Canon 300 F2 with teleconverters for BIF

[marvinsmith]

I've been agonizing on the new lens decision. I was all prepared to go all out and purchase the 500 F4 until I actually saw someone hauling it and a tripod around. I want more portability. So I'm leaning to the 300 F2 with converters. I've read several excellent threads here on Bridphotographers.net. From Peiker's Great 400mm Canon shootout I'm convinced that IQ would be very good. Jay Gould has stated that he was very happy with his purchase of the 300F2. BUT, I haven't seen a lot about this combination for BIF work. Will the 300 with a 1.4X do the job? I have read that with great light, I might even be able to shoot BIF with a 2X converter (Sidharth Kodikal 11-24-09). I like the idea of having 300mm, 420mm, and 600 mm with one lens and converters. Still, I feel sort of silly buying a prime 300 mm lens when I almost never shoot at 300. I've been shooting the horrible combination of 70-200 F2.8 with a 2X converter on my 40D and almost always shoot at 400 and most of my shots are not sharp -- same thing reported in the Peiker article. I also often wish I had more distance capability. Will I be happy with speed and accuracy of focus at least with the 1.4 converter for BIF? Any hope for the 2X? Note that a lot of my photos are of wading birds, so I definitely am not interested only in BIF. I can't see going with the 400 F5.6 since I'd lose limited light capability and I don't want to spend the $$ for the 400 DO. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm looking for a good all around combination that would be good for BIF and Stationary birds. Thanks
Marvin T. Smith

[John Chardine]

Marvin- This does not exactly address your question but my 500/4 gets lighter all the time. Bottom line you get used to it and you get stronger. The 500 is about 3 lbs heavier than the 300/2.8 (don't think they make an f2). Doesn't seem like a lot and may not be enough to affect the way you use it.

[Tony Whitehead]

Do you have the chance to rent and use both lenses, Marvin? I agree with John that the 500 isn't as cumbersome as it looks. I use mine HH most of the time so a tripod isn't an essential accompaniment all of the time - for birds the reach is almost always useful. For me the 500+1.4x to get 700 f5.6 would be more useful than the 300 +2x to get 600 f5.6.

[adambaca]

I have the Canon 300mm 2.8 and I think it does great shooting BIF with the 1.4x on it. If the light is good you can get away with the 2X but the AF is definitely slower and I generally am not happy with it wide open. If I stop down to f/8 then I feel like it does pretty well. All that said, at some point (in the hopefully near future), I'll definitely buy either the 500 or 600. Hope this helps a bit.

[Jim Neiger]

I have both and the 500mm wins about 95% of the time. Do yourself a favor and get the 500mm. :)

[Alfred Forns]

Another vote for the 500 !!! You won't regret it !!!

[Brad Manchas]

It is rarely the best bet to buy a lens that you know you will have to use an extender on. The 300mm f/2.8 is a spectacular piece of glass at the native length, it is very good at 420mm and can get some great results at 600mm but particularly at 600mm the IQ will be dropping enough often enough you will notice the lack of sharpness and additional CA.

For me it wasn't worth the loss of quality at the greater focal lengths and I went to the 500mm f/4, while the weight of the lens and tripod etc doesn't offer great portability it is not that big of an issue compared to the 600mm. Though at times having something lighter does make for more comfortable trek about the wilds.

The 400mm DO is a great choice there for me. Lighter and smaller than the 500mm, easy to handle off a tripod or when using a tripod a lighter gimbal and tripod can be used. IQ is great with a little post to boost the contrast is about the only difference I see between this lens and my 500mm. And shooting as a 560mm f/5.6 it is still sharp, little CA and still excellent AF response on any of the bodies I use for wild stuff (1D3, 50D, 40D).

If you know you will not or very rarely use a lens at it's native focal length then the best investment is to buy what you expect to need and then if you need longer go to the extenders instead of planning to use them at all times.

[Chris Sloan]

I lead 10-15 pelagic trips off the Outer Banks every year and pretty much all of my photos from those trips are BIF. I use the 300 f2.8 on the boat, sometimes with the 1.4x and sometimes by itself. I am incredibly happy with the results. Here is a gallery from last spring, and all of these pics were with that lens on a 50D body:

http://www.chrissloanphotography.com/Nature/2009-Outer-Banks-Pelagics/8307568_DnjSY#544109254_t4dYu

I can't speak for the 500 since I've never used it, but I can't imagine anyone being unhappy with the 300 f2.8.

