lens suggestions

I'm thinking of buying a lighter 300/400mm lens for flight and flower photography (been using the 300/2.8 for a few years now and the wrists are starting to feel it), was wondering if any of you would be able to point me in the right direction.

My choices are

Canon EF 300mm f4L IS
pros : 1.5m min focussing, IS, small and light
cons : not sure if that sharp with 1.4x

Canon EF 400mm f4 DO
pros : 400mm, f4, light
cons : not that sharp, expensive


Canon EF 400mm f5.6L
pros : 400mm
cons : f5.6, 3.5m min focussing, older lens technology

Sigma 100-300 f4 EX IF HSM DG
pros : 100-300 zoom, very sharp i hear
cons : will it mate with canon convertors, 82mm filter, already have a 70-200f2.8 which with 1.4x = 100-300

Not keen on the Canon 100-400 IS, been there done that and wasn't impressed.

which one should I go for

Thanks

My 2p worth.....

I have the 400mm DO and there is nothing wrong with sharpness. However, it is still a heavy lens and has a 3.5m min focusing distance.

The 300mm f4L IS has IS and is good and light. The min focusing distance is good too.

The 400mm f5.6L doesn't have IS but is definately the sharpest of this group. It is small and light for handholding and takes the 1.4x if you use the 1 series canons.

Rob

Ok this is how i found it when i shot canon.

The sharpest tool in the shed is the 400mm f5.6 L, it has lightening fast AF, is light and easy to hand hold.

300mm F4 IS, is ok but not as sharp as the 400mm, and is even worse with the TC.

Sigma 100-300mm f4. Very sharp very well built but (and its a huge fat but) unless you have a Canon 1 series forget it as you cannot depend on the focus being bang on. I tried three and none nailed focus consistently.

There are a few other lenes to think about.

Canon 300mm f4 non is, and sigma 300mm f4 HSM. Both are a close match, and are very good, and better than the IS version. Also see if you can find the rare Sigma 400mm f5.6 HSM which is also very good but fetches almost canon prices.

I used to have the Sigma on my D100 & briefly my D200. I wasn't blown away with it to be honest. It was ok for the money but found it to be a little soft and focus could be a bit hit and miss, I had some real trouble doing BIF shots with it sometimes if the birds were small or I was trying to track them in the distance as they came closer. The 70-200 + 1.4x TC were much sharper, and quicker and more accurate with focusing.

Maybe think about the 70-200 & convertor? Failing that I'd suggest one of your other options but then I dont know which as I dont know anythng about Canon lenses

I know this wasn't on your list but it might be worth considering the Sigma 500 F4.5 EX, it is relatively small and light and I have been very impressed with the sharpness etc. Price-wise it seems pretty competitive, but maybe the min focusing dist of 4M is not good for flowers. My experience with the 400 DO and the 300 F4 run counter to some of those views expressed earlier, so I guess its down to the particular example you get to use. I found the 300 F4 to be excellent, even when combined with a 1.4 t/c, so to my way of thinking it would be a good option for you. Anyway good luck with your choice.

Paul

Hi Larry,

Iv'e got a 400mm 5.6L , that i would be willing to let go for around £550, if you are interested drop me an email, im near the belfry if you fancy a go with it or to try even if you dont want to buy, your more than welcome to meet somewhere local and see how you find it.

Regards
Brian McGeough

Larry,
Good review site with fair and unbiased comment on lens ability and suited use.
Canon Lens Reviews

Good luck

The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is reasonably sharp, but not as sharp as the 500mm f/4.5. Autofocus is very poor (with a Canon 20D) if you plan any bird-in-flight photography. It seems well-built, but mine is currently away being repaired (some elements have come loose inside, through no fault of my own), so it`s not that well-built!

Having previously owned both the Canon 300 f/4L IS & the 400 f/5.6L I can safely say that for 'flight' photography go for the 400 and for 'flower' photography you can't imo go far wrong with the 300 I personally found the 300 a tad slow in the AF dept for in flight shots. I think you'd have to weigh up which type of shots you're going to be doing more than the other. Or just get both

Hi Larry I find the 100-300 sigma extremely sharp well at least my copy is, I use it a great deal in summer for butterflies dragonflies flowers but I don't think it's worth you buying as you already have the means to get their with your 70-200 and 1.4 tc, I think the 400f5.6 is probably the most suitable, I also have the 500f4.5hsm even though it focuses down to 4 m I still use it occasionally for flower images extension tubes are extremely useful with this lens.

Phillip.

Ps of course mine are all nikon fit, I have had no trouble at all with focus speed and accuracy.

I think the suggestions of the 500mm 4.5EX are strange, Larry is looking for a lightweight lens to use over the 300mm 2.8L, the 500mm weighs around the same i think you will find!!! so i think that defeats the object of the question.

