Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?

  
 
crisdesign
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


I currently have a 5dii, 40d (which I almost don’t use anymore) and 100-400L and I’d like a significant improvement in terms of image quality and reach. Let’s say I (could) have up to 5k british pound budget, here’s are the option i’m looking at, which would you suggest?

7d II + 100-400 II + 1.4x III for £ 3400 – 2.78 kg
300 f4.5?, 640mm f5.6, 900mm f8

5d ii + 300 2.8 II + 2x III for £ 4800 – 3.52 kg
300 f2.8, 600 f5.6, (960 f5.6 on crop)

5d ii + 400 do II + 1.4x III for £ 5500 – 3.18 kg
400 f4, 560 f5.6, (up to 1280mm f8 with 2x on crop)

few more consideration
- I don’t shoot big wildlife too often, I’m probably a bit more into birds
- i don’t need more than 5fps or a large buffer
- I’m going to upgrade my 5d sometimes in 2015 anyway and i don't need a crop dslr for anything else than wildlife.
- 7dii +100-400 are going to depreciate way more than the 300 II so in the long term the saving is not going to be that much.

Since it’s an outrageous amount of money, i would really like to see a big jump in terms of image quality and reach. I’m just an amateur and i wonder if i should train a bit more before upgrading.
These are the kind of shots i do, i’m not too much into BIF, i generally include more of the surrounding environment.
What do you think?

https://ppcdn.500px.org/93898471/55a2a3a90f76e39e014b09277512e59980e6fff6/4.jpg
https://ppcdn.500px.org/93949753/f15ff28da368ac56ee84038533431ec76562280d/4.jpg
https://ppcdn.500px.org/93896581/18cd23e45a2dd8ff5f7f999bacd33790048ffd65/4.jpg
https://ppcdn.500px.org/93944495/e651b7affd2b1adbb3e2a7944dfd01c8e4f82e33/4.jpg
https://ppcdn.500px.org/93955095/4fcd8d4e773554514a89eb461d4631479ab5144e/4.jpg
https://ppcdn.500px.org/93957049/490d9b094eb12647dbda8b503d973a5b62835628/4.jpg
https://ppcdn.500px.org/93897407/fd6dffbbc0391b96cdb03e3c9ec7a7702eeb1046/4.jpg

I'm slowly migrating to 500px you can see a bit more here http://500px.com/CristianoOrioli



Dec 29, 2014 at 08:29 AM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


My recommendation is the 300/2.8 IS II and 2X III. That will offer a lot of flexibility with your 100-400, and excellent IQ.


Dec 29, 2014 at 09:29 AM
bvphotos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


Is there a reason you would not consider a 300mm/2.8 ver 1? You can get a used one for a much lower price and could use it in addition to the 100-400 you already have.


Dec 29, 2014 at 09:40 AM
jhg photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


Given the very first results we have seen so far, the 7DII plus 100-400 L IS II appear as the best amateur option. Light, great autofocus, still reasonable amount of money. At least, as far as I am concerned, I am closely watching the development and further presentations with this combo.


Dec 29, 2014 at 10:20 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


bvphotos wrote:
Is there a reason you would not consider a 300mm/2.8 ver 1? You can get a used one for a much lower price and could use it in addition to the 100-400 you already have.


I agree with the above. The 300/2.8 IS version 1 was and still is an excellent lens that can still be repaired. The version II is only a half pound lighter in terms of weight with a very incremental increase in sharpness. Sure, the V2 is one of the best lenses ever made, but so is the V1 and it costs almost half as much.



Dec 29, 2014 at 10:48 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


Go for 500 f/4 IS MkI if you'd be OK with the weight.
Many 500 f/4 IS MkI owners have 100-400 as well, since the zoom is an excellent complement for the 500.



Dec 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM
crisdesign
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


Tnx for your input guys.
Kezeta and bvphotos I'm considering the v2 since I would use it most of the time with teleconverter and from what I heard the autofocus performance and image quality has vastly improved.

Photon I only have room for one big white lens so I'll sell my 100-400 to fund the upgrade.

Jhg I've seen a lot fo positive feedback regarding the 7dii+100-400II, still it's not a cheap upgrade and the question is how much better is going to be compared to my current setup?



Dec 29, 2014 at 11:17 AM
willis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


The 7DII AF is a big upgarde on the 5DII. BTW, where can you get a 400 DO II for £5500? Seems to be £6999 everywhere in the UK. Is it that much cheaper in continental Europe?


