Canon 300mm f2.8L IS II plus stacked TCs - looking for input

[Barry Ekstrand]

I am currently shooting a Canon 5D Mark III camera and Canon 400mm f5.6L as my 'bird lens'. Since the firmware update, I have used this combo on occasion with the Canon EF 1.4X III teleconverter as well.

I am interested in the potential of the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS II lens with stacked EF 1.4X III and EF 2.0X III teleconverters together. In theory this is a 840mm f8 combination, which meets the 5D Mark III autofocus capabilities. However, I realize that theory and reality may be different so I am curious to hear from anyone who has tried to use both of the newer Canon TCs in stacked mode with the 300mm f2.8L II lens.

I have seen multiple reports lauding the image quality and autofocus response with this lens and either of the version III TCs on it. I'm hoping someone has tested out the stacked mode using both of the version III TCs with this lens and can report their findings.

Thanks in advance,

Barry

[Diane Miller]

It might AF, but IQ is another matter. I had tried stacking both TCs with the 300 "I" and the "II" TCs and the image quality was worse than just up-sizing the image with the 2X. I doubt anthing major has changed with the II lens and III TCs unless you are looking at corner sharpness.

[van bogaert erik]

I am currently shooting a Canon 5D Mark III camera and Canon 400mm f5.6L as my 'bird lens'. Since the firmware update, I have used this combo on occasion with the Canon EF 1.4X III teleconverter as well.

I am interested in the potential of the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS II lens with stacked EF 1.4X III and EF 2.0X III teleconverters together. In theory this is a 840mm f8 combination, which meets the 5D Mark III autofocus capabilities. However, I realize that theory and reality may be different so I am curious to hear from anyone who has tried to use both of the newer Canon TCs in stacked mode with the 300mm f2.8L II lens.

I have seen multiple reports lauding the image quality and autofocus response with this lens and either of the version III TCs on it. I'm hoping someone has tested out the stacked mode using both of the version III TCs with this lens and can report their findings.

Thanks in advance,

Barry

why not a canon 7D , with 1,6 crop and the 2x extender only ? instead of the 5d full frame.

[Barry Ekstrand]

why not a canon 7D , with 1,6 crop and the 2x extender only ? instead of the 5d full frame.

Because I already own the 5D Mark III.

Barry

[Barry Ekstrand]

It might AF, but IQ is another matter.....

Thanks Diane, no doubt that is the ultimatel determinant - assuming stacking results in AF that is realistically usable. I'm really curious if the AF of the stacked combination as described is viable or not, although my interest in the 300mm f2.8L II is not dependent on it working. If anyone has experience trying it with this combination I hope they will post the results.

Barry

[John Chardine]

Barry- unlike the version II teleconverters the version IIIs do not stack without an extension tube in between, therefore losing infinity focus. For me this is a deal breaker.

[Gary Kinard]

The 300 II is just barley up to my standards with a 1.4 t.c. never the less a 2.0x or stacking. If that route just spring for a 500 II. Not but a 1.5-2lb difference and the 500 is a birding lens. The 300 is not IMO. The 300 is a general wildlife lens. And the best in the world IMO.

On a side note. I used to go goose hunting in Katy as a young man.

[van bogaert erik]

The 300 II is just barley up to my standards with a 1.4 t.c. never the less a 2.0x or stacking. If that route just spring for a 500 II. Not but a 1.5-2lb difference and the 500 is a birding lens. The 300 is not IMO. The 300 is a general wildlife lens. And the best in the world IMO.

On a side note. I used to go goose hunting in Katy as a young man.

the 300mm II is a great lens for birding with the 2x on it , and you are mobile !!!!

[John Chardine]

The 300 II is just barley up to my standards with a 1.4 t.c. never the less a 2.0x or stacking. If that route just spring for a 500 II. Not but a 1.5-2lb difference and the 500 is a birding lens. The 300 is not IMO. The 300 is a general wildlife lens. And the best in the world IMO.

On a side note. I used to go goose hunting in Katy as a young man.

Wow Gary, I don't want to worry you but if you are not happy with the performance of the 300/2.8 II with the 1.4tc I would say you need to get the lens into Canon for service. I have the 500/2.8 II and I cannot see any appreciable degradation in IQ with the 1.4tc attached even wide open. BTW I've done the proper tests and pixel peeped the results in case you were wondering.

