Used Canon 500mm F4 IS or new canon 300mm f2.8 IS II ?

[pauloanjo]

What do you think it is the best setup for mammal photography:

A canon 500mm f4 IS plus an 1.4x or a new canon 300mm f2.8 IS II plus an 1.4x and 2x III ?

This is to use with a crop camera like the 7D. My main objetive is mammals, but I ocasionaly do some birds.

The diference price between the two here in europe is not huge, so no problem for me.

The diference in weigh between the two is noteciable, and the advantage goes for the 300mm.

The versatility of the 300mm plus teleconvertores is very usefull.

I don't think about the 500mm plus an 2x III, because I don't plan to buy an 1D camera, and on the 7D you don't get autofocus.

the diference between an 500mm + 1.4x (700mm) and the new 300mm + 2x III (600mm) isn't huge, only 16% in favor of the 500mm combo.

So what are you opinions in terms of versatility and quality between the two combos?

best regards,

[Jim Neiger]

I'd get the 500mm, but given what your subjects are, its a close call. If you think you will be using the 2x on the 300mm alot, I would definetly get the 500mm. Have you considered the 400mm F2.8?

[RoyConley]

I have both a 300/2.8 and 500/4 and IMO the 300 is by far the more flexible lens. The 500 is more of a stalk from the car or setup at a designated spot and wait lens. With my 500 comes a Gitzo 55 series tripod and WH200 head. This setup is not one most people would take with them on a casual walk. The 300/2.8 is on an Upstrap heavy duty sling strap. I have loop end quick disconnects attached to the lens and with a full size body the lens sets nicely at the waist with the hood point slightly downward. With the lens foot on top, it is very easy to bring to eye level and shoot. Carry is easy with the 1.4 extender attached as well. If you are going to be stalking wildlife the 300 + 1.4 is the way to go.

[arash_hazeghi]

If you mainly shoot large mammals either can work but if you are interested in birds I strongly recommend a 500 f/4 IS. This was my primary lens before I got the 600II and I handheld it all the time.

For birds 300 and 400mm is way too short so you will end up using that 2XTC all the time which will make AF painfully slow and spotty in a non-pro body plus the IQ is not going to be as good as the prime lens.

[SteveYoung]

If you mainly shoot large mammals either can work but if you are interested in birds I strongly recommend a 500 f/4 IS. This was my primary lens before I got the 600II and I handheld it all the time.

For birds 300 and 400mm is way too short so you will end up using that 2XTC all the time which will make AF painfully slow and spotty in a non-pro body plus the IQ is not going to be as good as the prime lens.

I have to disagree that AF is slow on 300 2.8 + 2x tele. I use that setup along with a 7d and I haven't noticed a significant slowdown on AF. Image quality is very good as well, although I find I need to stop down to 6.3 or 7.1 with the 2x to compensate for the tele. I'm even able to stack my 1.4 and 2x teles and manual focus with decent results when I've got still subjects like snowy owls. Overall, I've found the 300 2.8 + teles to be a great set-up for wildlife/bird photography, at least for me. Not gonna lie, though. If I could trade my 300 straight across for a 500 f4, I'd do it ;)

One advantage I should mention that the 300 has over the 500 is close focus. It's come in handy shooting from a blind and shooting shorebirds.

[Corey Hayes]

I use the 500 f4 IS its my only lens and I carry it everywhere and I must admit it is a pain sometimes but then that all fades away when you get a nice picture. In your case I think the 300 would be ok for you as birds are not your main subject.

[nrohrbacker]

I have to agree with Arash that the 300/2.8 + 2x is painfully slow AF, at least with moving subjects ( this being on V1 of the 300 and VII of the tele). I also have the 500, which gets most of my use as I chase birds. I only use the 300 in very low light AND when I know I am not distance limited. The bigger question is, will you be stationary or on the move? If you are on the move, then the next question is can you carry the 500? If so, get the 500. I love carrying the 300, it's like a toy in comparison. Both will cut you they're so sharp. Good luck.

[Bonnie Block]

I am really enjoying my new 300/2.8 II + 2XIII combo. So much, I have sold the 500. I am getting older and carrying the 500 was becoming a chore and taking some of the enjoyment away of getting out in the field and birding. In my area, the birds are not close, so you do need to walk.
The new combo is great and versatile. IQ is great, if not better in my opinion, and the AF is not slow.

[arash_hazeghi]

I have to disagree that AF is slow on 300 2.8 + 2x tele. I use that setup along with a 7d and I haven't noticed a significant slowdown on AF. Image quality is very good as well, although I find I need to stop down to 6.3 or 7.1 with the 2x to compensate for the tele. I'm even able to stack my 1.4 and 2x teles and manual focus with decent results when I've got still subjects like snowy owls. Overall, I've found the 300 2.8 + teles to be a great set-up for wildlife/bird photography, at least for me. Not gonna lie, though. If I could trade my 300 straight across for a 500 f4, I'd do it ;)

One advantage I should mention that the 300 has over the 500 is close focus. It's come in handy shooting from a blind and shooting shorebirds.

