Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2012, 07:05

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print

Topic: 300mm f/4 IS vs 400mm f/5.6  

(Read 6956 times)
Xalanx


« on: August 31, 2009, 07:07 »

So I will purchase one of these lenses in about 2 months. What I will do with them is:

- wildlife
- outdoor portraits
- sport, action

I read a lot of topics on other forums, regarding exactly this versus and I have the tech background necessary to know every aspect of what I'll buy.
However, some more opinions won't hurt and I'm always open to suggestion.

Advantages for 300mm:
- has IS
- a bit faster (f/4)
- does macro quite well (MFD 1.5 meters)

Disadvantages:
- not quite enough reach for bird shots
- slower focusing than the 400mm
- 1.4x TC takes away a bit of the IQ and focusing becomes worse


Advantages for 400mm:
- faster focusing
- more reach
- said to be sharper

Disadvantages:
- no IS
- maybe a bit too long sometimes...!?
- MFD is 3.5 meters, can't do macro


Ok, now:
- the macro feature of 300mm is not so exciting, since I got the 100mm f/2.8 macro and is superb.
- I don't know how outdoor portraits look like with either lens, there aren't many of these on the web.

Reason for getting a tele long like this is that I want smoother bokeh in outdoor portraits and I also want to do some wildlife.

I would really like to see good samples of people shots outdoor with these lenses, if anyone has some. I'm still undecided about which one to get. Price tag is similar.

Any takers?


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
Talanis


iStock Gauge
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2009, 08:03 »

The part about smoother bokeh in outdoor portraits: why not go with a 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or the beautiful 135mm f/2? Can't get any smoother than with those lens


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2009, 08:06 »

The part about smoother bokeh in outdoor portraits: why not go with a 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or the beautiful 135mm f/2? Can't get any smoother than with those lens

Because there's also the part with the wildlife Cheesy, otherwise I would've taken the 135 f/2. There's no 85 f/1.4, but there's the f/1.2 one, a glass monster with brilliant IQ. The 85mm f/1.8 has great bokeh but also chromatic aberrations.


Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2009, 11:55 »

So I will purchase one of these lenses in about 2 months. What I will do with them is:

- wildlife
- outdoor portraits
- sport, action

I read a lot of topics on other forums, regarding exactly this versus and I have the tech background necessary to know every aspect of what I'll buy.
However, some more opinions won't hurt and I'm always open to suggestion.

Advantages for 300mm:
- has IS
- a bit faster (f/4)
- does macro quite well (MFD 1.5 meters)

Disadvantages:
- not quite enough reach for bird shots
- slower focusing than the 400mm
- 1.4x TC takes away a bit of the IQ and focusing becomes worse


Advantages for 400mm:
- faster focusing
- more reach
- said to be sharper

Disadvantages:
- no IS
- maybe a bit too long sometimes...!?
- MFD is 3.5 meters, can't do macro


Ok, now:
- the macro feature of 300mm is not so exciting, since I got the 100mm f/2.8 macro and is superb.
- I don't know how outdoor portraits look like with either lens, there aren't many of these on the web.

Reason for getting a tele long like this is that I want smoother bokeh in outdoor portraits and I also want to do some wildlife.

I would really like to see good samples of people shots outdoor with these lenses, if anyone has some. I'm still undecided about which one to get. Price tag is similar.

Any takers?

You know the pros and cons of both lenses... choice is yours. I have the and I love its sharpnes and lightweight


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2009, 12:00 »


You know the pros and cons of both lenses... choice is yours. I have the and I love its sharpnes and lightweight

What lens do you have? Have some samples that can be seen?


Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2009, 14:09 »

Sorry, I miss the lens  Roll Eyes
400mm f5.6


100% crop

iso 320, AF, 1/600, f5.6


« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 14:24 by Trebuchet »

Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2009, 14:25 »

That's not bad at all. Well, the focus is not exactly on the eye, is at the base of the beak. Sharpness seems good.

How handholdable it is? Do you generally shoot at high iso?


Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2009, 14:25 »


+x2 canon tc manual focus via liveview, f11, 1/400, iso 1600



Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2009, 14:28 »

That's not bad at all. Well, the focus is not exactly on the eye, is at the base of the beak. Sharpness seems good.

How handholdable it is? Do you generally shoot at high iso?

I know, I dont have any other photo ready to show.
Lighter and more confortable than a 70-200 2.8 is


Ignore | Logged


icefront


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2009, 18:55 »

I just decided to buy the 300mm f/4 L IS USM lens. A friend of mine has and last week I had the chance to try this wonderful piece. I have 5dmkII.
Here is the pro list:
- IS. This counts really much. At the test I took pictures at 1/200 and a few at 1/320. 75% of the images perfectly sharp, 20% slightly blurry (means very little motion) and 5% moved.
- f/4. I shoot several images at 8 and 5.6 but mostly at 4. If a lens is 4 then it's interesting at 4. Stopped down everything is better but it really counts from where we start. The f2.8 version of the 300mm is simply too expensive. The results at 4 are amazing. Especially when the light has contrast the DOF and the sharpness is amazing.
- The 1.4x extender is a must. With 1.4 this lens becomes a 420mm f5.6 lens, virtually the other lens you want to buy, BUT the IS remains in the game.
- 1.5m closest focusing distance and the magnification ratio makes possible the macro photography but expect huge crops when shooting small objects (butterflies, frogs). At least at FF is significant but even on APS-C, a cropping is needed to make the photo well composed. Simply because you can't go closer. Manual focusing is flawless.
- 77mm filter size
- weight makes possible holding the camera without holding the lens also
- CA visible only in strong front light but perfectly removable in ACR.
Con list
- slow focusing. Almost impossible to focus on moving subjects, only fast prefocus and manual correction helps. Also focusing from 1.5m to infinity its faster to turn manually the focus ring than wait for the USM. Backward the same. When the extender is used the situation is worse, focusing is deadly slow.
- cyan/green fringe around dark objects in front light. I saw this kind of fringe with sigma lenses only but it's level is much lower here.
- (for me is) too long for walkaround nature photography but too short for real wildlife photography. Even with the 1.4x extender I expect small crops from the center. Going closer is not always an option. Basically carried on a second, aps-c body it's perfect while the second body carries a wider tele (70-200) or a real mid-tele zoom like 24-105 or 28-135.

