That's the quiestion I have, what should I save money for? A 500mm 5.6 plus and TC 1.4 or a 300mm 2.8 plus an 2X teleconverter?
I use to work with hide, feeders and all but I also go out in the field and walk a LOT. I could get a 300mm f/4 to walk aorround but my quiestion here is about image quality/wieght/price
For wich of these two convinations should I save for?? Thanks for your help! I apreciate it!
I went the 500/4 plus 1.4x TC route. The 300/2.8 is great but the idea of using a 2x TC almost all the time didn't seem to appealing and the extra 100mm can make a difference. I also have a 300/4 but hardly ever use it anymore.
I have to agree with Azel. I got my Nikon 500 f4 in March of this year and boy would not leave home without it. I just wished I had funded it sooner. And previous to that I was using a 300 2.8 plus TC's. That was ok, but nothing like the mighty 500!!
Are you referring to the 500 f/4? If so I would highly recommend the 500 over the 300 with a 2x. Image quality and AF speed will be much better with the 500 than with the 300 + 2x. Also the ability to reach 700mm with a 1.4x is much more desirable than 600mm with a 2x.
While I agree with what others have said (I have 500 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8 L IS, and 300 f/4 L IS), your statement about walking a lot could be a game changer. Could you rent a 500 for a week and try it out? I feel I must take a tripod with the 500, whereas with either 300's I'm comfortable taking without a tripod. The 500 is heavy, and tripod plus (at least) sidekick add even more weight. If the extra weight slows you down or prevents you from getting to where you want to walk, then maybe the lighter lens would be a better choice.
That, Roger, is exactly my doubt, the image quiality difference is really THAT big between one option and the other? As I walk, climb, walk on water and etc to get my images I have my doubts about getting a 500mm f4 as that lens HAS to be used on a tripod and with a good and big tripod head, all items that add not only weight but also price, and if I get the 300mm 2.8 + a TC2X I alrady have a good support for it.
Well, I apreciate your help, I still havce a lot of time to think and re-think, so if anybody has an opinion or maybe even a better different option, I am all ears! Thanks!
Ramón
When I have the 500, I often use it with a 1.4x or 2x TC. I really haven't compared the 300 and 500 side by side as I've only carried one or the other. I'll have them together later this month and will try to remember to do a comparison of image quality. But it often seems one never has enough reach, so regardless of the lens, one always seems to have a need to add TCs. ;-)
What is your primary target... birds, mammals, and what species? Quality is very similar between 500 w/1.4x vs 300 w/ 2x, as the 300 has higher resolving pwr initially.
Chas
Last edited by Charles Glatzer; 01-01-2009 at 10:48 PM.
Ramon,
I have the 300/2.8 2X TC combo.
While I would dearly love to have a 500/4, I cannot have both and the 300/2.08 is so useful to me for other applications I cannot bear to part with it.
I can pack the 300/2.8 on long walks and handhold it with ease. I did find the 500/4 that I borrowed for a time substantially heavier for handholding and walking. That really surprised me.
I am a woman in my mid 50's--but no whimp--(I am a meatcutter by trade :))and I have a lot of upper body strength.
The 300/2.8 + TC combo focuses fast and is sharp enough for me at this time. I don't think I have missed too much by not having the 500.--But I will get it someday!!
Ramon,
Most of my photos are taken as I'm out hiking. I tried a 500/4 for awhile, and while its a great lens, I found the enjoyment it took away from my hiking not worth the IQ difference over my 1-400L. Some factors to consider. Weight, length, required support (and its additional weight & size), storage/carrying case, and other hiking supplies (water, food, emergency). If carried in a pack, it's easier to travel with but prevents quick shooting. If I carried it in a ready to shoot position, I found myself more concerned about banging and scratching it than keeping my eyes opened for subjects to photograph. If you have a set destination, with a known to be available subject, then walking/packing in to the destination isn't too bad. If you're going to just go out and wander around and shoot things as they become available, go for the lighter, shorter lens with the 2xTC. Just another opinion.
My humble opinion. I had the option of the 300f2.8 and the 500f4 and I agonized over which one for almost 6 months (pricey lenses both). It all came down to versatility with me being on the move in the field most of the time with lens carried at the ready. I chose the 300, with TC's and extension tubes and haven't regretted that decision one minute, it suits my style.
That said I am saving up for the 500f4, I'm greedy I want both, and I'm now in the position I can actually 'park' myself in some areas that are local.
Hi Ramon!
I'm so glad that you started this thread as I am having exactly the same dilemma myself having trashed my 100-400 over the holiday period...:(((
It is a really difficult decision but having read this thread and talked to a lot of people I really do think that it boils down to what your style of photography is. It sounds to me as if the more versatile 300 2.8 might be a good choice for you. I am 75% sure now that this is what I will go with and I may decide to hire 500 f/4 if I need one for a trip. I too like to be mobile and as Steve has pointed out, one can be so concerned with practical matters that some of the enjoyment is lost. Good luck with the decision!
Happy New Year!