I don't think we are talking about the same kind of subjects/images. The AF with a 2X TC is going to be VERY slow on a 7D and not very accurate, unless you shoot static subjects or slow/large birds against a sky BG. If you haven't noticed this is probably because you haven't tried shooting a demanding subject yet. Of course, you might have a different standard in what you accept as sharp too. When I say sharp, I mean sharp at pixel level (viewed at 100%) without additional post sharpening.

I do not recommend this combo for serious avian photography unless you want to make record shots or a static setup, or IQ is not your primary concern.

[van bogaert erik]

I don't think we are talking about the same kind of subjects/images. The AF with a 2X TC is going to be VERY slow on a 7D and not very accurate, unless you shoot static subjects or slow/large birds against a sky BG. If you haven't noticed this is probably because you haven't tried shooting a demanding subject yet. Of course, you might have a different standard in what you accept as sharp too. When I say sharp, I mean sharp at pixel level (viewed at 100%) without additional post sharpening.

I do not recommend this combo for serious avian photography unless you want to make record shots or a static setup, or IQ is not your primary concern.

i have the 300 f2,8 with the 2x and a 1d mark 4, i am first a birdwatcher and then a photographer, so record shots are very important to me and i find them good .

My believe is when you are mainly are a photographer who shoot birds and want everthing "very" sharp and the perfect layout you cannot totally 100% concentrate on identifying birds witch is my main hobby.

And the 7d (or 1d ) 2x and 300mm f2,8 is a good combo to walk around with.

[arash_hazeghi]

i have the 300 f2,8 with the 2x and a 1d mark 4, i am first a birdwatcher and then a photographer, so record shots are very important to me and i find them good .

My believe is when you are mainly are a photographer who shoot birds and want everthing "very" sharp and the perfect layout you cannot totally 100% concentrate on identifying birds witch is my main hobby.

And the 7d (or 1d ) 2x and 300mm f2,8 is a good combo to walk around with.

Yes, bird watching and avian photography are two different things. The primary focus of this website avain photography and the comments/recommendations are geared towards that, to help people make better photographs.

There are other sites that focus on bird watching.

I also use 2X III with my 600II on my now 1DX (and I also had good results with the 1D4 see my review http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...i-and-600-f4ii ) but I only use it if I have to, it is not a primary tool in my toolbox. On a 7D it is not usable for "avian quality" flight photography IMO.

Between a prime 500 and a 300 plus TC I strongly recommend 500, unless you are physically incapable of carrying a 500. Of course in that case you have no choice but the 300 or saving money for a 500 II.

[Roger Clark]

Attached is a Pygmy falcon photographed in the central Serengeti. Canon 1D Mark IV, 300 f/2.8 IS +2x TC at f/5.6 1/4000 sec at ISO 400 hand held. This is about 75% of the original image. These brids move VERY fast. I find the 300 f/2.8 version I very good. The 300 f/2.8 is Canon's fastest AF telephoto, the one they use for spec'ing AF speed on their cameras. AF speed drops with added TCs in general because of the narrowing cone of the slower f/ratio. So, which is faster: the 300 f/2.8 + 2x (at f/5.6) versus the slower AF of the 500 f/4 + 1.4x (thus also at f/5.6)? I would say they are pretty close. I also have the 500 f/4 and actively use both. I'll do a separate post on my preference. The pygmy falcon was posted to BPN avian on Jan 4 of 2012.

Roger.

[arash_hazeghi]

Aperture is only one factor in AF speed, there are many other factors. The 300 with 2X is not as fast and as accurate as 500 + 1.4X IMO, it is not even as fast as the 400 f/5.6 for that matter. The 1D cameras, especially the new 1DX narrow this gap more than before and there are a few tricks to overcome the slow drive. But consumer cameras are a different story. It will be very tough with those bodies.

Of course it is possible to capture a fast flying bird even with it a 2X TC on a digital Rebel camera, but it is not very probable or productive. It is much easier when bird flies against a sky BG and when it is flying across the frame. In this case, the speed of the bird doesn't matter much because it is compensated by panning as long as the photographer is fast enough to pan the rig centered on the bird.

here is an example of 2XTC on 600II, 1200mm handheld with 1D4. Can it work : yes. Is it a primary choice : no. It's not the best tool for the job IMO.



1D4 1200mm (600 II + 2X TC III) f/8 1/2500sec ISO 1600 handheld.

anyways, the end result matters. If you can produce dynamic flight images against varied BGs with a 2X TC consistently for many frames not just a few, then it's perfect. I can't do it.

