 couldn't resolve any differences between the 300 and 400 DO.

[Terence]

Originally Posted by erwinx A consumer DSLR like D60/10D may not have enough resolution to show visible differences between 400 f/4 DO and the 300 f/2.8L. I tried both at the Canon Clubsnap zoo outing (as did many other clubsnappers). My D60 couldn't resolve any differences between the 300 and 400 DO.

Forgot to add that my 1D2 is on its way.

Just back from checking out Szekiat's 400mm, good thing too since it has started POURING. Poor guy is still at the rugby game, hope he doesn't get too wet.

The test shots turned out rather well, even when used with his 1.4x TC (cant remember which brand) and my EF 2x II. AF can be a tad slow, with both my 10D and his 1D. But my main complain is the weight of the lens itself. To say it's heavy is an understatement. At 6.1kg, this monster is the second heaviest EF lens, only beat by the EF 1200mm f/5.6L!!!! I kid you not, I just looked it up.

Anyways, I hope he finds a buyer before he leaves for his studies, the price is not too bad but I suggested he throw in a free gym membership with the lens to help its new owner out.

Going to look around again. I think if weight is an issue, I might have to go down to the 300mm. Any more thoughts?

[nickmak]

Originally Posted by Terence Forgot to add that my 1D2 is on its way. Just back from checking out Szekiat's 400mm, good thing too since it has started POURING. Poor guy is still at the rugby game, hope he doesn't get too wet. The test shots turned out rather well, even when used with his 1.4x TC (cant remember which brand) and my EF 2x II. AF can be a tad slow, with both my 10D and his 1D. But my main complain is the weight of the lens itself. To say it's heavy is an understatement. At 6.1kg, this monster is the second heaviest EF lens, only beat by the EF 1200mm f/5.6L!!!! I kid you not, I just looked it up. Anyways, I hope he finds a buyer before he leaves for his studies, the price is not too bad but I suggested he throw in a free gym membership with the lens to help its new owner out. Going to look around again. I think if weight is an issue, I might have to go down to the 300mm. Any more thoughts?

I think your selection of lenses can give a lot of us this look: , or because they are like the holy grail to some of us... Hope you go well with your searching and hope to see many photos from your 1DMKII!!!

Cheers!

[Terence]

The key word here is "co-own". It's great to be able to split the cost of ownership, just make sure it's a good buddy and you work out the rules of use.

Just checked with Canon on the AF availibility with the use of a 2x TC. Apparently it is available when used with the 300mm f/4 and even the 500/600mm f/4, but not with the 400mm f/4 DO. Strange. I thought AF was not available over f/5.6.

[nickmak]

Originally Posted by Terence The key word here is "co-own". It's great to be able to split the cost of ownership, just make sure it's a good buddy and you work out the rules of use. Just checked with Canon on the AF availibility with the use of a 2x TC. Apparently it is available when used with the 300mm f/4 and even the 500/600mm f/4, but not with the 400mm f/4 DO. Strange. I thought AF was not available over f/5.6.

Is that true? If it is then this is really good news! Can anybody else verify this?

[ST1100]

Originally Posted by Terence Forgot to add that my 1D2 is on its way.

If the D60/10D cannot tell the 300 and 400DO apart, the 1D2 certain cannot. It has a LOWER resolution on the sensor that the 10D/D60. The 1D2 has 33% more pixels but 50% more area than the 10D, so it's linear pixel density is actually lower.

If there differences, it will only be in the extra image area not covered by the 10D's sensor.

[erwinx]

Originally Posted by Terence The key word here is "co-own". It's great to be able to split the cost of ownership, just make sure it's a good buddy and you work out the rules of use. Just checked with Canon on the AF availibility with the use of a 2x TC. Apparently it is available when used with the 300mm f/4 and even the 500/600mm f/4, but not with the 400mm f/4 DO. Strange. I thought AF was not available over f/5.6.

You may want to download the mk II manual which specifically states that 400 DO + 2x AF is possible. I wonder where Canon gets their information from.

[Jed]

You seem to have reached most most of the conclusions I was going to suggest by this point, but I'll re-iterate anyway.

For aviation photography, you're generally looking at the 500/4 because of its weight. The 300 doesn't have the reach, the 400 is great but very heavy and hard to manoeuvre pointed skywards, ditto the 600. Actually if you want your lenses to go on a diet, you really should be shooting Nikon, but let's not go there. Once you're familiar with the long teles you'll realise they all have their distinct uses, which is why many photographers in the industry own more than one.

With regards to the lenses you're asking about, I cannot speak about the 300s, but I do know that among the 400s, the mk I is avoided like the plague, the mk II is considered the most desirable, the IS is what you buy if you cannot find a mk II. *Assuming IS is not a major need for you*. In which case the choice is obvious.