Regards
Brian

Hi Larry

I would go for the 400mm f5.6 L. An excellent flight lens, IS is not generally needed for flight shots and the 400mm f5.6 has a reputation for being sharp and with fast focus.

If you need a more versatile lens then the 300 F4 IS L, combined with a 1.4x TC, gives you a good combination. The short focus distance is excellent for bigger insects and flowers, and the IS helps too for these more static subjects.

cheers

Sean

What`s old technology in the 400/5.6L besides the lack of IS? It`s very sharp and focuses blazing fast (definitely faster than 300/4 plus 1.4x - because of the focus range and the fact that Canon extenders force the camera to slow down AF to increase accuracy).
I chose the 400 over the 300/4 IS after careful consideration and have not regretted it. For me, the extra reach was well worth it. I`m about to add the 1.4x extender and I`m quite confident that the resulting 560/8 will be much sharper than a 300/4 + 2x combo.

Since you already own a fast 300mm and a 70-200/2.8 that can take a 1.4x, the 400/5.6L route sounds the most sensible to me. The 70-200 with 1.4x and/or close-up lens/extension tubes should cover flowers and small critters rather nicely, no?

A friend of mine used to use the Sigma 100-300/4, often with a Sigma 2x and seemed happy with it. But it`s fatter and heavier and IMHO the Canon primes are better balanced for handholding (note focus ring placement). The sliding built-in hoods are a nice touch on the 300/4 and 400/5.6.

I must admit i was tempted to mention the 500mm f4.5 too, though i kept my reply to lighter lenses.

Though i only had mine for a while (until it comes back from repair that it) i found it a little heavier but i also mainly used it on a gimbal on my tripod. How about using a monopod/walking stick with it? The 4.5 is a very good lens IMO.

I like the thought of the 300/4 for flowers (I must admit to REALLY REALLY missing the 300/4 IS that I sold to Neil Higginson (what EVER happened to him????)) and 400/5.6 for birds in flight, I guess the 400/5.6 would also be great for small garden/woodland birds from the hide?...can't afford both...maybe I shall sell the 300/2.8 IS which I use mainly with 2x extender giving 780/5.6 on my 1d2 for flight and mainly with a 1.4x giving 546/4 at 2.5m for small birds and without = 390/2.8 in low light, not sure if I really want to loose that versitility.also it would be like losing another old trusted friend ( I currently lie awake at night pining for my 500/4 IS lens (that I also sold to Neil Higginson (what EVER happened to him????...where are you Neil?)especially after a day at Slimbridge where EVERYBODY seems to be carrying a Canon 500mm these days..(the place is becoming too busy at weekends!!) .but definately wouldn't miss the weight on the 2.8 in my camera bag,
mmmm descisions to make oh to be rich again

Q. would the 400/5.6 be as sharp as the 300/2.8 IS + 1.4x/2x extenders?

If you miss the 500 F4 why not take a look at the Sig 500m f4.5? Its lighter than the canon and though no IS it is pretty hand holdable (talk to phillip T).

I doubt that CPS membership would cover Sigma lenses?, besides I would only ever consider a Canon 500/4 IS call be a snob besides i'm not looking for a 500mm lens at this stage, I 'd like to be, but I don't think the wife will be too happy

OK Larry you asked for it 'besides I would only ever consider a Canon 500/4 IS call be a snob' - "you're a snob"

Don't you still have the 180/3.5 macro - won't that do what you want? Try it with extension tubes or multipliers if you want something a bit longer, but lighter than the 300/2.8. It works well with both 1.4 and 2x TC's.

Hi Nick

ooh I am.... M&S, Sainsbury's, Canon white lenses

You know i've never actually tried my 180 macro with convertors, however just recently i've been noticing that with my 300/2.8 and my 70-200 i've always got a convertor on which leads me to believe that:-

a: I may not be getting the best quality in my images because I am always adding extra glass between the lens and the sensor
b: I'm in need of longer focal lengths

from experience i get terrible vignetting with the 2x on my 70-200 with the 5d on especially with the subtle pastoral OOF fore and back grounds, does the 180 vignet much with convertors on??...too busy to run any tests by myself at the moment

with extension tubes I can get my 300/2.8 to focus manually to around 1 m which is great for flowers but it's blooming heavy to carry around nature reserves when searching for the most perfect specimins to photograph especially when i've got the bean bag in my rucksack as well as the 90/180 macros and my huge M&S Hamper for lunch , the 300mm f4 is probably my preferred option because I had one so know what to expect and I like the IS for handheld insects in flight although am still tempted by the 400mm 5.6 can't afford them both though

more sleepless nights ahead

Hi Larry

If you want complete versatility then the 300 F4 IS L is for you. Combined with extension tubes and/or a 1.4x TC you have an all in one package for macro and also as a flight lens.

What lenses/bodies do you currently own? Possibly you need to rethink your kit collection, sell anything that is not really needed, and purchase kit more appropriate for the type of photography you want to do.

cheers

Sean