[Roger Clark]

Paulo,

As I stated in my other post, I own and use both the 500 f/4 L IS and 300 f/2.8 L IS, both version 1. Both are great lenses. Of course the 500 is great for the reach, but it is massive. Depending on your body, age and steadiness abilities, hand holding the 500 may be difficult. I am approaching 60, and in reasonable shape. I just returned from Florida and my backpack with the 500 f/4, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 28-123 IS, 1DIV and 7D, plus backup batteries, cards, binoculars, etc weighed 32 pounds. Not including flash, flash brackets, nor tripod or head. I did several multi-mile beach hikes (with no tripod). I do not like to hand hold the 500, even for flight. I prefer the lens on a tripod with gimbal head. I have many flight images with the 500 on a gitzo and wimberly head. I find it smooth and easy to track. I do not use calls or bait. I bought the 300 after I had owned the 500 for many years.

But more and more, my lens of choice is the 300 f/2.8. Note, the 500 f/4 and bodies like the 1D Mark III (which many still use) give the pixels on subject and signal-to-noise per pixel pretty much equal to what the 7D delivers today with a 300 f/2.8 lens.

My last couple of trips to the Serengeti, I took the 1DIV + 7D, 300 f/2.8 and shorter lenses. I have gotten more small birds in flight with the 300 than I could with the 500. For me the 500 was too massive and I sometimes could not move it fast enough. The 300 is so much lighter, I can track rapid movements quickly. Of course it is nice to get a little closer (remember, equal to 500 + 1DIII pixel quality at the same distance). If I lost both these lenses and were starting over, I would choose the 300 f/2.8 (1 or 2). For mammals and places like the Serengeti, I have rarely wanted more reach. I use the 1D4 mostly, sometimes with 1.4x, rarely with 2x, then if I really need even more reach, use the 7D+300+2x.

Here is an example: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ller-in-Flight
A lilac breasted roller in flight. Very fast birds. I tried many times with the 500 and did not get good flight images. I finally did with the 300 f/2.8 (of course the 1DIV was important too). No TC used.

My future trips to the Serengeti will be with 300 f/2.8, and probably my next Florida trip too. The 300 is also much smaller, so bulk is less of an issue and the weight savings helps for those weight-restricted flights.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Here is another reason I like the 300 f/2.8 for flight. I was imaging another subject with the 1DIV + 300 f/2.8. I saw a ground hornbill flying through the trees. I quickly swung the 300 onto the dark bird flying through brighter trees. This is one of the toughest situations in photography: a dark moving subject with brighter foreground and background in close focus distance as the subject. Attached is the image made with the 300 f/2.8 (no TCs this time). Tack sharp eyes. I could not have gotten this image with my 500 because it is too massive for me to move as fast as I can move the 300. Further, because I can move the lens faster, I can keep AF points on the subject better, thus track better, especially in situations like this. Perhaps Arash can track subjects this well with his 500 and now 600 in such an environment, but I can't (I have tried with my 500 and find I am consistently better with my 300). You'll have to decide for yourself which works best for you.

Roger

[Gary Kinard]

I have the 300 also and use it rarely. Not because I don't like it, but AF with the 7D is just awful. I have been a hold out for a long time with the 7D. But I have to get something that will help the AF on the 300. I am 60 now and I need the light weight of the 300. I may have to break down and buy a 1D series body. I reach for the 500 now, and have almost stopped shouting with the 300.

[Roger Clark]

I did an AF test with my 500 and 300 version 1 lenses. The test was alternately focus
on a subject at a distance of 5 meters then to ~100 meters. I use a web cam attached to the
viewfinder to analyze results. I did the 7D and 1D4 but only report the 1D4 here as
for some unknown reason, the 7D videos stopped part way into the testing. I ran
the test multiple times to be sure of consistency. I'll have to redo the 7D test.

The results show that the 300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC is faster on a 1D4 than
a 500 with no TCs on the same 1D4. These results probably explain
why I have had much better success photographing small fast birds using
the 300 than the 500 (besides the 300 being lighter).

My qualitative view of the 7D+300 results during the test is that it is about half to 2/3 the speed
of the 1D4 on the same lens. With the 2x TC, it did have a tendency to hunt
more on AF from close to far, but nailed the far to close.

Error bars on the numbers below are about +/- 0.05 seconds.

