Canon 300mm II f/2.8 and 400mm II f/2.8

[TonyUSA]

Hello,

Is the lens quality of 400mm II f/2.8 better than 300mm II f/2.8? The price of 200mm f/2.8 to 300mm f/2.8 is a small jump but from 300mm to 400mm is almost double.

Thank you,

 

[Derrel]

I'd guess they are very close in image quality...ALL of the "big glass" lenses from Canon and Nikon offer superlative image quality. Both the 400 and the 300mm f/2.8 lenses use very large, costly elements, some of which are "grown" in Canon plants, over time, spanning like a year. Seriously. The bigger lenses cost more money, and I think also, 400mm f/2.8 lenses are in a large part, often purchased by "organizations" that have plenty of money in their budget for equipment acquisition, so Canon charges more. Newspapers, magazines, sports promotional offices,etc.,etc. purchase a lot of 400/2.8 lenses.

I HIGHLY doubt that the Canon 400/2.8 is much, if at all, "better" than their 300/2.8 of the same generation. Both are first-class, top-drawer lenses.

 

[zombiesniper]

Have shot the 300&400 2.8 and own the 500 4. All are exceptional lenses. If comparing all version2's then the IQ is virtually the same.

Why so pricey? Because the market will take it. No other reason.

 

[photoflyer]

What is really ground breaking about these two lenses (and most L series do not have this) is the Sub Wavelength Coating (SWC). I learned about the science behind this from an astronomer who told me about the Dragonfly Telescope array that has 48 of the 400s. See my recent forum post.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[Overread]

Yeah once you're looking at these kinds of lens you're at the very top end of performance. In general they are going to perform really well. So the choice often comes down to price, weight, size and needs. The 300mm f2.8 is often a favoured "light" wildlife lens (esp when paired with 1.4 and 2*teleconverters) whilst the 500mm f4 is the light long lens then you have the 400mm f2.8 which is the heavy beast that can also work great with both teleconveters - then you've got the 800mm itself and also the 200-400 (which has a built in 1.4TC)

In general when you're in this range and looking to make a choice its often worth looking up a major lens rental company and renting the lenses for a week or so and going out and properly shooting with them to see which one suits you and your needs best. 5 Mins in a shop holding one often isn't enough - you want to get out where you shoot and try them out to see. You might find the 400mm is fantastic in performance, but that the weight and size are just too much of a problem for you. Or you love the 300mm but find that you always need it paired with a teleconverter to perform what you want from it etc..

 

[ronlane]

I've only shot a couple of images with a 400 f/2.8 and they were in the afternoon at a football game. But for daytime a 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x TC version III work really well. The 300 f/2.8 is for me the go to for football for day and night. A 400 would be nice but not worth the price for me at this time.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.