Printable View
I just got my 300 2.8 IS, and with my 1D Mark III and the 1.4 ex, I still find myself cropping out a lot of pixels to get the whot I want.
I am very new to shooting Birds, is this normal, or do I need to step up to the pump and get the 500 4.0?
If I do, this lens has to go back, cant have both right now.
I cant help but wonder if adding the 2.0 extender will cost me too much quality.
Sorry for so many questions, The 70-200 has been my longest lens to this point.
Denny
If you really love the birds and that's your main photographic target.......send the 300mm back and get the 500mm. If I had my druthers I'd prefer the 600mm but it's a beast to fly with and heavy to lug long distances with. Learn your birds and habitat and the 500mm, especially with the 2XTC will serve you well.
I may try the 2x extender first, I have to remember Birds are fun, but portraits is how I make a living. I can use the 300 2.8 for that too.
Decisions Decision.
Denny,
I had to make the decision that you face. I don't do portraits but I was looking for versatility and it came down to the 300 2.8 (which I could use with the 2x) or the 500 4.0 (with a 1.4x). I was using the 30D at the time and now also have the 50D. The 1.6x crop does help with the birds which is why I stuck with the 50D when upgrading.
I've posted some bird images made with the 300 2.8 and 2x TC and haven't really gotten much in the way of IQ criticisms - everything else, I've gotten lots of criticisms but not on IQ. The 300 2.8 is a great lens and does perform well with the 2x.
Do I still have to crop? Yeah! But then I don't care what all those Florida folk say, our Pennsylvania birds aren't five feet tall and don't just stand there five feet in front of you either! :D;) They tend to be Little Brown Jobs and hide in brushy trees. :( That said, I am still very happy with the 300 2.8 and 2x combo on the 50D.
But then Lana also has an excellent point. Since you are shooting with the Mark III you could go with the 500 4.0 and 2x and get to 1000mm @ f/8 and still not lose AF. Is the Mark III a 1.3x crop? If so that takes you to an effective focal length of 1300 mm. Not too shabby. With my set-up I have an EFL of 960mm.
Hope somehow this helps.
Denny if you are going to be doing birds the 500 is the way to go. I would use the 300 2.8 as an extra lens but not instead !!
The 600 is a different beast and does not replace the 500 but will complement. Converter wise do not hesitate to use the 2.0X it will give you excellent results with your lens and can use wide open. Fully agree with Ed IQ will not be an issue !!!
My wife has a 300 2.8 and loves it. I use it on occasion but never have been a fan of that focal length/aperture but do use an f 4.0 !!!
Thanks guys, I have to be sensible here as hard as that is for me when I am having fun. The 500 really would be for birding only, can not think how I would use that any other way.
There is one other option I will consider (maybe) the 400 2.8 Before I would splurge for the 500, why not just go that route, kind of best of both worlds. I need to be able to use what ever I get to keep for sports too. At this poing I can not justify spending that kind of money for something I would use just a couple months a year. During Summer and Fall I am so busy doing things I enjoy are put off till this time of year.
Denny, I have the 500 and wouldn't go smaller-most of the time when I shoot small bird I need the1.4 ex.If birds are your main focus you need the 500. If birds are secondary then try the ext.
Well, the 400 2.8 is probably the ultimate field sport lens. It is in a totally different league than the 300 for portability though - weighs the same as a 600 but is shorter.
Very good point, the weight in sports could be a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Schneider
I love the 300, may just need to keep it and add the 500 later.
Denny, I own and use both 300/2.8 and 500/4. I will differ with what has been said above: I do not feel the image quality with the 2x -- on either lens -- is up to snuff. I use a 2x occasionally when there is no alternative. But the sharpness is degraded, even when stopping down which is highly recommended when using a TC. Regardless of what people say about the 2x, it adds a considerable amount of glass between your sensor and your oh-so-sharp prime lens, and image degradation is inevitable. It is simply a matter of how much you can tolerate.
Suggest you get the 500, you won't be sorry. The darn thing is razor sharp and hand holdable for short periods of time, and works great for field sports on a monopod. The compression and bokeh it offers is even more pronounced than the 300/2.8 and can be used effectively for portraits especially on full-frame bodies.
Would the 500 be a good sports lens too?, I always have the 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 TC to fall back on if its too long.
Denny, I shoot a lot of soccer, and can effectively shoot almost the entire field with a 500 on a 1.3x body. I tend to shoot from one end of the field rather than the sideline, since I am looking for angle where the player is coming directly at me rather than across. I'm very happy with lens for this purpose. It does not focus as quickly as the 300/2.8 but it is still pretty snappy. For action close to me, I can resort to a 70-200 on another body slung over my shoulder. I shoot field sports with a monopod and a simple clamp (not even a ballhead) on the top of the monopod, a simple and lightweight setup.
Denny,
I find no problems with the 2x with the quality primes like 300f2.8, 400mm f2.8 etc. If birds are fun at the moment, then it is better to get the 2x before you feel it is worth moving up to higher focal lengths.
I have the 400 f2.8 IS. Weight wise and budget wise, the 400 f2.8 is much more than the 500 f4.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
The 2x will be here tomorrow, will let you know my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra
This lens is becoming my favorite, the lens is better than I am, it is just a different beast than the 70-200 2.8 IS.
If you are just stepping into bird photography, based on your budget, the 400 5.6 is the best choice.
I use it almost daily.
It is sharp and focuses quickly and accurately.
I too tried the 300 2.8 for birding a few years ago, and returned it in a week.
It's a great lens for pro baseball.
Yes, you can shoot football with the 500 F/4, but only if you carry the 70-200 as well. I shoot college football with that combination.
The best overall lens for bird photography is the 500 F/4.
Good luck with your quest!
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Jobes
I can't speak to the 500 4.0 because I don't have one. But I don't doubt that it may be the best lens for birds although those who shoot with the 600 may argue differently.
And I don't disagree that the 400 5.6 is a fine lens. And with the 1 series body and he can get away with a 1.4x TC. I have the 400 5.6 and have used it for a couple of years with a 30D. It worked well but I often found myself wishing for IS.
I still have the 400 5.6 but don't use it nearly as much now that I have the 300 2.8 that I am using with the 2x TC. With my 50D, I have a focal length of 600mm (effective FL of 960mm) and have found IQ to be very good - dare I say excellent. Here (http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=24758) is my latest posting with the 300 2.8/2x combination. Check the detail.
The key thing here, I think, is versatility. The 500 is, no doubt, an excellent birding lens. But personally, I didn't feel it was going to be as versatile as the 300 2.8. And the OP has said that he wants to use the 300 for other things - weddings, sports, etc.
I still believe getting the 2x TC for the 300 is probably his best alternative. And as he is new to bird photography, I think practice is called for in order to learn how to get close to the subjects. That is important whether using a 300, 400, 500, 600 or 800.
Just my opinion and I am far from an expert! So take it for what it is worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyKyser
Hi Denny,
Any thoughts yet on your new combo?
Regards,
Rob