Best regards,
Nicki
Thank you all very much! All your opinions have been really helpful, I would love to have the 500 f4, but then, who wouldn't... I think that if image quality is preety much the same between one option and the other I'll go with the 300mm 2.8 plus the 2xTC, but let's here more opinions, as I said, I have to save a LOT of money to get either of these two! Thanks again and happy 09!!
Hi Ramon - I have the Nikon 300mm F2.8 Vr with a 1.7X converter and find it to be fantastic, The IQ does not seem to suffer much with the 1.7 converter especially if you stop down 1 Stop The great thing about this combo though of course is the weight and portability - You can shoot this handheld all day and the VR is a nice addition. I have a sigma 300-800 but too heavy to travel with.
My son and I have been using a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with 1.4 or 2X converters. The lens is very sharp and a zoom is always a good plus in difficult terrain. We are very satisfied with our purchase.
Thanks to everybody who has offered an opinion and advice, I still have whole year to save the money (if I ever get there) so I am open to more opinions and advices! Thanks again!
Ramón I own a 300VR 2,8 and right now I am facing the painful decisssion to seell the lens to order a 500VR. After 2-3 years using the 300VR f2,8 I have to said that nothing compares to that lens in terms of sharpness and AF performance (except the superb and fast 200VR f2). I rarely use the bare lens and I have always (almost glued with Loctite!) a 1,4XTC mounted on the 300. The performance of that combo is really fast and IQ is superb. With the 2X and under adequate conditions, the combo works very fine but the AF performances is very slow for action in most of the cases. If you want to use the 2X with the 300 with high quality results you would need: 1) very good light, 2) very high shutter speed or very solid support and 3) a subjetc that is not very far from you.
The 300 is really handholdable but it is a hevy lens. The problem with the 300VR (if you do not live in Florida, of course) is the short reach. The 500 is heavier but I have been shooting handholding the lens and it is possible for short periods of time. Matched with a 1,4XTC the 500 IQ is in the same league that the 300+1,4XTC. For flights the 300 wins hand off over the 500.
In 95% of the time I use the 300+1,4XTC and in most cases I have to crop my images so it is obvious that I need more reach. If you join that to the fact that Nikon seems to follow the full frame route in pro bodies it seems clear that a 300mm lens is got to be very short FL for me in the future.
Ooops, I almost forget to say that the 300 2,8 is a superb lens for close up photography and macro.
Me alegra ver que no soy el único que se debate ante una decisión tan complicada :-D
Ramón,
Perhaps a little perspective is needed here. A couple of years ago people had a 1D Mark II and 500 f/4 and that was the pinnacle (for Canon shooters). Actually, that is what I still have. So if that was good enough then, it should still be. Now consider a 50D and 300mm f/4. Which gets more pixels on the subject? The 50D pixels are 4.7 microns and the 1D Mark II 8.2 microns. So for the same focal length lens the 50D would get 8.2/4.7 1.74 times more pixels (linear dimension). Thus the 50D with a 300 mm lens gets the same pixels on a bird as a 1D Mark II with a 523 mm lens!
So what do you lose in going to a 50D and 300 f/4. 1) Weight. 2) Light. And much lower cost. So the smaller lens with smaller pixels is a little noisier (1.7x noisier). So images taken at ISO 200 on the 1D Mark II are similar (in noise) to a 50D at ISO 115, or about ISO 100. So for portability in the field, a 50D + 300 f/4 IS would be a great combination, with only a little compromise. Add a 1.4x TC with little weight.
The advantage of the 300 f/2.8 is you could add a 2x TC and still get AF on X0D bodies. But a 300 f/4 gets you going now, rather than saving for the big lens a long time from now. I still have my 300 f/4 and take it often when I need to travel very light (compared to the 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4).
(Of course, a 1D body has other benefits than just pixel size.)
Roger
Last edited by Roger Clark; 01-07-2009 at 09:53 AM.
Thank you everyone for the great information in this thread, I have been following it with interest as I am also undecided which lens to add to my 100-400L because I want/need more reach. For me, the 500 f4IS is probably too heavy to manage so I'm considering the 300 f2.8 (with both 1.4x and 2x) and the 400 F4 DO (with 1.4x) and at this point I'm leaning toward the 400 for the extra reach and less weight. I have the Canon 40D and I don't anticipate moving up to full frame in the near future and the lens would be primarily for birds.
I'd appreciate hearing from any of you who have experience with the 400 DO as to image quality or other considerations related to this dilemma. I wish it were not quite so spendy!
I so apreciate all your suggestions and info guys, I have bought a 300mm f4 that I will be getting next week, but I still be saving for either one of the combos I have asked about, for what you have said so far, I guess I'll have to go for a 500mm, but as I said, I still have a whole year to think and re-think about it :) Thanks again, VERY much for your help!
I, too, was debating the 500 vs 300 with myself and ended up with the 400 DO Canon. I find it to be very sharp and is the perfect (well almost perfect...as one person said, you always want more reach) compromise for me between Focal Length/IQ/Weight. Lighter than either the 500 or the 300/2.8, and hand holdable for a few minutes.
And Art Morris has posted some phenomenally exquisite pics taken with a 400 DO...but then again he could probably do that with any equipment!!!
500mm f/5.6 + TC 1.4 X Vs 300mm F/2.8 + TC 2X
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote