I mainly shoot sports and wildlife, I currently have an Eos 1dx(original) an ef 24-105 f/4L usm mk1 and a Tamron 100-400 as well as a Tamron 1.4x. I want to upgrade my telephoto as 560mm at f/9 can be quite slow to focus for birds and fast moving subjects(and sometimes slow ones too). I am thinking about either getting a 300 f/2.8 non IS (unless an IS version is at a good price) or a 400 f/4 do both mk1. Would either of these work with my tamron 1.4x or would I need to get a canon one instead. Is there any issues with either one? Should I not upgrade my lens and instead go with something like an R6? Thanks!
If you are going big and fast, I suggest a 300/2.8 IS (1999 version) instead of the 400/4 DO as I have those. The 300/3.8 IS is still quite good on a later DSLR with the EF 1.4x III and gives more flexibility. If you really need more reach the original 500/4 IS (1999) is another good option.
But on the practical side, the 100-400 IS II is quite a nice lens and pretty good with the EF 1.4x III TC.
fstophero wrote:
Own the 300mm 2.8 ii. It's amazing and would be superior to the 400 DO ii.
I really don't think that you have actually shot with the 400 DO II yourself. The DOm2 is one of the sharpest lenses out there, it's definitely sharper than the RF400 which I own (and I shot tens of thousands of frames with three other EF400m3 so I have a representative sample.) The original DO gave the whole DO line a bad rap, and when the DOm2 came out everyone dismissed it. That lens is absolutely brutal, even on R5 sensors (and 5DsR). Look at the MTF charts, or better yet, take one out for a few thousand frames against the 300 and see.
stanj wrote:
I really don't think that you have actually shot with the 400 DO II yourself. The DOm2 is one of the sharpest lenses out there, it's definitely sharper than the RF400 which I own (and I shot tens of thousands of frames with three other EF400m3 so I have a representative sample.) The original DO gave the whole DO line a bad rap, and when the DOm2 came out everyone dismissed it. That lens is absolutely brutal, even on R5 sensors (and 5DsR). Look at the MTF charts, or better yet, take one out for a few thousand frames against the 300 and see....Show more →
I shot with the 300 IS and 300 IS II sold both after I got the 400 DO II for birding. I am using it now for travel. Could not ask for a better travel buddy.
My Tamron 1.4x generally had excellent performance imo, usually tried to stop it down for best performance. If it didn't work out on one of the lenses you mentioned ef 1.4 III supposedly the one to get.
I looked on TDP, the 400 v1 didn't look bad, just not at the insane level of optical performance as , say, 500/4 IS II (or probably 300/2.8). I might try 400mm though because 300mm on ff not long enough really.
Sigma 150-600mm C supposedly pretty good, has more reach. You could get 300/2.8 IS V1 about the same price as non IS, it seems, when I looked. New IS might be beyter, but even a couple stops out of the older IS would be really useful
I’m with Stan and I have owned both and still continue to own the EF400 f4 DO II. In my opinion the 400 is way more flexible for wildlife, it’s extremely sharp and takes the EF 1.4 TC MK III extremely well. I just loaned the EF 400 to a friend who fas the EF300;2.8 for a trip to Africa, where he was amazes with how good it preformed. I say this while having the RF400 f2.8 and RF 100-300. My greatest wish is Canon would make a modern version of the EF400 DO II to take out some of the weight and work withe RF TC’s as well as the RF100-300, it would be an amazing lens.
If you want the absolute best in sharpness. Pick up a used 500 II. It is mind blowing sharp, and can be hand held. The only reason to get the II version over the IS version is weight. It will let you hand hold all day. 500 II is excellent for travel also. But the DO is king for travel IMO.
Yeah i'm not arguing against the 400/4 DO II im just skeptical it is in the op's budget. And even 400mm is really kinda short for birds, having used 400mm ff equivalent on aps extensively.
There's the 500/4 IS, the current/latest 500/4 IS II, and the older 500/4.5. The IS II is 8lbs IIRC, the older 4.5 around 6 lbs like the 300/2.8's. IS II is probably pretty pricey even today
I've shot the lens before. Red ring > Green ring. Compromises were most likely made with the 400DO to achieve that size and weight. I'm not saying it isn't great, but the 300ii is so good that it would probably be as sharp with a 1.4 tc @420 f4 than the 400 DO is bare.
Once I read "sports" all I saw was the 300 2.8. I never owed the 400 DO and never had the desire to, but I own the 300 2.8 IS and it's great for sports either bare or with the 1.4 and I've used the 2x with the 1D bodies for 600 5.6 with good success for bird/nature photograpy. I assume the non-IS version wouldn't be too far behind or right there with the IS version. I can't speak on that 400 DO.
Not really knowing your budget I would recommend a 300 2.8 IS and a canon 2X II or III. That is probably the most cost effective way to get to 600mm with a moderate aperture and good IQ. The bare 300 is a great sports lens, indoors and out. The original EF300 2.8 is probably not worth the savings over the IS version and the IS version II is the best of them all with a significant price increase.
I think the Canon supertelephotos are designed with the Canon teleconverters in mind. They are reasonably priced and sometimes even come with the lens as sellers bundle them together.
Never owned a 400 DO II and the desire to own one is still there. If you're doing low light sports, I would recommend the EF 300 f/2.8 IS. It is sharp and quick focusing but heavy. It is the one lens I regret selling when I unloaded most of my EF zooms and supertitles. However, it will be short for birds. You may be able to get away with a 1.4 x TC III but IMHO it still falls short. YMMV.
