Canon 500 f/4 II or 300 2.8 II?

Hi all,
I have the following gear:
Two 7D bodies (I may swap one of them for the new 5D III)
15 85 IS
70-200 f/4 IS
100-400 L
1.4 TC III
100 f/2.8 Macro L
I am planning to buy a super tele and I can't decide which one to get. My interest is birding and wildlife. I have started to post on this forum and I have got some nice feedback from you all which is appreciated.
The 500 does not overlap with my setup but is heavy and the new 300 is lighter and seems to take TCs well as mentioned by Art himself.
Pl advice.
Regards
Sanjeev

I'd go with the EF 500mm f/4L IS II, particularly if you might move to the 5D3. With either lens proposed you'll gain IQ over your 100-400mm, but the extra reach of the 500mm plus 1.4x TC will make it more useful useful for birds. The lighter weight and improved IS of the Series II 500mm make it more manageable as a hand held lens. (That may seem impossible on day-one, but if you work at it you'll be able to hand hold it). At these focal lengths, most people invest in a good tripod and gimbal head also.

BTW, working with a 5D/7D combination is wonderful when you work with a super-tele. I keep my 500mm on my 7D and a 70-200mm on my 5D MkII, which is slung around my neck, so if I'm shooting an owl high in a tree with the 500/7D combo and deer start walking by my position, I can shoot the deer without swapping lenses on one body.

Thanks David for your detailed reply. The 500 II does make better sense due to the reach and the 700 mm I will achieve with the 1.4X III. I will surely invest in a good tripod & Gimbal once I get it. Right now I have the Manfrotto 190 CX Pro4 Carbon tripod and a 054 Mag ball head.........
Regards
Sanjeev

Hello Sanjeev,

There are a lot of variables here. First consider a 300 f/2.8 with a 7D gets more pixels on a subject with higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that 1D cameras of a few years ago using a 500 f/4.

Another factor is age and strength if you plane to carry (e.g. in a backpack) and/or hand hold the lens.

The 300 f/2.8 +2x TC gives 600 f/5.6 compared to the 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC giving 700 mm f/5.6, so pretty close. The AF performance might be similar too, as both are f/5.6. But we hear of slowdowns on the version 2 lenses with 2x TCs (but is that on f/4 lenses only?). So weight and versatility goes to the 300 f/2.8. Image quality will be pretty close when at similar focal lengths with TCs, but a small edge to the 500 for reach, but a small edge to the 300 f/2.8 for narrow depth of field.

I have both 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 version 1 and 7D, 5D2, and 1DIV. I have travelled to Africa on safari with the 500 and on other trips with the 300. I will only take the 300 on future trips because it is lighter and more versatile and I can get close enough to my subjects that I rarely want more focal length. But on other trips, I'll take the 500. If I had neither lens and know what I do now, I would get the 300. If weight were not an issue I would take both. If I could only choose one, the 300, whereas a few years ago it would be the 500. But then the new version II 500 is a lot lighter....Hmmm tough choice. But the 500 2 is very very expensive--lessens the tough choice.

Roger

Thank you Roger for that nice summation. I started out with the 300 2.8 II in mind due to the reasons you have mentioned. I am 42 years old, but am not a pro, just a hobbyist. I have been smitten by birding and thats why I am here, amidst you great folks! As you rightly said, COST is another issue and the 300 2.8 makes the cut on that front. My wife already squirms with the gear I already own :eek3: Will the 100-400 L become redundant if I buy any of the two mentioned lenses? I will not let go my 70-200 f/4 IS, I love that lens!
Sanjeev

<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">I'd go with a 500mm f/4. You've already got 300mm covered with a 100-400 and a 70-200 with a 1.4x. The new 500mm brings something new to your bag. It is regarded as the gold standard of bird photography glass and offers plenty of focal length. Also the new one is going to weigh 1.5 lbs less than the old one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">I'd go with a 500mm f/4. You've already got 300mm covered with a 100-400 and a 70-200 with a 1.4x. The new 500mm brings something new to your bag. It is regarded as the gold standard of bird photography glass and offers plenty of focal length. Also the new one is going to weigh 1.5 lbs less than the old one.

---

Doug,
With a 7D, one can put on a 1.4x and get 700 mm f/5.6 on the 500, or a 2x on the 300 f/2.8 and get 600 mm f/5.6. Now we are talking version 2 superteles and TC III's so image quality should remain impressive. So I ask is the extra 100 mm worth some $5,000? Also the 100-400 is limited to 400 f/5.6 and the 300 f/2.8 gets well beyond that with 50% more reach and sharper image quality even with a 2x TC, so probably about double the fine detail on a subject.