At home, the raw files convinced me. This lens is really sharp at 4 (stopped down of course is better), it has very good color reproduction and contrast.
I can send you some test pictures at full size, give me an e-mail.


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2009, 23:33 »

Great insight, compadre! Thanks, I PM-ed you my email address.


Ignore | Logged


MatHayward



« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2009, 23:46 »

For standard shooting like the Zoo or maybe a whale watching trip I use my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and if it isn't long enough I use the 2X II converter and shoot at 400mm f/5.6 with IS which works pretty good.

For NFL Games, I rent the 400 f/2.8L IS.  It would be very tricky to catch good action shots without the speed of the lens and the sharpness added by IS. 

For MLB games, the 400 is too long, the 70-200 isn't long enough and I don't like to lose the stops of light with the converter so I rent the 300 f/2.8L IS.

For my trip to Africa, I also rented the 400 f/2.8.

Those events are special enough that I didn't mind putting the money into the rental fees but they are infrequent enough that I can't justify the expense of the lenses.

If you have something special in mind you may want to consider that and purchase a more practical lens for everyday use with the the converter.  Some scoff at the 2X converter but from what I understand the problems were with the first version as I've been very happy with mine.

Whatever you decide, I hope you love it!

Good luck,

Mat


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2009, 23:53 »

Thanks Mat. These f/2.8s are out of reach for me, the budget is around $1500 so the only choices I think are the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6.

I would really like to see how these lenses perform when shooting outdoor portraits, but it seems that it's kinda difficult to find some samples...  Huh


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2009, 05:39 »

Xalanx,

I forgot the name of the site, but there is one that indexes Flickr images according to the Exif data, so you can search for a specific lens, and can even refine your search by image size, so you can narrow your search to high res images that will give you the "real" result.


Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2009, 05:46 »

Very useful web

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=1


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2009, 06:10 »



Thanx, I saw that already. It's clear that I'd rather get the 400mm instead of 300mm + TC.


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2009, 08:14 »

How about... EF 200mm f/2.8 L? With a 1.4x or 2x TC? Anyone got any shots with this?


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2009, 09:54 »

Deleted.  My mistake (saw the arrow now...)
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 10:04 by madelaide »

Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2009, 14:48 »

or the 100-400 is?  Grin


200 + x2 vs 400 5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=245&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=278
« Last Edit: September 01, 2009, 14:50 by Trebuchet »

Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2009, 15:48 »



True!

Can you take some portraits with your 400mm, please? It's so darn hard to find them on the internet. I just want to see if it's any good for outdoor portraits.


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2009, 16:31 »

Found the site:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=31

There are a few portraits taken at 400mm.  This one is really nice:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/redirect/?phid=3715082630&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphoto_zoom.gne%3Fid%3D3715082630%26size%3Do





Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2009, 16:39 »

Great job Adelaide, thanx! Wink


Ignore | Logged


Xalanx


« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2009, 23:56 »

Alright, I couldn't find a single good photo in all that. They're either OOF, or noisy like hell or shaken. The lenses just CAN'T be that bad. I gotta find some other source for photo samples.


Ignore | Logged


Alatriste


« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2009, 04:41 »



True!

Can you take some portraits with your 400mm, please? It's so darn hard to find them on the internet. I just want to see if it's any good for outdoor portraits.


I dont see it for portraits...


Ignore | Logged


teekaygee


New Member

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2009, 19:06 »

How about... EF 200mm f/2.8 L? With a 1.4x or 2x TC? Anyone got any shots with this?
I have this lens and it is a real treat. I bought it to photograph a water-skiing event that was being held nearby. Fast focus, super sharp, with great colour and contrast. Haven't tried it with a TC but heard it takes to the 1.4x very well.


Ignore | Logged


Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG MACRO?
Cameras / Lenses
Peter 12 2182 Last post October 19, 2007, 07:52
by Peter
70-300mm VR lens for Nikon
General Photography Discussion
Allen 10 1500 Last post February 26, 2009, 12:50
by Fred
Nature Photography - Canon 100-400mm vs 400mm vs 300mm
Cameras / Lenses
leaf 19 5925 Last post March 26, 2009, 16:04
by MatHayward
Canon 100-400mm « 1 2 »
Canon
madelaide 25 2288 Last post March 05, 2012, 23:57
by RacePhoto
NIKKOR 300mm f2.8 G AFS ED VR II Lens
Nikon
Elenathewise 6 1939 Last post September 04, 2011, 21:37
by Elenathewise

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc