300 f/2.8 - 500 f/4: Is/Why is the 500 better for BIF?

[Jay Gould]

Doug's quote is from the 50D Help Me thread.

Quote:

The 50D is great for flight Jay. Image quality issues aside, it has the best AF for flight of any Canon body IMO. As Tim points out, you need to get the bird fairly large in the frame for good image quality with the 50D (and with most other cameras for that matter). That's why I'm not a big fan of spending a lot of money on a 300mm lens for birds. In most situations, you are either forced to use a 2x or must crop significantly.

You said you are not a big fan of the 300 f/2.8 because you either have to use the 2.0 or do a big crop.

In post #27 of Kobus' 50D thread, I asked the following because I still do not understand the great draw to the 500 f/4.

Quote:

I ask because on the one hand I am considering the 500 f/4 which would be limited to the 1.4 = 700 + crop factor = 1120 and I am wondering if the increase from 960 to 1120 (assuming my math is correct) justifies the added expense, physical length and weight to spend an additional $1,700 over the 300 f/2.8 for the 500 f/4.

Doug, most of the time are you using AF or MF, and if AF you have only gained 160mm. Agree?

If you recall, before I bought the 300 f/2.8 there was a specific thread regarding the 300 f/2.8 and the 400 f/4 DO: http://birdphotographers.net/forums/...ad.php?t=34456

Some of the comments in that thread indicated that the 300 with the 2.0 extender is a sharp lens.

Chas Glatzer: "...it is sharper and with greater contrast, lower in cost, and extremely sharp with both 1.4 and 2x converters."

Ed Vatza: "...I do have the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS and it is one remarkable lens. It's as sharp as you'll ever want. And I use it with a 2x Canon teleconverter much of the time. All I can say is that I have never once had image quality come up in a critique of an image made with the 300 and 2x."

Roger Clark: "I am very impressed at how sharp the 300 f/2.8 lens is, even over the 500 f/4."

So, as someone who travels and lives out of a suitcase 6 - 12 months at a time (next trip is 7 1/2 months) I opted for the 300 because I do not understand why the 400 or the 500 would be better when the 300 is at least for some very ably HH (not yet for me :o - Jim I am looking forward to those lessons) making it longer than the 400, and only 160 shorter than the 500 when both lenses have TCs.

If it is only an increase of 160mm when using AF, Doug, can you or anyone that uses the 500 share why the 500 is preferred for BIF given that it is $1,700 more than the 300, twice the length of the 300, and 3 1/2 times heavier than the 300 (2.6 to 8.5 lbs!)? I simply do not understand the attraction for the 500 f/4; I am open to being educated that 160mm makes a significant difference in BIF photography! Teach me and be convincing and I too will buy the lens and sell the 300!!

Also, as the sensors become more and more sensitive and we can raise the ISOs - it would not surprise me that you might regularly shoot at 1600 or 3200 with the 1D4, at 1/2500 or 1/3200 which would start to fit with both Chris' explanation of his BIF technique, and Tim's humorous explanation of increasing a bit of this and a bit of that to address some of the 50D's shortcomings.

Thanks everyone in this thread for playing the best game in town: the BPN educational two-step!

Cheers, Jay

[Nancy A Elwood]

Well, I will give it a go. First I shoot with nikon so the 2x is not an option because the nikon 2x is really not good. So, to get to the point that effects you, first if you can get an image without a TC that is always better, most importantly for AF. BIF's are tough enough, but with a slower AF they are impossible. Second, even though image quality with the 1.4TC is not really a factor, as such, I go back to the original statement, if you can get it without that is always better. Most of the time I have the 1.4TC on and would only use the 1.7TC on for stills, not BIF's. Is the Canon 2x that good that it would give you enough AF power to shoot BIF's? That would be the biggest question. And last but never least, I LOVE my 500 f/4!!! I do not hesitate carrying it with me anywhere, airlines, etc.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Nancy The year and a half I spend with Nikon I did use a 2X and got some razor sharp images :) Now I even have Fabs using the converter Do think since you guys have the 1.7X its a better option. I think the problem before had to do with the poor ISO performance for Nikon and non VR lenses Shooting a 600 with crop factor and 2X at a low shutter speed is not conducive to good results !!! ... btw AF is very sluggish much more than Canon.