In the old days (6 or so years ago) when the price difference was only a couple of $k between the 300 and 500 and pixels were larger so reach was more of a factor, I would agree, but now I'm not convinced, unless one is quite rich for a 20% difference in reach for about double the price.

Roger

If you are a hobbyist, I would go for the 300.
The pro's here use 500, 600 or 800 and that is the way to go if you are planning on a career in photography,
unless you are a hobbyist and money is not a factor.
I have the 300 f2.8 (Nikon) and I went that route because it was several thousand less and I just couldn't justify the
money for my use. I also like the 300 because it is very easily handheld, if you look at a photo I posted today of
the owlet, that was handheld at 1/125.
A bit soft but still a nice photo, I think. The 300 is easy to travel with, a small Think Tank backpack with lens, camera and 3 extenders
plus a landscape lens is an easy airplane carry on.
I have the 1.4, 1.7 and 2x extenders so I have a 300, 420, 500 & 600mm setup in a fairly small and easy to carry around package.
The 1.4 and the 1.7 IQ are excellent, in fact I prefer the 300 w/ the 1.4 over the IQ of the 300 alone for some reason.
The 2x needs pretty good light to get good results I think which is why I got the 1.7. It seems redundant but I am finding
that the IQ of the 1.7 is such that I can crop and get better results than using the 2x.
I would either go for the 500mm or sell the 100-400 and get the 300 since you have a 70-200.
Just my opinion and some of my reasons.

I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Roger here. I am currently agonising over a similar situation myself and in addition to what Roger has said I would augment his advice by saying in the case of the new lenses, where a 500f4 lens is on a tripod as against the 300 f2.8 plus 2X converter hand held, one cannot under estimate the benefit of having added mobility and stealth where appropriate in order to get more pixels on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Roger here. I am currently agonising over a similar situation myself and in addition to what Roger has said I would augment his advice by saying in the case of the new lenses, where a 500f4 lens is on a tripod as against the 300 f2.8 plus 2X converter hand held, one cannot under estimate the benefit of having added mobility and stealth where appropriate in order to get more pixels on the subject.

---

Yeah, but the new 500 is similar in weight as the old 300 f/2.8. And the MTF charts on the new 500 are a cut above every other lens in the Canon lineup: near perfect to the corner of a full 35 mm frame wide open. Wow! I don't see such a major improvement in any of the other superteles in the Canon lineup. I want one--if they would just reduce the price.... More than double what I paid for my 500 (new)--I'll pass.

Roger

I agree with Doug. I have both the 300 and 500 and can say the 300 with a 2x can work very well, but the AF is very slow. The current 500 is handholdable (I am 49, so you have 7 years on me. I am also a hobbyist). I bought the Gitzo tripod, ballhead etc and it sits most of the time. You can get the current 500 used for the price of the new 300 and start shooting tomorrow. Your wife will also appreciate your 'frugality'! Good luck.

Roger

I once said to a good friend and birding pal of mine that I will replace my Sigma 500f4.5 when Canon make a 500 lens that I can lug around just as easily as the Sigma 500. Well Canon have just gone ahead and done it, the new 500 is just 40g heavier but at the current price it is likely to be a pass for me too. I always thought the Canon 300 f2.8 to be a good enough performer with 2X converters sharpness wise but I never ever felt convinced to ditch my Sigma 500 f4.5 and Sigma 300f2.8 for the old Canon 300f2.8. or for the old Canon 500f4. I always wanted to take advantage of the flexibility 2 different lenses can bring and I never regreted that decision. However the goal posts have changed somewhat and for me the improved sharpness along with the new 2X converter is causing me to rethink. As I get older I would prefer not to lug around a tripod. To be honest I am not big on reviews and hype and I prefer to get my hands on equipment and get to try it out myself. Thus far I have made perfectly acceptable images with my lenses when coupled with 20D, 40D and 7D bodies for the kind of photography I do and with the limited resources I have. I guess I will have to wait till after the London Olympics are over when hopefully there might be a decrease in prices and perhaps I can re-evaluate again.

Adrian

nrohrbacker, greetings and welcome!

You say that you have both lenses: just to clarify are these both Mk2s ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Doug,
With a 7D, one can put on a 1.4x and get 700 mm f/5.6 on the 500, or a 2x on the 300 f/2.8 and get 600 mm f/5.6. Now we are talking version 2 superteles and TC III's so image quality should remain impressive. So I ask is the extra 100 mm worth some $5,000? Also the 100-400 is limited to 400 f/5.6 and the 300 f/2.8 gets well beyond that with 50% more reach and sharper image quality even with a 2x TC, so probably about double the fine detail on a subject.