Roger

  Camera  lens   TC  f/ratio   100 to 5   5 to 100  

------------------------------------------------

                              seconds     seconds 

1DIV    500    -     4         0.47       0.61  

1DIV    500    1.4   5.6       0.57       0.60  

1DIV    500    2     8         1.10       0.65 

1DIV    300    -     2.8       0.20       0.20  

1DIV    300    1.4   4         0.40       0.43  

1DIV    300    2     5.6       0.45       0.45  

[Jim Neiger]

Roger,

What were the focus limiting switch settings for the lenses during your test? Since you mentioned mimimum focus distance in your tests, I'm assuming it was set to the full range for each test. No offense intended, but it seems to me that the tests have no real relevance to actual use of these lenses for photographing birds in the field. First of all AF speed is only a major factor when photographing moving subjects. It is a far less important factor for still subjects. In practice, it would be rare for an experienced photographer to use the full focus range setting for flying birds. Limiting the range, as is normally done in practice, can have a huge, positive effect on AF speed. Secondly, it is very uncommon to photograph flying birds that are at a distance of 100 meters using either of the lenses. The size of the bird in the frame would be so small as to be unusable for most applications. Third, as someone who has owned and used extensively all of the lens-tc combinations in your test, I can tell you that when you use these lens-tc combinations in the field to photograh flying birds, the bare 500mm is much, much faster focusing than the 300mm + 2xTC. The conclusions implied by your test are completely misleading, IMO.

[Roger Clark]

Roger,

What were the focus limiting switch settings for the lenses during your test? Since you mentioned mimimum focus distance in your tests, I'm assuming it was set to the full range for each test.

Jim,
The limit switches were set to the full range. The close focus was not the minimum focus distance of the lenses, it was just a close point.

No offense intended, but it seems to me that the tests have no real relevance to actual use of these lenses for photographing birds in the field. First of all AF speed is only a major factor when photographing moving subjects.

The AF speed is a factor for acquisition as well as tracking. Unless one is pre-focused on the subject distance, then acquisition speed is of critical importance. Take, for example, birds coming in for a landing at Bosque. A bunch of birds are coming in: the photographer chooses a subject, tracks it in and as soon as it has landed, choose the next distant subject, acquire it and repeat. My test simulates that acquisition. Tracking is generally a slower rate than acquisition speeds unless the subject is very close.

The AF system will have a certain limiting rate due to the lens and the camera driving it. The test shows that. A large range was used to get the best numbers. Of course a with narrower range, the times will be proportionally shorter.

It is a far less important factor for still subjects. In practice, it would be rare for an experienced photographer to use the full focus range setting for flying birds. Limiting the range, as is normally done in practice, can have a huge, positive effect on AF speed. Secondly, it is very uncommon to photograph flying birds that are at a distance of 100 meters using either of the lenses.

Again, one does not need to limit the range to measure the rate the camera can drive the lens. The rate will be proportional to the focal distance change.

The size of the bird in the frame would be so small as to be unusable for most applications. Third, as someone who has owned and used extensively all of the lens-tc combinations in your test, I can tell you that when you use these lens-tc combinations in the field to photograh flying birds, the bare 500mm is much, much faster focusing than the 300mm + 2xTC. The conclusions implied by your test are completely misleading in regards to the OPs question, IMO.

My experience is different and current. Like I said in my post. I'm having greater success with small fast birds with the 300, including with TC than I ever do with the 500. I alternate using both lenses currently, so test them side by side, week to week. I am using the 2x TCIII. Canon specs their AF speeds using the 300 f/2.8 because it is so fast, and it is f/2.8. My results simply confirm why Canon uses the 300 in their tests. AF is also more accurate with f/2.8 than it is when slower.

Roger

[Jim Neiger]

Roger,

Are you saying that you prefer the 300+2x over the bare 500mm for photographing BIF?

Are you saying that your most common setting for photographing BIF is full focus range?

Are you saying that it is common when you are photographing BIF in the field for your focus distance to vary by long distances like 95 meters during initial aquisition?

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree with Jim, if your 500 focuses slower a 300 + 2X you have to return it to Canon because it's broken, or the test is invalid. I don't how you "attach" a webcam to the 1D4 finder and then determine focus speed with 0.05 sec precision...how do you even know if the camera has locked focus in AI-servo mode from the webcam video, let alone measure it with 50msec accuracy...not sure if these number are meaningful. Please upload one of those webcam videos and maybe we can see what is going on...


I don't think you will find an experienced photographer on this site (and perhaps in the entire world) that can confirm a naked 500 would focus slower than a 300 + 2X TC. If you know such person, I would like to invite them for a shoot and see how this is possible :) Maybe I have been naive in all of these years I have been photographing birds in flight.

FYI, there is no published document from Canon that indicates 300 has the fastest AF, if you have such document please post it. Canon never spec their AF speed in terms of locking delay either, if there is such document please post too. I have never seen one.

[Sidharth Kodikal]

I own the 500 f4 I and the 300 f2.8 I.
First off, I should say that I've never photographed mammals, so I couldn't tell you which one is better suited for photographing mammals.
For birds, without any doubts whatsoever, I would recommend the 500mm.

But you asked in particular about the versatility:
I bought the 300 before I bought the 500. The reason was my presumption that the 300 is very portable and the 500 is not.
The thing that led me to believe this was that majority of the photographers I've seen using 500mm+ lenses, typically carry tripods around. This is not something I looked forward to doing.
I could carry around a 300mm all day without any issues.
Guess what, I got the 500mm, and have never used a tripod unless I'm sitting in a hide (which is rare)
And I find it just as portable and can carry it around all day. Of course, that's not to say that everybody has the same experience.

Secondly, since I got the 500mm, I've used the 300mm may be twice.
I have never found the 300 with a 2x to be faster than a 500 with a 1.4x in the field. I must admit I haven't done any controlled testing, but it would be hard to convince me otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, the 300mm is a stellar lens and you will like it if you do get it.
For me, the 500mm is the winner for what I usually photograph.
You could probably rent both and see what works best for you before deciding.
Good luck with your choice.

[arash_hazeghi]

Good comments Sidharth,

I remember when we first met a few years ago in Palo Alto Baylands, I saw you had difficulty getting flight shots with the 300 and 2X, that's why I recommended you switch to the 500 and it's great to see you have excelled so much and keep coming up with excellent flight shots after getting the right flight lens! Keep up the good work and hope to see you again soon!

[Arthur Morris]

A few thoughts. No tests. I own the 500 II (have not used that much) and the 300 II and both series III TCs. I would not recommend using either 300 with the 7D and any 2X TC. I made tons of images in South Georgia with the 300 II, the 2X III, and the 1D X that were sharp enough for me. I am 66 and find the 300 much easier to hand hold than the 500, all with the 1D X.

As far as versatility with a 7D, yes, the 300 is more versatile then the 500, three focal lengths vs two focal lengths.

Roger, I am with Arash: if your 300/2X focuses faster than the 500 alone either your 500 is in need of repair or your tests are seriously flawed.

Lastly, here is my recommendation for pauloango: purchase the 500II and a 1D X.

[Doug Brown]

I'm going to have to take exception with a number of your comments Roger. A bare 500mm has much faster AF than a 300mm paired with a 2x. Period. If your test shows otherwise, your test design is faulty. I don't know of a single good BIF photographer who would choose a 300mm + 2x over a 500mm +/- 1.4x. I think you are introducing a great deal of unnecessary confusion into answering a fairly straightforward question.

Your Bosque analogy that you used in your decision to go with full focus during your test is flawed. Birds do not get that close to you at the Bosque. I set my limiter at far focus and forget it. I've never once wished that I'd chosen the full AF range at the Bosque because I missed a shot.

You've got to be very careful when you use pseudo science to disprove a couple of well-known facts about lens selection and focus limiter settings for BIF. When it comes to BIF, I listen to the people who consistently produce excellent flight frames. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Roger Clark]

Roger,

Are you saying that you prefer the 300+2x over the bare 500mm for photographing BIF?

Both the 300 and 500 are excellent lenses, and are simply tools in the toolbox. Sometimes the 300 is the best tool, sometimes the 500 is the best tool. If I had 600 and 800 lenses, I'm sure I would find situations where they are the best tool. However, having said that, as I've used the 300 more, I find it very versatile, and extremely fast with AF. I have photographed fast birds with the 300+2x. Most of the time I do not use the 2x, but do not hesitate, even on fast bird BIF when the need arises.

Are you saying that your most common setting for photographing BIF is full focus range?

No I do not say that. But I often find myself cloe enough and subjects are coming close enough that I need the range. Focus limiting is only neded if one slips off the subject and the lens hunts the full range.

Are you saying that it is common when you are photographing BIF in the field for your focus distance to vary by long distances like 95 meters during initial acquisition?

In some situations yes, though not a single subject. For example, at Bosque, I might choose a distant silhouette of cranes against the sunset sky, then turn around and get cranes flying close with nice sunset light on them. In Africa, I may be doing a close bird, followed by an unfolding scenic with distant large animals. The key is flexibility and be ready for any condition.

You seem to object to the far endpoint. What two (close to far) range would you like tom see tested?

Roger

[Roger Clark]

I stand by my results. It is also my experience of using both lenses (500 and 300) in the field, that both are excellent lenses. I have photographed fast BIF with both lenses (including the 300+2x). I bought the 300 after the 500 for its portability. I continually to be impressed by its speed. I suggest that the invalid comparisons are all those that are NOT done side by side, week after week. For those who have both lenses, take them both out and give them a fair side by side test. I have done that and stand by my results. The numerical results tell what I observe in use with BIF and other moving subjects. And my 500 is a great performer, nothing wrong with it.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Another thing. We often hear that it is the photographer that makes the image, not the equipment. I contributed to this thread because the original poster asked a specific question about 2 lenses. In my opinion, 300 is a viable alternative, impressively fast, and a good photographer can make great images with it, just like they could with the 500. I'm disturbed that the message coming out of this thread seems to be otherwise.

