Canon 400mm f4 DO vs 300mm f2.8 IS or non-IS: Hello, I'm debating the purchase of one of these three lenses; Canon 300mm f2.8 IS v.I, 300 f2.8 v.I, 400 f4 DO. I've been reading reviews...

BarTim Loc: Milan, Ohio

Hello,
I'm debating the purchase of one of these three lenses;
Canon 300mm f2.8 IS v.I, 300 f2.8 v.I, 400 f4 DO.
I've been reading reviews for days regarding these lenses and there aren't many from people who own either of the 300s and the 400.
I'm finding the 300 IS costs little more, and the other two a close.
Wildlife is most of what I do with a lot of BIF (I have the 400 f5.6 which I love).
Thanks for you input.
Tim

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

I am a Canon guy and you have a great list there. Why all primes? Your feet are now your zoom, it limits your options. I just purchased the older 300mm f 2.8 non IS. I hope to see it Saturday. The reason I went with the older body instead of a new one is the proven history. Shooting mainly sports I don't need the stabilization with my shutter speeds at 650 and higher all the time. I have a F4 version of this lens I use for day games. Now I have rented the Tamron 150-600 several times and can't say enough about the lens when shooting nature. It is light enough for alot of free hand stuff but it shines on a tripod.

BarTim Loc: Milan, Ohio

PaulR01 wrote:

I am a Canon guy and you have a great list there. ... (show quote)

Hi, I already have the 24-105L and 100-400L among others so, I think my zoom needs are covered. I just sold the Tamron 150-600 about a week ago. The 400 f5.6 might have spoiled me, but I just didn't like the images I produced with it.
Congratulations on your 300, where did you get find it?
Thanks,

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

BarTim wrote:

Hello,
I'm debating the purchase of one of these three lenses;
Canon 300mm f2.8 IS v.I, 300 f2.8 v.I, 400 f4 DO.
I've been reading reviews for days regarding these lenses and there aren't many from people who own either of the 300s and the 400.
I'm finding the 300 IS costs little more, and the other two a close.
Wildlife is most of what I do with a lot of BIF (I have the 400 f5.6 which I love).
Thanks for you input.
Tim

I don't have both lenses you list, but I do have the 600 f4.0; I love both, but I will tell you the 300 f2.8 is fantastic. The focus is so fast, so precise that you will be stunned at the great photos you get with it. Easy to handhold and great photos with the 2X version III teleconverter. May be Canon's best lens. I got a grey market one and saved some $$

Carlo Loc: Maryland, NW.Chesapeake Bay

If your focus is wildlife then most likely you will be shooting at or close to the 300mm end of your reach.
Having IS is really a must to consistently capture quality images. I would suggest the 300mm f2.8 IS
Good Luck..

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

wotsmith wrote:

I don't have both lenses you list, but I do have the 600 f4.0; I love both, but I will tell you the 300 f2.8 is fantastic. The focus is so fast, so precise that you will be stunned at the great photos you get with it. Easy to handhold and great photos with the 2X version III teleconverter. May be Canon's best lens. I got a grey market one and saved some $$

Sorry, I was not paying attention: Yes get the one with IS

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

BarTim wrote:

Hi, I already have the 24-105L and 100-400L among others so, I think my zoom needs are covered. I just sold the Tamron 150-600 about a week ago. The 400 f5.6 might have spoiled me, but I just didn't like the images I produced with it.
Congratulations on your 300, where did you get find it?
Thanks,

I picked up the 300 on a Facebook Sports Group. The guy is a full time sports shooter and has had the lens since the late 90s and its a single owner lens. He just up graded to a 400 and didn't need it any more. The body is a bit ruff but the lens has been serviced every other year he has had it. I have all ready ordered a camo lens coat for it and I haven't even received it yet lol. My EF 300 F4 goes up on Ebay this weekend. Unless somebody is looking here on the Hog

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BarTim wrote:

Hello,
I'm debating the purchase of one of these three lenses;
Canon 300mm f2.8 IS v.I, 300 f2.8 v.I, 400 f4 DO.
I've been reading reviews for days regarding these lenses and there aren't many from people who own either of the 300s and the 400.
I'm finding the 300 IS costs little more, and the other two a close.
Wildlife is most of what I do with a lot of BIF (I have the 400 f5.6 which I love).
Thanks for you input.
Tim

My wife and I have the 100-400 L IS II and love the IS feature. She does a lot of BIF and other wildlife and the IS is a God send. Wonder how we lived without it before.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Very likely you are going to want to use teleconverters with those lenses.