In the old days (6 or so years ago) when the price difference was only a couple of $k between the 300 and 500 and pixels were larger so reach was more of a factor, I would agree, but now I'm not convinced, unless one is quite rich for a 20% difference in reach for about double the price.

Roger

---

If you're on a budget, you may have a point. But I'd rather have a fast-focusing 500mm prime with a maximum aperture of f/4 or a still fast-focusing 700mm f/5.6 than a $7,300 300mm lens that requires a
slow-as-molasses 2x to break into 500mm range. BTW the price difference is $3,200, not $5,000.
<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">

I'm not sure that age has a ton to do with the ability to hand hold the 500mm f/4. In case it does, I'm 64 and hand hold mine on my 7D more than 99% of the time. About the only time that I use my tripod and gimbal is when I'm staking out a nest and want to keep the camera traned on the same spot for an extended period of time. I have a linebacker build, but I know a woman that started hand holding her 500mm about a year ago. Anyway, the loss of weight with the Series II will be greatly appreciated, along with the extra IS effectiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

If you're on a budget, you may have a point. But I'd rather have a fast-focusing 500mm prime with a maximum aperture of f/4 or a still fast-focusing 700mm f/5.6 than a $7,300 300mm lens that requires a
slow-as-molasses 2x to break into 500mm range. BTW the price difference is $3,200, not $5,000.
<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">

---

Doug,

Focus speed is mainly a function of 3 things: f/ratio, lens motor, camera body. I went out and tested combinations of 500 bare, with TCs, 300 bare, with TCs on both 7D and 1DIV bodies.

300 + 2x TC vs 500 +1.4x TC: 1DIV both lenses about the same AF speed, 7D both lenses about the same. 1DIV faster than 7D. Same f/ratio, similar AF speed.

500 bare: faster than 500+1.4x, and about the same as 300 + 1.4x on both bodies. Again, same f/ratio, similar AF speed.

300 f/2.8 bare: blazingly fast on both bodies; too fast to tell if there is any distance, and noticeably faster than the 500 f/4 bare. 300 f/2.8 on 7D AF is faster than 500 f/4 on 1DIV. And that gives about the same detail on the subject (remember Etendue?).

I tried the same targets at various distances, so a repeatable test. I tried targets close to each other in distance and targets from close to infinity. One thing I noticed on both lenses: if focus is closer and the target is further away, AF takes longer, about 2 times longer and has more mistakes (both 1DIV and 7D) while AF from further away to closer was about 2x faster and no mistakes by either body. On the cranking to further away, the 7D made more mistakes than the 1DIV. By mistakes I mean choosing the direction to move from the beginning when the subject was well out of focus. When focus was close, both cameras never made a mistake. I used single point AF on high contrast subjects with no interfering things sticking into the view (like branches), so there should have been no possibility for mistakes.

Summary:
So, if one can get close enough to your subject and one wants the fastest AF, 300 f/2.8 bear beats the 500 f/4 hands down. 300 +1.4x ~ same AF speed as 500 f/4 bare, 300 + 2x ~ same AF speed as 500 + 1.4x.

Bummer on the new price! That is 2x the price I paid for my 300 f/2.8 only a few years ago. I suggest waiting for the 300 f/2.8 II to come out and buy used 300 version 1 when the price drops more. Perhaps the same with the 500 f/4.

Roger

In real field conditions for BIF photography TC always slows the AF. The 300f/2.8 + 1.4X TC is fast but noticeably slower than 500 f/4 bare in both initial acquisition on flying bird and also in tracking. The tracking consistency is also noticeably worse with the TC when photographing birds in flight with varied BGs. The difference is quite striking if you ever try to photograph a bird coming towards you at high speed.

The 2X TC is useless for flight photogtaphy IMO, no matter which lens it is mounted on. I tried Luis's 300 f/2.8 MKII and 2X TCIII IQ is good (still need to stop down if possible) but AF is not usable for flight in general (unless someone likes to photograph seagulls against a sky BG :bg3:)


According to Canon the 1.4X TC MK III reduces AF speed by 50% and 2XTC MK III reduces AF speed by 75%. It's a huge penalty but it is required to ensure AF accuracy.

The only reason one would pick a 300 over 500 is not being able to afford 500 or not being physically fit to carry it around. There is a good reason people stand in line to pay the big difference and get the longer lenses. Would def pick the 500 if money is not an issue. It will serve you well for many years to come and you get much better results.