[Greg Basco]

Marvin, I think you've received some great advice here. I have the 300 f2.8 as my workhorse lens and have used the 500 f4 on numerous occasions. For the type of photography I do (general wildlife photography in the rainforest) I would never trade the 300 for the 500 for various reasons.

But if I were primarily a bird photographer, I completely agree that the 500 is what I would choose. It really is not as big and heavy as it looks.

Though the 300 performs very well with TCs, I think the old adage applies well to your situation: if you have a telephoto lens and use it most of the time with TCs, you need a longer lens.

Good luck on your decision!
Cheers,
Greg

[Alan Stankevitz]

Use a 600mm for a year, then try the 500mm and it will feel like it weighs nothing! I think you would be happier with the 500mm. Every time you add a teleconverter you are going to lose some image quality.

Alan

[marvinsmith]

Gentlemen,
Thanks so much for all of your thoughts! This is a great forum. I probably should add that I'm 60 years old and have never had much upper body strength. That is why actually seeing the 500mm lens turned me off. And I'd save about $2,000 going with the 300 and not needing a good tripod immediately. I want to shoot mostly hand-held, and I just can't see doing that with the 500. I'm still agonizing! I checked out Chris Sloan's gallery, and he has some great stuff with his 300. I probably should also note that I'm not usually shooting to print large photos (larger than 8 by 10), and mostly I just share photos with friends over the internet.
Marv

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Marvin. If you really don't want to deal with the extra weight of the 500, the 300 will serve you well in my experience. I just printed a toucan picture for an exhibit at 24x36. I took it with the 300 2.8 and the 1.4x, and the large print looks great. So, for your purposes, you have no worries with this combo. You have to look at all factors before deciding, and there's never an easy choice in the end.

Alan, that sounds like a good strategy -- kind of like warming up with a donut in the on-deck circle!

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Lorant Voros]

I think this is a question that all of us go through when we decide to get one of these beauties. Both lenses are great. I went for the 500mm and I don't regret it. If you want that extra reach (and the lens is almost always too short) and your primary subjects are small birds this is a great lens. However, the 300 is more portable and multifunctional if I can say that. There are also good techniques to get close to birds such as using a hide where the 300 mm can work just fine. I know most of the owners use it with the 1.4TC with almost no quality loss and many say there are still great images with the 2x TC.

So it is really your decision, but again, my 500mm rocks (works great with the 1.4TC), this is my baby and my best investment.

[Barry Fisher]

Another vote for the 500F4. I'm 65 years old and have both lenses, but I've hardly used the 300F2.8 since buying the 500. As has already been stated, you soon get used to the weight. It's become my standard lens and you can still use both teleconverters when you need the extra reach. It's been my best investment too!

[Magnus Thornberg]

I love my Canon EF 300/2.8L IS USM and i use it most of the time with the 2x Canon extender! In good light the AF is good! I have not tried it so much with BIF but when i have i think it performs good! Here is three images that i took last year! they are at f6.3

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1plV_r8o9oZYU4zOn8-bLcTXsjayaTKPiwoX9nFnXP2z9OVqUgrtk7w37rx1hyatrOPJG HyrN28Jvv2HfYtRCbiA/_MG_2421-Edit_1024_g%C3%A5s.jpg

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pidmxWwrUsoOnDv7w7It1ul4Y4kAE40WfpwkCRkN6vFfnRV-9iDttUcqc3ZsNsy72gviBKEVjpsjZ72sFpCSuvQ/_MG_2260-Edit_1024_trana.jpg

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pWqkGih_E63EjTty2gxPUG3WY9CJ17NuI_eyqxXX7HVzNlE4 w3ycWDsTyiUWUDCaZPBNHebJ6MZ9wQQwIUgdoAQ/_MG_2406-Edit_1024_knipa.jpg
/Magnus

[Roger Williams]

I went through this agony several years ago and even had a personal discussion with Artie. I decided the Canon 300 f/4L IS would be my first foray into the telephoto world, partly due to budget concerns. I've carried that lens on my 40D to many countries and still use it as my bush-wacking rig on my daily walks. It performs well and provides flexibility with the 1.4x tc. I'm sure the 300 f/2.8 would do likewise. One year ago, at the tender age of 71, I made the plunge into the super-tele world and bought the 500mm. While I wouldn't care to carry it for my 4-mile hike each day, its a wonderful lens either hand-held or tripod mounted in more stationary situations. With or without the 1.4x tc, it simply does things I only dreamed about with the 300. Good luck with your decision.

