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

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

Sorry, I miss the lens  
400mm f5.6


100% crop

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Deleted.  My mistake (saw the arrow now...)

or the 100-400 is?  


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

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.

Great job Adelaide, thanx!

Quote from: Trebuchet on September 01, 2009, 14:48

or the 100-400 is?  


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

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...