The 300/2.8s take a quality 1.4X or 2X much better than the original 400/4 DO (the current Mark II apparently is improved in this respect). I'd recommend the Canon Mark III or Mark II teleconverters. They're all high quality and the lens will focus fast and accurately with them.

I have, use and would always opt for the IS version in spite of some additional cost. Stabilization simply increases the usefulness of the lens, it's ability to "get the shot" under a wider range of conditions, plus IS is helpful stabilizing the image in the viewfinder when trying to track moving subjects.

You may want to hang onto your 400/5.6 for BIF shots (or look at 300/4 IS or 100-400L). The 300/2.8s are fairly large and heavy... Handholdable, yes, but not for very long period of time. The 400/4 DO isn't exactly small and light, either. Sure, it's a lot smaller and lighter than a 400/2.8... but still not a lens I'd want to try to handhold for a long time.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I have the 300mm f/2.8 IS and a 500mm f/4 IS. I love both of them. I take my 300mm lens with me when I travel since it's a little easier to travel with and works very well with the 1.4x and the 2x teleconverters. This lens is very sharp, even with the teleconverters. I bought mine used for less about $2800 if I remember correctly. I started with a 100-400mm Canon lens and grew out of it because of it's limitations - i.e. can't be used with teleconverters. But it works about as well as the 400mm f/5.6 and it zooms. I have many fine pictures taken with that lens. I took my 300mm f/2.8 to the Galapagos Islands and got many fine pictures with it as well. I used the teleconverters when needed. I would recommend it for sure.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

BarTim wrote:

Hello,
I'm debating the purchase of one of these three lenses;
Canon 300mm f2.8 IS v.I, 300 f2.8 v.I, 400 f4 DO.
I've been reading reviews for days regarding these lenses and there aren't many from people who own either of the 300s and the 400.
I'm finding the 300 IS costs little more, and the other two a close.
Wildlife is most of what I do with a lot of BIF (I have the 400 f5.6 which I love).
Thanks for you input.
Tim

I have the 400 DO IS f/4 lens and love it. I sold my 500mm f/4 as well as my 300mm f/2.8 because of weight. A few years ago I broke my left wrist and never felt comfortable carrying a 9+ lb. lens with camera attached after that. That is why I purchased the 400mm DO which is 1/2 the weight, sharp, fast and fun to use. I also use the Tamron 150-600 with good results but it just doesn't work well in low light. Because of my wrist issue, my answer may not be what you're looking for but the 400mm DO IS is a delightful lens to use. Best, J. Goffe

400mm f/4 DO IS lens

(Download)

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

wotsmith wrote:

I don't have both lenses you list, but I do have the 600 f4.0; I love both, but I will tell you the 300 f2.8 is fantastic. The focus is so fast, so precise that you will be stunned at the great photos you get with it. Easy to handhold and great photos with the 2X version III teleconverter. May be Canon's best lens. I got a grey market one and saved some $$

I have the 300 f2.8 IS. It is all of the above!

BarTim Loc: Milan, Ohio

Carlo wrote:

If your focus is wildlife then most likely you will be shooting at or close to the 300mm end of your reach.
Having IS is really a must to consistently capture quality images. I would suggest the 300mm f2.8 IS
Good Luck..

Thank you,

BarTim Loc: Milan, Ohio

Architect1776 wrote:

My wife and I have the 100-400 L IS II and love the IS feature. She does a lot of BIF and other wildlife and the IS is a God send. Wonder how we lived without it before.

I hear that. I really have to work at the 400 5.6 sometimes....my hands are a little to shaky. :)

BarTim Loc: Milan, Ohio

amfoto1 wrote:

Very likely you are going to want to use teleconve... (show quote)

Thanks for the input.
I guess I'm convinced on the 300 2.8 IS, but was hoping to save a little $$, even thought I should know better.
I was already looking for the 1.4xII TC.
I also want to try the TC on the 400 5.6 too.
I didn't before when I had one, but since I got the 7D2 it feels like it might be worth a try.