Roger

[Jim Neiger]

Roger,

The 300mm F2.8 is a very fast very sharp lens, but when you put a 2x on it, it just doesn't compare to the straight 500mm. To say that it does is misleading.

[Gary Kinard]

I have both and take them out daily. I can tell you now on a 7D the 500 II chews up and spits out the 300 II with a 1.4 T.C.
I will try and get a 1D mark IV and test it. I sure hope it is better. Not only that the new 500 image quality at F4.0 is so much better than the 300 it is kinda a joke IMO. 420 vs. 500 both at F4.0 is a big difference for me in the field. I do not even have a 2.0x and never intend on getting one. It is a joke on my 7D anyway.
It will be great if a 1D mark IV solves the problems with the 300 II. I hope it fixed the AF problems with the 300mm lens. I will be happy.
I am counting on it now with Rogers comments.

[Arthur Morris]

I have both and take them out daily. I can tell you now on a 7D the 500 II chews up and spits out the 300 II with a 1.4 T.C. I will try and get a 1D mark IV and test it. I sure hope it is better. Not only that the new 500 image quality at F4.0 is so much better than the 300 it is kinda a joke IMO. 420 vs. 500 both at F4.0 is a big difference for me in the field. I do not even have a 2.0x and never intend on getting one. It is a joke on my 7D anyway. It will be great if a 1D mark IV solves the problems with the 300 II. I hope it fixed the AF problems with the 300mm lens. I will be happy. I am counting on it now with Rogers comments.

Though I have never used a 7D on a 300II I would expect that AF, performance, and sharpness would all be superb as the technology is identical. What sort of "problems" are you having with the 7d/1.4X/300 II kit?

[Gary Kinard]

The Af is so bad with a T.C. it is almost usless. BIF is a joke period, and when the light gets a little low. The 300 with a 1.4 T.C. is hit or miss. Miss 10 hit one. I can couple the 500 up to the same body and all problems go away. I was in a blind and had both lenses sitting beside me. And went between the two. The new 300 was just horrible The new 500 hit almost every shot. With and without T.C.
What do you think? At first I thought a bad 7D. But the 500 is perfect. I have had the new 300 in the shop at Canon for focus issues and they say all is ok?
Right now I can really not recommend the 300 II at all?
I am using the old 1.4 T.C ll not the new one. But it is spot on with the new 500?

I process daily and when the 300 hits it is ok, but the new 500 is just so much better. What do you think of the quality of the pics between the two?
Is your 300 with a t.c. as good as your 500 II, In sharpness and image quality?
What is your experience using the two? And how do you compare the two?

[Arthur Morris]

I would say that there is obviously something wrong with your 300 II. Mine is killer sharp with fast, accurate AF. Take some photos of a moving car and bring them to Canon....

[Gary Kinard]

Yea, I am headed back next week. I have made up my mind for that much money I should be able to AF.
I can see the potential there. It just has got some small problem I hope.
On a side note. I have read a couple of reviews of the lens with a 7D. And they say the same thing. One said all problems went away with the mark 1V?
That is why I was interested in Rodgers remark. A little frustrating for me and stressfull.
G

[James Shadle]

Here are the MTF charts (from Canon) for the 500mm F4 II and the 300mm F2.8 II with TC2X III attached.
You be the judge.

[James Shadle]

From my experience I find (in this case Nikon) that the 500 mm F4 focuses faster than the 300 mm F2.8 with a TC 2X.
However, I can't agree with folks who say "The Af is so bad with a T.C. it is almost useless" about the 300 with a 2X. I find the 300 2.8 with a 2X reasonably fast.

I would like to see test results with the AF range from 15 meters to 50 meters.

On another note, I never have my limiter switch set to full unless it's for a specific purpose.
One of the easiest ways to improve your BIF photography the to use your limiter switch.

[Roger Clark]

Here are the MTF charts (from Canon) for the 500mm F4 II and the 300mm F2.8 II with TC2X III attached. You be the judge.

But the 300+2x is at 600 mm versus 500 mm. Thus the 300+2x has a 20% more reach. Does that compensate for slightly lower MTF of the 300+2x? It certainly makes it close.
Attached are some comparison images between the 500 and 300 with TCs, including stacked 1.4+2x (version II) TCs. The full resolution image can be found at Figure 3 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

Roger

[Bonnie Block]

BIF
5DMKIII 300/2.8 II + 2XIII TC

[arash_hazeghi]

hey Bonnie, these are good BIF from aesthetic point of view, but the IQ/details are quite lacking as posted. Perhaps due to large crops? The impact would have been much stronger if the IQ was better IMO

[Bonnie Block]

Arash, Thanks!
Here is my feeling on this whole setup. Yes, these are quite substantial crops. I am pleased with the IQ on the first one—the bird was quite far—and this is as good an image as I have got of these birds—even after using the MKIV and 500/4. The double owls is action that I have never even begun to come close to with any of my other equipment. Fast, furious and extremely erratic—dashing from bg to sky. The MKIV and the 500/4 left me with just blobs before. I have to say that the AF of the 5DMKIII is what allowed me to even capture the action at all. The 300/2.8 II and the 2XIII did a great job sticking with me trying to get a bead on them—and anyone that says it can’t focus…….
I am pleased with the set up—for most applications it is satisfying me. I have tried to lighten up my gear as I am tired of lugging the big guns around—

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Bonnie,

If you want my honest opinion, the IQ is working against you in both images The first one is sharp but it lacks critical details because it was huge crop (i.e. too short focal length), The 2nd is too soft IMO even for internet presentation.

