I would greatly appreciate people's advice as I am now getting analysis paralysis. I am a keen amateur who will be visiting Africa for the 5th time early next year and am looking to upgrade my gear again. I have a 5D mark II and on previous trips have used the 100 - 400mm IS L and been happy. I would now like to get a prime for better IQ, to date I keep on alternating between the 300mm F2.8L IS and the 400mm F4 DO L. I have looked at the use of my previous shots when in Africa and reckon that the majority are between 300 & 400mm which does not help. I thought that the 300mm F2.8 would be superior as I could use both the 1.4 & 2 tc with it to get extra length and still use the AF whereas the 400mm DO could only use the 1.4 but then it is 100mm to begin with. Most of my use will be hand held (favours the DO) but then a lot will be in the back of a vehicle hand held but braced?? Can anyone shed any light on this to help me resolve my dilemma?
You know, this is a first...never seen this discussion between these two lenses. the 400 DO gets so little play. Will be interested in that people think. the 300 is maybe Canon's best lens period. but the 400 with the new options must be great. Will be interesting.
The 300 2.8 is your best bet as most of safaris are done in the morning and the late afternoon.
It also depends in which part of Africa you travel to. In Kenya or Tanzania, you will definitely need the extenders. But if you go to private game parks in South Africa, the 300 2.8 will be enough. Bring also your 100-400L as you will use it a lot because of its flexibility.
Last time I was in South Africa, I used the 300 2.8 and the 100-400L.
I have both the 400 DO and the 100-400. Even wide open, the 400 DO is substantially better than the 100-400, particularly in the corners and edges. It's also very portable, relatively light, and produces good results with the 5DII, even with the 1.4 TC.
One potential problem with the 400DO, because of diffractive optics, is that it flares a lot more easily than conventional lenses, even with the hood on. This reduces its contrast in backlit situations. I haven't tried the 300/2.8 but I probably use my 400DO more than all my other lenses put together.
I know exactly what you mean about the light and locations having been to these areas plus Botswana and Zambia in the past, this upcoming trip will be to Namibia which will be different again!;
Not to come out of left field at you, but have you considered the 200mm f/2? I know it may be a little shorter than what you cite (on FF) but drop a 1.4x on it and it might help.
You would retain full AF, still have one of the newest versions of IS Canon offers, and...did I mention, it's on rebate in the US where perhaps you ship it to OZ (the dollar keeps falling....)
I would say the 300mm f/2.8L IS with the 1.4x extender, that way you're not stuck at 400mm with the other lens. The 200mm f/2L IS will not be as contrasty with the 2x TC on it.
I took a 500 prime, he took a 300 2.8 prime. I decided to leave my 300 at home, favouring the reach.
However, the performance of the 300 with a 2xtc is astonishing (I don't have a 2xtc to test it with) and he got some super shots. Having 300mm, 420mm, and 600mm from one lens is very very handy.
So my vote is for the 300. It takes tcs like they're not even there.
I was faced with this same question just two years ago. I take 2 safaris each year, mainly to Botswana and South Africa but sometimes to Tanzania and Kenya. In the end, I made my decision based entriely on what I preceived to be final image quality and flexibility. I picked the 300/2.8 and have never looked back. The lens is simply superb. I most often use the 300/2.8 without a TC but occasionaly use a 1.4X and rarely a 2X TC. The reasson I don't use a TC more often is simply that in Botswana and South Africa, you do not need the reach (unless you are a twitcher). In fact, the 300 is often too long in Botswana. My ideal Botswana kit includes a 70-200/2.8 on one body and a 300/2.8 on the other. In East Africa I would substitute a 500/4 for the 300/2.8. I don't subscribe to the notion that you can get good african wildlife shots hand held with any consistency, most of us benefit from some support. In Botswana I use a Wimberely Sidekick and Really Right Stuff Ball head mounted on a Manfrotto Superclamp and fixed to the grab bar. In South Africa, I sit next to the guide/ranger and place a beanbag over the rifle mounted where the windscreen normally sits. In East Africa I use bean bags (Safari Sacks/Kinesis Gear). But returning to your original question, I selected the 300/2.8 over the 400/4 DO because I felt the contrast, color, and image sharpness were very much better in the 30/2.8. It's a bit more to lug around but worth it IMHO. I am leaving for safari in just two weeks and my 300/ 2http://www.guragear.com/.8 is already packed and ready. I think you already noted the importance of a fast (2.8) lens for early morning work. One last thought, I suggest you look at the Kiboko Bag by Andy Biggs:
Don't overlook the 400mm F5.6L. Sure, it's a little slow, but it's extremely sharp and VERY light, requiring far less support. It doesn't break the bank, either.
I went on safari with Andy Biggs in early 2004. A great guy!
cameron12x wrote:
Don't overlook the 400mm F5.6L. Sure, it's a little slow, but it's extremely sharp and VERY light, requiring far less support. It doesn't break the bank, either.
I went on safari with Andy Biggs in early 2004. A great guy!
+1 also on the 400/5.6. Sorry I overlooked it and I agree it requires far less support
300 f2.8 is really versatile. If you can get one it probably will be your best bet. Since you are currently using 100-400 then 400 f5.6 won't give you much of an advantage unless your zoom is a real dog.
Personally, I would choose the 300mm f/2.8 IS plus a 1.4X TC over the 400mm DO for a slight edge in IQ although the later is more portable/lighter. The 400mm f/5.6 is a great and light-weight lens alright but it lacks IS that I think is usefull since the OP specifies that he may have to hand hold most of the time.
AGeoJO wrote:
Personally, I would choose the 300mm f/2.8 IS plus a 1.4X TC over the 400mm DO for a slight edge in IQ although the later is more portable/lighter. The 400mm f/5.6 is a great and light-weight lens alright but it lacks IS that I think is usefull since the OP specifies that he may have to hand hold most of the time.
I believe the IQ would be similar, but it would be interesting to compare the weight of the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4xTC combination against the 400mm f/5.6.
I've personally been able to hand-hold and produce many excellent shots with the slower 400mm lens.
It would be interesting to see how much the IS buys you versus the added weight in this specific use case. The IS would probably narrowly win, but I'm not sure by how many "true and effective stops."
I had the DO lens for awhile and I couldn't warm up to that. It was a sharp copy alright, don't get me wrong, but it lacks a tiny bit of punch (read: contrast) compared to the 300mm f/2.8 plus the 1.4X TC. Yes, it can be adjusted during post processing. I never had the 400mm f/5.6; however, I am sure it is as good if not better than the DO version.
Under controlled circumstances, for example when trying certain lenses out, one can hand-hold better, you brace/steady yourself and hold you breadth, etc. and indeed, the keeper rate maybe pretty high. But, under real-life conditions, especially if you are in hurry, trying to capture something interesting pretty fast, the IS is more reliable, IMHO, at least with me. I don't want to go without in that case. Your mileage may vary....
that I think is usefull since the OP specifies that he may have to hand hold most of the time.