Anyway as mentioned in an earlier post the version III teleconverters do not stack without a tube in between so the whole discussion isn't going anywhere. FWIW plenty of people have stacked the version II TCs and got darn good results behind a good super-tele.

[Gary Kinard]

Wow Gary, I don't want to worry you but if you are not happy with the performance of the 300/2.8 II with the 1.4tc I would say you need to get the lens into Canon for service. I have the 500/2.8 II and I cannot see any appreciable degradation in IQ with the 1.4tc attached even wide open. BTW I've done the proper tests and pixel peeped the results in case you were wondering.

No sweat. If the 300 II is so good with T.C's why did you buy a 500 II ? Seem to me you already have more than enough with the 300 and 2.0 x.

[John Chardine]

No sweat. If the 300 II is so good with T.C's why did you buy a 500 II ? Seem to me you already have more than enough with the 300 and 2.0 x.

Of course there's an easy answer to that Gary. My 500 gives me 700 mm with the 1.4x and 1000 mm with the 2x, so reach is the answer. Having said that, I would love to be able to afford the 300/2.8 II for birds in flight, traveling etc. I've used two in the past year and both blew my socks off with the 1.4 and 2.0x TCs attached.

[Gary Kinard]

Ok, interesting. I looked at your site and you have lovely pics. But, I think you would change your mind after a few months with the 300 II.

Discussion is stacking T.C's. I love my 300, but it is not a birding lens. I can tell the difference in quality with and without T.C's without question. I find it mirrors the 500 II exactly. Optically speaking. 1.4 is ok? 2.0x sucks for me. Once I saw what the bare lens can do I just cannot post any with the 2.0x. As you said you cannot stack so that clears that up.
The 300 falls way short compared to the 500 for birding in every way! BIF, 500 just stripes the paint off the 300 + 1.4. No comparison. 300 + 1.4 is to short for birding. And the extra 80mm of the 500 without a T.C. just kills the 300.
So mine is for general wildlife. with and without a 1.4 T.C. Just brilliant and sharppppp.
Canon makes different size lenses for a purpose IMO. Mucking them up with t.c.'s and stacking or whatever is just ruining a good lens. IMO all 2.0x t.c's should be promptly done away with. But different strokes for different folks.
This is what I have found and the way I like to use the two lenses.


I keep a flickr site with full EXIF and size.
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
G

[Barry Ekstrand]

All,

Thanks very much for your posts. Obviously I learned that stacking isn't viable without an extension tube so the thought of a 2.8x magnification is not a realistic possibility. That is part of why I posted the question. But I also have been thinking about the 300mm f2.8L II with TCs as a possible next step for me as a birding lens. I really appreciate the discussion on it.

I've not used the 500mm II yet, but I did use a 600mm II for a weekend and found it to be difficult for me to handhold. Perhaps my technique would improve but it was a monster for me and I had on the tripod for pretty much the whole weekend. I believe it wasn't so much the weight but mainly the length that made it difficult (fulcrum effect).

I do enjoy handholding my little 400mm f5.6; I'd like to graduate to more reach with great IQ and still be able to handhold. Hmm... maybe what I really need to do is invest in a gym membership.....

Barry

[Kevin Harding]

Barry, whilst this post is not really relevant to this thread I thought I'd chime in since I now use a (Nikon) 300/2.8 VRII and TCs (TC14EII & TC20EIII) for my bird photography. IMHO the IQ is excellent with the x2 with very little loss of detail, with the x1.4 is like the bare lens alone. The big gains are price (if you can't afford the big teles - as I couldn't when I bought the 300 - then the rest of the conversation is irrelevant), weight, mobility and being able to shoot at f2.8 early mornings & evenings and when in dark forests. Of course the 400/500/600 IQ is better at 420/600 but I am still amazed at the detail the 300+x2TC renders. I'm selling my Sigma 500/4.5 and have put the 120-300 + TCs onto the bench.

[David Stephens]

... I have the 500/2.8 II and I cannot see any appreciable degradation in IQ with the 1.4tc attached even wide open. BTW I've done the proper tests and pixel peeped the results in case you were wondering.

.

I really want one. It must be a bear to hand hold. Could you show a picture of it in the wheelbarrow that you carry it in?

[John Chardine]

Nice catch. Wishful thinking I guess, or maybe not.