Jay the short of it is you will be using the 300 most of the time with a converter, focal length is not enough by itself. IMO going with a 500 makes more sense. It all has to do with what works for you !!!

[Jay Gould]

Hi Nancy, I took a look at the Nikon 500 f/4, same size and weight; ouch on the price.

I do realize that it is only by using the 2.0 teleconverter that the 300 comes up to "close distance" with the 500.

If you are not using the TC, then the issue is HH the 500 - which many do/I can't image doing as I am having trouble (as a newbie) HH the 300!

Thanks for commenting.

[Jay Gould]

IMO going with a 500 makes more sense.

Why?

Thanks, Jay

[Alfred Forns]

Jay more focal length I don't want to be having to place a converter permanently, slows down the AF big time I think for 1.4X slows AF 60% and the 2.0X even more !!!

It all depends what kind of birds you do and location. For me the 300 is not a option, I don't like dots in frame.

[Mike Tracy]

Besides birds and wildlife I shoot a lot of different sports. Cars, motorcycles, horses, and people are of course smaller then birds and the 300 is my lens of choice for those types of images although the 400 f/2.8 is chosen by many but is not hand holdable.

When choosing a focal length one has to ask what application one will primarily use it for, the distance from my subject and how much of the frame do I wish to fill with my chosen subject. 300mm is fine for framing a large animal or soccer action at say 100 feet but most birds would appear as nothing more then dots at that distance. The adage size matters applies to birds as no other photography discipline I can think of. Most birds are small and unapproachable due to their circle of fear and having longer focal lengths helps to level the playing field so to speak. I chose the 500 as my primary birding lens due to it's weight advantage in the field versus the 600 ( I usually hand hold ), it's ability to perform excellently with the 1.4x and the added length over 400mm or 300mm which in real world applications is appreciable.

If you can get close enough to consistently fill your frame with your subjects then stick with the 300. If not you need to go longer or you will constantly wish you had more reach. If your concerned with hand holding and are unable to do so pretty much every renowned sports photographer mounts their big lenses on a mono pod.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Jay, Al is on the mark. And about HH, I do not either. I have a nice tripod and full Wimberley head and it works great. HH is a nice idea and yes people can learn to do it well, but for the most part it is not real practical all the time. Do not try to learn to shoot with the telephoto lenes HH. Learn to use them on a tripod and get very good with technique first. As far as price, yes they are pricey. I was fortunate to have a friend moving to the VR version and needed to sell his AFS II version. That was last year before all the prices went crazy and supplies went down. Lastly, when I finally got my 500 f/4 the only thing I regretted was that I had not got one of these sooner!!

[Desmond Chan]

J HH is a nice idea and yes people can learn to do it well, but for the most part it is not real practical all the time. Do not try to learn to shoot with the telephoto lenes HH. Learn to use them on a tripod and get very good with technique first.

Uh oh, Jay, you've got a problem :D

BTW, hand-holding a 300f2.8 and hand-holding a 500f4 are not the same thing.

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
I'll take a shot. As you know I have both the 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 (and a 300 f/4). I bought the 300 f/2.8 most recently (a year or two ago). My choice on a photo trip would usually be the 500, because on a 1D series body, I can add 1.4x, 2x, and even stacked TCs and still have autofocus (of course slower with greater magnification). So the 500 with a 2x versus a 300 with a 2x is a big difference. If limited to consumer bodies where the 500 will only AF with a 1.4x versus the 300 with a 2x, there is not that much difference.

So I choose the 500 and 2 bodies, one a 1D series when I can travel with full gear. But often I need to travel lighter, so I'll take the 300 f/2.8 unless I need to travel very light when I'll go with the 300 f/4. I'll go on local hikes here in Colorado mostly with the 300 f/2.8, and often without a big tripod so I'll hand hold the 300.

If I were going on the trip with you to Antarctica, I would choose the 300 f/2.8 for the easier portability. For Africa on safari in vehicles, I choose the 500 (but I leave it in the lodge when I go hiking on the Serengeti).

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
I'll take a shot. As you know I have both the 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 (and a 300 f/4). I bought the 300 f/2.8 most recently (a year or two ago). My choice on a photo trip would usually be the 500, because on a 1D series body, I can add 1.4x, 2x, and even stacked TCs and still have autofocus (of course slower with greater magnification). So the 500 with a 2x versus a 300 with a 2x is a big difference. If limited to consumer bodies where the 500 will only AF with a 1.4x versus the 300 with a 2x, there is not that much difference.