If you are serious about buying long glass, consider taking a trip to the States at some point. Prices 2nd hand of long glass is definitely cheaper in the US, and you have far more choice.

If you are worried about the lack of sharpness of the 400/4 DO compared to the 300/2.8, you might be right, but you are also considering attaching one and possibly even stacking converters, which would kill your image quality far more than the difference between the 400/4 and the 300/2.8. Among my peers, generally we never shoot with anything more than a 1.4x if we can possibly help it. I have both but haven't taken the 2x with me in ages.

[sequitur]

1D2 can auto-focus at F8, i believe. (i think the general consensous is that all canon 1-series bodies can auto-focus up till f8)

so all lenses that are f4+2xTC can AF on a 1D2.


if you're gonna use a lens to shoot aviation.. seriously i don't know why you need a 2.8 lens if you're gonna point it skywards most of the time. okay i'm pretty ignorant about aviation photography, but my idea of pointing a lens at the sky has always been "high shutter speed and/or small aperture". i'm not exactly very sure.

[Terence]

Jed, my thoughts exactly on the 500/4 and about the image quality with TCs. In fact, my mind is more or less made up on the 500/4 and I have been sourcing around here for a new one. The quotes I have been getting seem to range from incredibly high to unbelievably high. That's Singapore for you.

I do travel to the US at least once a month so I will be checking out the stores there like you suggested. BH Photo sells them for under 10k with shipping so I assume a used one will be about 70-80% of the new price, depending on age and condition of course. Nothing on ebay at the moment. Any other websites I can take a look at for used gear?

Sequitur, aviation photography isn't all about pointing a lens into the sky, that would be so very boring. We aviation photogs engage in all aspects of photography like any other self respecting photog would. Night time shots, closeups, landscape shots are some of the styles I shoot in. Click my gallery link below and you can see examples of my work. The wide f stop is great for low light shooting as I found out today when I tried out Szekiat's lens. Put on a TC and you will lose a stop or 2, so it's great when you have a fast lens to begin with.

[Jed]

Go do the rounds at all the major US online retailers and see what they have 2nd hand. Ironically another good place might be Fixation in the UK. If you're not fussy, then the older 500/4.5 would be easier to get hold of.

Also, on the 1DII, I assume you've ordered yours already, but if it can wait, I'd hang on for a while, because there are plenty of snappers here with plenty of problems with them (like any other camera new to the market). If you have already got it en route, then I'd check fine focus when you get it, plenty of people are having problems with it, just like the 1st batch of 1Ds (plural) had a problem.

[LiOnElLiN]

Originally Posted by Terence The test shots turned out rather well, even when used with his 1.4x TC (cant remember which brand)

its a sigma...
...if he tries to sell it, kill him.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Jed With regards to the lenses you're asking about, I cannot speak about the 300s, but I do know that among the 400s, the mk I is avoided like the plague, the mk II is considered the most desirable, the IS is what you buy if you cannot find a mk II.

Pardon me for asking, Jed, but I would like to know why the mk I is avoided? Is it due to AF issues, weight or others? Just curious to find out. Thanks.

Quote: If you are worried about the lack of sharpness of the 400/4 DO compared to the 300/2.8, you might be right, but you are also considering attaching one and possibly even stacking converters, which would kill your image quality far more than the difference between the 400/4 and the 300/2.8. Among my peers, generally we never shoot with anything more than a 1.4x if we can possibly help it. I have both but haven't taken the 2x with me in ages.

Thanks for that enlightening bit of info. Agree with you that stacking TCs will degrade image quality considerably even for these prime superteles. However if the original Canon EF 2x Mk II TC is used with either the 300 or 400/2.8, image quality is still quite acceptable, especially when stopped down a stop or two. Although there will be some loss of contrast and sharpness, even more so than the 1.4x. Still good for prints around 4R size.

p.s Apart from image quality, I understand that for sports you need the largest aperture you can have to have sufficient shutter speed to capture the action, hence thats why the 1.4x is favoured over 2x. Am I right on this?

(sorry Terence for the OT)

[sequitur]

Originally Posted by Terence Sequitur, aviation photography isn't all about pointing a lens into the sky, that would be so very boring. We aviation photogs engage in all aspects of photography like any other self respecting photog would. Night time shots, closeups, landscape shots are some of the styles I shoot in. Click my gallery link below and you can see examples of my work. The wide f stop is great for low light shooting as I found out today when I tried out Szekiat's lens. Put on a TC and you will lose a stop or 2, so it's great when you have a fast lens to begin with.

apologies, i totally have no idea what is aviation photography. apologies.