I can't wait to get the new 600 MKII, I am really looking forward to not having to use the TC and enjoy the full AF performance with bare lens. It will make a big difference in my photos so well worth the $$$!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

In real field conditions for BIF photography TC always slows the AF. The 300f/2.8 + 1.4X TC is fast but noticeably slower than 500 f/4 bare in both initial acquisition on flying bird and also in tracking. The tracking consistency is also noticeably worse with the TC when photographing birds in flight with varied BGs. The difference is quite striking if you ever try to photograph a bird coming towards you at high speed.

The 2X TC is useless for flight photogtaphy IMO, no matter which lens it is mounted on. I tried Luis's 300 f/2.8 MKII and 2X TCIII IQ is good (still need to stop down if possible) but AF is not usable for flight in general (unless someone likes to photograph seagulls against a sky BG :bg3:)

---

Arash,

The 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC is plenty fast for a fast pygmy falcon a close range:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...7-Pigmy-Falcon

Pygmy falcons fly very very fast.

Yes, the TC slows AF, but when you start with a faster f/2.8 lens, you start ahead of the f/4 lenses. I have not seen any difference in the field conditions of the 300 having more difficulty acquiring and tracking subjects in real world conditions under a large variety of conditions than a 500 f/4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

According to Canon the 1.4X TC MK III reduces AF speed by 50% and 2XTC MK III reduces AF speed by 75%. It's a huge penalty but it is required to ensure AF accuracy.

---

And when Canon specs their AF performance, it is with the 300 f/2.8 lens because it is so fast, faster than the 500 f/4. As I said previously, the 300 f/2.8 +2x TC has very close (so close I can't tell the difference) in AF speed as 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC. That makes both systems f/5.6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

I can't wait to get the new 600 MKII, I am really looking forward to not having to use the TC and enjoy the full AF performance with bare lens. It will make a big difference in my photos so well worth the $$$!

---

Previously, you've stated that more reach wasn't needed as you can get as close as you need to fill the frame for your subjects. If so, why move to a longer focal length rather than a lens with faster AF (that being the 300 f/2.8)?

Roger

Thank you everyone for the wonderful & practical inputs. Considering that the Mark II lenses are better for IS and sharpness and since I have the 1.4X III already, I have foregone the thought of a USED mark one 300 or 500 lens. But, would you guys still suggest I look at the used or new mark ! lenses as well? The 300 2.8 II is more appealing due to the price, but I can wait a few months if the prices will drop anytime. But knowing the L line up, I doubt if that will happen soon.

Hey Roger,

I was talking about birds against varied BG, the falcon shot is nice but it's against a sky BG and is flying across the frame as opposed to banking or flying towards you so it's possible to pan and grab focus. With sky BG you probably can get away even with the 2X most of the time.

I don't typically fill my frame with subject, it will be clipped when it flies. And yes I don't need more reach than what I already have (700mm) and I'm going from 700mm to 600mm, but 300mm is way too short IMO. For my type of photography ideal range is 500-700mm. I did use the 300 when I was in Florida for Ospreys, great AF but the 500 is just as fast at least in my hands.

300 is great for sports and wildlife but it's not a primary birding lens IMO, the new one is quite expensive too. If my main subject was birds I'd pick a used 500 MKI over the 300 MKII. If you already have a big gun, 300 is a nice 2nd lens though. good for long hikes as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanjeev Aurangabadkar

Thank you everyone for the wonderful & practical inputs. Considering that the Mark II lenses are better for IS and sharpness and since I have the 1.4X III already, I have foregone the thought of a USED mark one 300 or 500 lens. But, would you guys still suggest I look at the used or new mark ! lenses as well? The 300 2.8 II is more appealing due to the price, but I can wait a few months if the prices will drop anytime. But knowing the L line up, I doubt if that will happen soon.

---

You can also rent these lenses and see which one suits your needs better. Whether you will use tripod or not will dictate your style of photography and the type of photos you will be making and the set of skills you will develop. Good luck with choosing your path. You can also look at the avian forum to see what type of shots are made with what lenses.

Don't count on the MKII super tele prices dropping as the demand will exceed the supply. You can't imagine how many people are already in line to get those lenses!

Dear Arash,
Thank you for your suggestion. I just looked at the official canon India online store and what is surprising is that the difference between the 300 and 500 lens is 200$ !!!! If that is the case I might as well go for the 500 lens!!!!
Here is the link, the prices are in rupees. 1 USD=51 Rs.
http://www.imagestore.co.in/lenses-1.html?cat=28

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanjeev Aurangabadkar

Dear Arash,
Thank you for your suggestion. I just looked at the official canon India online store and what is surprising is that the difference between the 300 and 500 lens is 200$ !!!! If that is the case I might as well go for the 500 lens!!!!
Here is the link, the prices are in rupees. 1 USD=51 Rs.
http://www.imagestore.co.in/lenses-1.html?cat=28

---

wow it must be an error ;)

NO mistake, I was shocked myself! You guys can check the link I sent :eek3:

<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue Roger. I stand by my statement on the impact of adding a 2x into the mix.

