Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Photography knowledge exchange.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
MattSullivan
Posts: 419
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:07 pm
Location: New Jersey

Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by MattSullivan »

Hey guys,

just curious which you would buy first. i want both eventually but am here asking which people use more often. ive seen a ton of herp shots with the 17-40 but not a lot with the 300 so if anyone has shots with it please share. Currently i have canons 100mmL and sigma 15 fisheye (which is DECENT for wide angle herp shots but only if they are decent sized, and it also give the fisheye effect which isnt always pleasing).
thanks for any input
Matt
User avatar
Stohlgren
Posts: 603
Joined: November 6th, 2010, 10:59 am
Location: Athens, GA (Columbia, MO)

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by Stohlgren »

It is, of course, going to depend on what kind of photography you would like to do. I am not a canon guy, but my thoughts would be to go for the longer lens. I use my 70-400 way more than my 10-20. It is useful for lizards, turtles, birds, and in situ shots of snakes. I am not a big fan of fish eyes though, so if I were going to do more herp-in-habitat or landscape photography, and not as concerned with those other situations I mentioned, the 17-40 would be preferable to the 15mm you have.

-Kevin
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by AndyO'Connor »

I have the 100L and the 17-40L, and I rented the 300 f4L for 4 weeks in my September post. I am not a huge fan of the 17-40 for herp shots so far, although partly due to me not getting used to it yet as I've seen some excellent shots from other users of that lens (although I think it's better on full frame, and I haven't gotten really sharp results with it yet) Anyways, I use the 100 the most, and if you take a look at my recent post, a LOT of the pictures I took are with the 300, it's an awesome lens. It's almost twice the cost of the 17-40, I'd recommend getting it first if you can afford it because I think the 17-40 is easier to find good deals on.
The scenery shots, up close people shots, and a few of the herp shots are with the 17-40, but a majority are with the 300 or 100. http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... =2&t=17619
User avatar
MattSullivan
Posts: 419
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:07 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by MattSullivan »

alright thanks guys. i was leaning towards the 300f4.

Andy, your post is awesome i commented on it yesterday about how jealous i was of the red pygmy rattlers haha. Im going to go with the 300 because i found a pretty good deal on it and im tired of renting it every time i want to use it, by now i probly couldve already bought it
thanks!
fvachss
Posts: 90
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Ventura County, CA
Contact:

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by fvachss »

The 300/4IS is my 'go to' herping lens. Almost all shots (except the few macros) in these folders were taken with the 300:

http://www.pbase.com/fvachss/mojave_april&page=all

http://www.pbase.com/fvachss/jtree2012&page=all


I have a 16-35 as well (similar in utility to the 17-40) and like it a lot for landscapes, but for herping I really prefer the ability to get in close, and the 300 works very well for that.
User avatar
MattSullivan
Posts: 419
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:07 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by MattSullivan »

nice work! i see you're using the 300 with the 1.4 tc? you don't find that it degrades image quality? those two sidewinder shots are spectacular, thats a snake id love to see
fvachss
Posts: 90
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Ventura County, CA
Contact:

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by fvachss »

MattSullivan wrote: i see you're using the 300 with the 1.4 tc? you don't find that it degrades image quality
It depends on pixel density. On a 5D2 with relatively large 6.5 um pixels the 300+1.4x is pretty sharp wide open and very sharp just stopping down a hair to f/6.3. On the more recent high pixel density crop bodies (e.g. 7D, T2...5i) I need to stop down to f/8 to get critically sharp with the converter. Regardless, the 1.4x works so well with the 300 that it's almost a must have accessory. About the only downside is that AF slows down somewhat - not really an issue for most herping, but noticeable if trying to track birds in flight.
User avatar
MattSullivan
Posts: 419
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:07 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by MattSullivan »

ah okay well i have the 5DMKIII so i figure the results would be similar to those you got from the MK2. Im not hugely concerned about BIF haha. props for finding the sidewinder during the day
Zimmerman
Posts: 26
Joined: February 9th, 2014, 5:53 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Canon 300mm f4 vs 17-40

Post by Zimmerman »

I own a 300 F4. It is very good for lizards. Especially the shy ones. But you can also make photographs of lizards with their natural behavior, because you are not too close. Most lizards tolerate you 1,5 or further away from them. A 300 F4 closest focussing distance is 1,5m (with rings even closer).
Besides that I own a 100mm Macro and a wide angle. :)
I also found the 300 F4 useful for some frog species and turtles.
Post Reply