[philperry]

Marvin. Whatever the guys say about the 500 f4 - it is heavy. And so is the 300 2.8. Only the 400 f4 DO is relatively lightweight - about 1.25 kg v's over 3 kg for the other two lenses. So if upper body strength is an issue then it seems to me that a 400 DO plus a 1.4x will be the ideal combo.

[Melchor Berona]

Good info, but I have the 300 F4 IS, with 40D, and going to Costa Rica. Trying to travel light as possible. Has anybody tried this lens with the 1.4x II? What are the results?

[Alfred Forns]

Works just fine, will get excellent results, just remember the AF does slow down a lot !!! Also is your shooting in shaded areas you will be struggling for shutter speed since it becomes a 5.6 !!! Have fun on the trip and .........Big Welcome to BPN !!!!!

[Melchor Berona]

Works just fine, will get excellent results, just remember the AF does slow down a lot !!! Also is your shooting in shaded areas you will be struggling for shutter speed since it becomes a 5.6 !!! Have fun on the trip and .........Big Welcome to BPN !!!!!


Yes I assume the lighting will be low, I just got the BB for my flash, and would be mainly shooting closeups, landscapes, fauna, flora, little creatures, hummers and any large mammal or bird that I can get close enough too.

I am looking forward to this trip.

thanks for the response.

[Jay Gould]

Hi Marvin, and hello to everyone at BPN. Returned yesterday from Antarctica!

Mate, after spending many many days HH the 300 + 2x for lengthy periods of time - up to an hour or more, and watching others HH the 500 and having to put it down yet hold onto it on the rolling after deck every 10-15 seconds because it is a heavy lens, there is no way I am every going to give up my 300 f/2.8 + 2.0x for the 500 f/4 naked or with the 1.4x.

This is the first trip where I have travelled with all of my gear and it is a lot to lug around.

I still intend to purchase the 500 in the future when I do a vehicle based trip such as shooting from a vehicle in Africa, or shooting wildlife in the various national parks where I have the gear in a motorhome.

However, if you are looking for a lens to HH for any period of time, unless you have very strong arms like Jim or Doug, the 300 with the 2.0 is - at least for me - the maximum reasonable weight.

During the trip I had the pleasure to travel with Phil Colla from San Diego. He is Pro and was carrying both the 300 and 500; most of the time he was HH the 300 and using the 500 on a tripod - and he is a very big, fit, and strong shooter.

Frankly, I have a sore shoulder from all of the gear lugging that we did from ship to shore and the significant amount of time that I HH the 300.

While Jim Neigher's efficiency HH method includes putting down the camera/lens whenever you are not shooting, i.e., resting between bursts, on a rolling ship there is no putting down your equipment. There were times when I was holding the 300 for an hour or more either cradled in my arms or in shoting position. For me it would have been an impossibility to HH the 500 for as long as I did with the 300.

I shot over 20,000 images during the 26-day trip and after the first triage in Breeze Browser (I did not go to sleep each night until the first triage was completed) I have 4000 remaining for a second triage in Lightroom. I am very happy with the results; here is an example of the 300 + 2.0X.

This is a Cape Petral Pintado; a very fast small bird that loves to do acrobatics behind the ship at sea. I will post this image in the Avian Forum as well.

[marvinsmith]

Jay,
Thanks for the response! Working with a lot of the discussion your had originally started, plus the new input from others in this thread, I ordered the 300 F/2.8. I take delivery tomorrow. Thanks for everyone who had comments. Maybe someday I'll move up to a tank mounted 500 F/4, but for now I'm going to try Jay's route. If I don't like it, I'll blame Jay!
Marv

[Jay Gould]

:D:D:D:D