Arash,
Here is a very very tough subject: a dark bird flying through trees in low light. Made with 1DIV + 300 mm lens (no TCs) at f/4. Focus is spot on on the eye. In my experience using the 300 and 500 mm lenses, I see no difference in tracking ability between 300 and 500 mm lenses. I don't understand the 300 bashing here. Canon uses the 300 as the performance of camera AF speed because it is faster than the f/4 super telephotos. The f/2.8 lenses also have more accurate AF. The decision should be whether the 300 has enough reach, not if it is fast enough as it clearly is. In fact, performance at f/2.8 is well above f/4 lenses in both speed and accuracy.

Roger

Hey Roger,

Aren't we saying the same thing? I am not bashing 300 just saying 500 is better because 300 by itself is too short for general bird photography. I mentioned the bare lens (300 or 500) works much better for varied BGs like your example above :S3:. Both bare primes focus really fast.

very cool bird BTW

Great Shot Roger! What an awesome bird!

Sanjeev, I shoot Nikon and have the newest 300 f2.8VR11. I use it with a 1.4tc and love it. ( I am also shooting a full frame D700, no crop factor) If I am shooting at setups or any other situation where I can be close to the birds ( 10-30 ft) this combo works great. Other than that it is too short for birds. How I wish for a 500mm.

Jack

Hey Adrian,I have the Mk1's, not the ii's. I don't yearn for the 300 mkii, but the 500MKII would be nice!

Though I shoot Nikon, I believe I can respond to the general notion of whether a 300 2.8 and a 2X TC is a worthy BIF rig.

Without qualification, I've found that it is just that.

My Nikon 300 2.8 VR II and TC-20E III is blazing fast on autofocus. It delivers 600mm expertly in a lighter package.

On those days when the 600 deserves a rest, I don't hesitate to strap on the 300 with the 2X converter and head to the field.

Thanks Jack and Bill for your views on the 300 2.8 II's. I guess it will come down to prices of the two lenses in India, I will decide based on that. One Q for canon shooters, how many of you have kept your 100-400 L once you moved on to the super tele territory?
Thanks'Sanjeev

Wow, I could right a book while responding to the comments above.... First a few things. Nobody is bashing the 300 f/2.8 L IS II. They are just saying that it would be superior as a general bird photography lens. I agree. Especially for those with a pro body that focuses to f/8 (like the EOS-1D MIV). Why? Because they can use the 2X with the 500 f/4L lenses to reach 1300mm effective focal length.

BTW, the new lenses are Series II lenses not Mk II lenses... I am not sure where that designation ever came from.

The similar prices must be a screw-up. Period.

That said, the 300 f/2.8L IS II with only 7D bodies would be an attractive and reasonable choice as it would save you both weight and cash.

Let's compare your maximum focal lengths with each set-up:

300 X 2 = 600 X 1.6 = 960.

500 X1.4 - 700 X 1.6 = 1120.

But you must remember that the size of the bird in the frame is determined by the square of the focal length, not the focal length itself.

96 squared is 9216.

112 squared is 12544.

If my math is correct, images made with the 7D/1.4X TC/500 f/4 would be 36% larger in the frame than birds photographed with the 7D/2X TC/300mm f/2.8. Remember that pre-focusing with the latter combo will always improve the speed of AF acquisition.

Let me know if you have any specific questions that you need answered. You are doing a good job of gathering facts but the final choice must be yours.

As for a 100-400, no need for that with a 70-200 in my opinion. Which version do you have?

Artie, I have the 70-200 f/4 L IS USM, I really like it! For the IQ, weight, size & price! I guess if I had the new 70-200 f/2.8 II then the 100-400 L would be redundant.....I could buy a 2X TC III and get 400 FL. As of now I have the 1.4 X TC III.

With the 7D and even the old 70-200 and a 1.4X TC I see no need at all for a 100-400....

And with only 7D bodies I would not see any great need for the 2X assuming that you get either the 300 f/2.8 or the 500 f/4....

You got a point there Artie! I intend to wait a few days, check out both the lenses in person when they arrive in India (the 300 2.8 II is available), handle both in the store and then decide. :-)
I posted a couple images in the 'Avian' and 'eager to learn' forums, do check, C & C pl.
Sanjeev