Dec 29, 2014 at 11:28 AM
crisdesign
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


that includes the teleconverter yes i don't know why uk prices for the DO are so outrageous, in the rest of europe is a bit more expensive than the 300 wich is line with the usd pricing, I believe. Photospecialist sells it for £5,150 also in italy it can be found in that price range http://www.photospecialist.co.uk/canon-ef-400mm-f4-0-do-is-ii-usm

Pektal i don't think 500 v1 is an option for me, i would need to add a proper gimbal head, a new and heavier tripod and travelling will be an issue. Also that will be my only wildlife lens since i'll have to sell the 100-400. But i'll dig a bit deper into that, teh focal lenght is great for birds and if money wasn't an issue a 500ii would be my choice...



Dec 29, 2014 at 11:48 AM
willis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


Thanks for the tip. Looking at European sites it does seem to be at least £1400 cheaper. It's looking like a more tempting upgrade now.



Dec 29, 2014 at 01:07 PM
ccougar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


I would not try to swallow the whole apple at one time. I would first upgrade your camera to a 7D2 and try using it with your existing 100-400 lens. Unless you have one of the very early lens which apparently had IQ issues, you might find that 640mm would be enough reach for your needs. A 300/2.8 - especially the new model - is a tremendous investment, and if you don’t need its low light capability, I think it is over-kill for your needs. Here are two images taken with my aging 100-400 - one at 400mm and one at 400mm with a 1.4x extender. I think you would find the IQ satisfactory with either configuration. If you find that you are not happy with that set-up, you can then invest in another lens. There is some good advise posted to this thread. Give some careful thought before you spend a lot of money that you might not have to.





EF 100-400 at 400mm







EF 100-400 with x1.4 Ext



Edited on Dec 29, 2014 at 09:53 PM · View previous versions



Dec 29, 2014 at 03:58 PM
Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


With the additional information in your replies to various suggestions, I would say you should consider a 7D II with your current lens. If you do much of your shooting hand-held, then you should also think about trading for the 100-400 II, because the IS is much more effective (for those perched birds and such) and there is pretty broad consensus that the servo AF is, as well. IQ improvements will be more subtle in most cases.

Unless you make wholesale changes like 5D II > 5D III, it seems to me that a 7D II would suit your wishes, complement your 5D II with new capabilities, and maybe keep you happy with your current 100-400.



Dec 29, 2014 at 07:53 PM
crisdesign
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


ccougar, it's a bit difficult to judge from your samples due to aggressive jpg compression but thanks for taking the time to post these images.

As i said initially my 5d is due to an upgrade soon (in the next 6 months) so if the main reason to go for the 7d2 route is the autofocus advantage (compared to 5dii/40d) then II’ll rather skip the 7d.

My general policy is to spend money on glass rather than bodies but looking at some samples the 7d advantage seems remarkable also in terms of resolution.

1600iso crop on dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54839552



Dec 31, 2014 at 07:00 AM
dmcharg
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


Buy 7D MKII and rent a new 100-400 MKII and compare it to your current 100-400 and see if the jump in IQ is what your looking for, there is no substitute for comparing it yourself, you will go mad reading reviews.

The big primes are a different ball game all together. When you pay the kind of the price of these fixed primes i really think they are crying out to be used wide open i.e F2.8 or F4 etc so if you end up using them a TC all the time then i think you have the wrong lens. How many times have you shot the 100-400 at 300 and found yourself wishing it was F2.8 ? if that happens all the time then by all means get the 300. Likewise do you find yourself shooting at 400 all the time and finding you need something faster ? If so then the 400 F4 would make sense. For an amateur the 100-400 is just so versatile and all things considered the IQ is excellent whether its the MK1 or MKII version.

Before you buy one of the big primes you should absolutely rent one for a few days, it really is the only way to find out if its the right lens for you before making such a big investment. I have the 100-400, rented a 300 and i loved the IQ etc but its a hell of a lens to carry around and in the end i realised the zoom is just so much more flexible. I can walk all day with a body/100-400 and i can't imagine doing that with the 300. A lot depends on how you like to shoot, if you like to wander carrying camera/lens and see what you come across then the zooms is much more flexible. If your ok with working from a tripod and spend more time at fixed locations then the big primes and a tripod will deliver outstanding results.



Dec 31, 2014 at 12:29 PM
lowside67
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 300 2.8 II vs 400 do II vs 100-400 II?


I have a 7D2 and 300 2.8 II and it's a brilliant combo but it's very short for "real" birding. My 1.4x III is basically permanently attached and it's good, but it would be even better on a 400 DO II...


Dec 31, 2014 at 08:58 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.