So if your goal was to promote the 300 + 2X as a good combo for flight these images actually work against that argument.

I disagree that 1D4 with 500 would give you blobs, how may hundreds of flight images do you think I have posted with the 1D4 and 500, I wouldn't call them blobs.

I agree, in the 2nd image, interaction is very fast, but it is against a sky BG, with the right technique it is not very challenging IMO to lock AF as there is no BG for the AF to lock. If you had a longer lens the IQ would have been a lot better. If you had problems locking on birds with a 1D4 and 500 for an image like that, I assure you it was your technique, not the gear It is always easier to blame the gear.


This is what I would personally call challenging. Burrowing owl diving at close range against bushes, 1D4 500 f/4 + TC 1.4 handheld.



It is not easy to handhold a 500 or a 600 and develop the acquisition skills needed to get challenging flight images, it is not point and shoot. But if you develop the skills the output is outstanding. It is requires lots of practice and consideration. Many people just give it up after a few times.

I hope you don't take this personally, but I don't think a 300 + 2X is a good choice for flight, and I say that not from a few shots here and there, I have been doing this for 7 years and I strive to produce the highest quality flight images possible. Any ways, I wish you can get closer next time and get the shot you like with better IQ.

I just want our readers to get the best advice here, and I think I have contributed as best as I could at this point.

[Roger Clark]

The original poster asked a specific question about a USED 500 version 1 or a new 300 f/2.8 version II on a 7D. The recommendations saying buy a 500 or 600 and 1DX in this thread are off topic. If you want to start a new thread saying what is the current top of the top gear for BIF, then please do.

Bonnie's image posted, if a large crop, would be little different from a 600 f/4 + 1DX, as it too would be a large crop. Of course getting closer would be better, but that is true in both cases.

Regardless of technique, just because some photographers want to spend $20,000 and hand hold the large heavy rig, does not mean everyone else has the resources to buy the top gear that comes out this month, nor whether they would want to, nor whether they have the ability to hand hold it (regardless of technique). This site should be about promoting photography, with whatever resources and abilities one has, not about that one must have the top of the top gear. Regardless of gear, the photographer makes the image.

Back to the original posters question of a used 500 or new 300 version 2: Both are great lenses and can produce superb images. The 300 with no TCs is definitely faster than the bare 500, and Canon cameras have special AF sensors for f/2.8 and faster lenses giving more precise AF at f/2.8. With TCs I find the 300+TC superb for me at BIF as it is lighter. Because I do a lot more than just BIF, I find the 300 f/2.8 more flexible and of the choices posed by the OP, I would choose the 300.

Regarding the AF speed of the 300 +2x versus 500, I will post video clips showing the speed as soon as it warms up and I have time (it is below zero F here and the laptop + video cam stops working in the cold).

Roger

[Marina Scarr]

The question posed was "which set up is best for mammal photograpy." If your use if for mainly mammals, I would personally choose the 300 2.8 in a heartbeat. It is extremely sharp with or without the teleconverters. It's light weight. If you are thinking about using it regularly for birds in flight, I would go for the 500 version 1, hands down. I guess you need to consider where you will be photographing most of your mammals and their accessibility/distance.

[arash_hazeghi]

No one is talking about 600 or 1DX, the discussion is about 500 vs. 300II which is on topic. The 7D only makes the AF with the 2X worse in this case, which is another reason against the 2X.

A new 300 II actually costs more than a used 500 f/4, another reason why I would not recommend the new 300 as a primary BIF lens.

Of course, it is not spending money that makes you a good photographer but your technique, and because this site is about promoting avian photography, it is essential to avoid comments that would mislead our readers about AF speed etc.

[arash_hazeghi]

The question posed was "which set up is best for mammal photograpy." If your use if for mainly mammals, I would personally choose the 300 2.8 in a heartbeat. It is extremely sharp with or without the teleconverters. It's light weight. If you are thinking about using it regularly for birds in flight, I would go for the 500 version 1, hands down. I guess you need to consider where you will be photographing most of your mammals and their accessibility/distance.

I agree with your Marina, for mammals 300 is a great choice. I should mention that, thanks for bringing it up.

[Gary Kinard]

I think I found my reason for the extremely poor AF on my 300 II with a 7D.
This is a very interesting article, I think everyone should read. Actually I am surprised it is not posted some where here.
Actually now I am not sure if the Mark IV is a good buy for me. But about twice as good as the 7D. Which is exactly what Rodger stated. Hummmm
Really even when the AF hits with the new 300 II it is still not in the same league as the 500mm lens what so ever. For BIF just skip the 300 is my opinion.

To the Original poster:
After reading this it is pretty simple. If you go with the 300 II for mammels and occasional birds with t.c.'s ditch the 7D and buy a 5D III or 1DX. Which takes advantage of the new AF technology. You should be fine IMO with the 300 II.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012...eras#more-8458

[Stan Cunningham]

As a person who shoots mammals (big game) in NA a lot I would still go with the 500 F4. Or the 70 - 200 with either of the NEW teleconverters. It really depends on how close you can get and what type of photo you want, portraits will be tough with the 300. I've carried my 500 F4 on the tripod for miles in early morning as you can't hand hold just before sunrise. Its worth it to me to get the quality of image I want. If you are travelling to Africa then the 300 might make more sense but I much less experienced than the guys on this site that live there.
If you are really into IQ (the type Arash talks about) you may want to do what I just did, but a used 1 D Mark IV and use the 7D as a back up. Don't want to start another flame war here and maybe it is my technique, but then why do my 5D Mark III and ID Mark IV images look so much better at 100% than the 7D. Plus, shooting mammals usually means early morning and the high ISO capabilities of these 2 bodies blow the 7D out of the water. Just my experience.

[van bogaert erik]

Hi Bonnie,

If you want my honest opinion, the IQ is working against you in both images The first one is sharp but it lacks critical details because it was huge crop (i.e. too short focal length), The 2nd is too soft IMO even for internet presentation.

So if your goal was to promote the 300 + 2X as a good combo for flight these images actually work against that argument.

I disagree that 1D4 with 500 would give you blobs, how may hundreds of flight images do you think I have posted with the 1D4 and 500, I wouldn't call them blobs.

I agree, in the 2nd image, interaction is very fast, but it is against a sky BG, with the right technique it is not very challenging IMO to lock AF as there is no BG for the AF to lock. If you had a longer lens the IQ would have been a lot better. If you had problems locking on birds with a 1D4 and 500 for an image like that, I assure you it was your technique, not the gear It is always easier to blame the gear.

i find bonnie"s pictures very good, and the 300mm with 2x is a perfect companion for walk around and to shoot birds .

[James Shadle]

But the 300+2x is at 600 mm versus 500 mm. Thus the 300+2x has a 20% more reach. Does that compensate for slightly lower MTF of the 300+2x? It certainly makes it close.
Attached are some comparison images between the 500 and 300 with TCs, including stacked 1.4+2x (version II) TCs. The full resolution image can be found at Figure 3 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

Roger

This surprised me, it looks like the 500mm with a 1.4 and it's 100mm longer reach is sharper than the 300mm with a 2x.

[Roger Clark]

This surprised me, it looks like the 500mm with a 1.4 and it's 100mm longer reach is sharper than the 300mm with a 2x.

OK, let's look at the details. First, the main lines to look at are the thin gray solid and dashed lines. Those are the lines wide open and for the finest detail on the plot (30 line pairs per mm, which is the detail spread over 7.75 pixels; they really need to add another pair of lines for yet finer detail). The solid and dashed lines are for detail radial to and perpendicular detail from the center of the image (the lens axis).

In the center, the dotted and dashed lines come together and 500 is at at 90% MTF, the 300+2x at 87%. That is so close, one could not tell the difference in most images. Lets go out to 15 on the horixontal axis, that is 15 mm from the center of the image (15 mm is beyond the edge of the frame in a 1DIV and beyond the corner in a 7D 1.6x crop body). There the MTF of the 500 is 87 and 83 and the 300+2x is 87 and 80, so just a bit worse on average. But this looks only at the focal plane. The real concern is what about the actual image of the subject?

The 500 on a 7d gives 1.77 arc-seconds per pixel while the 300+2x on the 7D gives 1.48 arc-seconds per pixel, or 20% more pixels on subject. The same two lenes on the 1DIV would give 2.35 and 1.96 arc-seconds/pixel, again 20% more pixels on subject with the 300+2x over the 500. So does the 20% more pixels on subject give more actual detail on the subject for a 3% reduction in MTF? I would say absolutely. And I think the images I posted of the Moon prove the point: the 300 2x and stacked 2x+1,4x (both version 1) produces excellent images. The Moon is a tough target because the high contrast sharp edges reveal lens imperfections, and in other areas of the Moon, away from the edges in the lunar image, the color and contrast is very very subtle so tests a huge range of conditions.

Roger