So I choose the 500 and 2 bodies, one a 1D series when I can travel with full gear. But often I need to travel lighter, so I'll take the 300 f/2.8 unless I need to travel very light when I'll go with the 300 f/4. I'll go on local hikes here in Colorado mostly with the 300 f/2.8, and often without a big tripod so I'll hand hold the 300.

If I were going on the trip with you to Antarctica, I would choose the 300 f/2.8 for the easier portability. For Africa on safari in vehicles, I choose the 500 (but I leave it in the lodge when I go hiking on the Serengeti).

Roger

Hi Roger, I think you have hit the nail on the head! After reading your post I took the time to do a quick survey of the camera that some of the Canon shooters are using with the 400, 500 or longer glass and touting how great the 50D is for BIF. I simply went to some of the public profiles and quickly opened Avian threads that they started to check the stats.

My quick and dirty survey doesn't negate anyone's statement that the 50D has the fastest AF, it simply establishes that when given the choice between a 1D3 and a 50D, those that I quickly reviewed for the last few months posts (and not all of the posts) used the 1D3 with their 500s more than the 50D. Artie uses the 50D a lot with his 400DO.

For me that says that if and when I feel confident HH the 300 with perhaps the 50D to start and ultimately with the 1D4, I will seriously consider a 500. Perhaps I will have the opportunity during my upcoming workshops to try a 1D3 with a 500.

Given my personal circumstances I do not want a lens that I cannot competently HH and therefore binds me to a tripod when I am traveling for many months. Perhaps the 500 is in my future solely in Australia where I am more likely to drive to a location for a shoot.

Until then I will use the 300 and not attempt the impossible, to shoot a speck in the sky and then do a big crop.

Thanks everyone, I hope someone in addition to me gained some benefit from this thread.

Cheers, Jay

[Doug Brown]

I'm sorry for not noticing this thread sooner Jay. Looks like you've already gotten some good answers. I shoot the 500 and 600 for reach; the 300 is a fabulous lens but it's only 300mm. In most places (i.e. not Florida) you need all the reach you can get for bird photography. I'm not fond of having to slap a 2x on a lens just to get my focal length above 500mm. AF slows down measurably and image quality is degraded. There are plenty of challenging BIF situations (such as with a challenging subject against a varied BG) where you just won't get the shots with an extender; my recent trip to California to photograph the Peregrine Falcons is a perfect example. Focus was just too challenging. And a bare 300 would not have been enough focal length.

[Jay Gould]

Doug, nothing to be sorry about! You DO have a life outside of BPN and I have appreciated all of your assistance.

The decision to buy the 300 was made after a consideration of all of the comments in the 300/400 DO thread (http://birdphotographers.net/forums/...ad.php?t=34456) and other threads, which included sharp image comments even with a 2.0x. I do understand that the 300 with a 2.0 may prove to be too slow for BIF depending upon the birds/circumstances involved.

At the same time I have to be cognizant of my own limitations and thus far I am having a bit of trouble HH the 300 in BIF situations.

Because it is important to me to at least "attempt" to learn BIF photography, I am willing to travel from Australia to Florida to learn from the Masters. If and when, and only if and when I am competent with HH the 300 and THEN find that the focal length is too limiting will I move up to the significantly heavier 500. If I find that I am not going to be a competent BIF photographer and I choose to limit myself to static birds and larger moving critters, then the 300 + 2.0x on an XXD or on a 1DX with stacked extenders will work in most situations.

My quick review of the avian posts pertaining to the 500 suggests that most are NOT HH the 500, and also most are not using the 500 for BIF. Lots are using the 500 for birds on a stick (static subjects); some oare using the 500 for BIF and most are on a tripod.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to listen; it is quite cool :cool: to be able to discuss your personal photography situation openly on BPN and received considered and thoughtful responses. The atmosphere on BPN is much more like a family than on most forums.

Cheers Mate, Jay

[Desmond Chan]

My quick review of the avian posts pertaining to the 500 suggests that most are NOT HH the 500, and also most are not using the 500 for BIF. Lots are using the 500 for birds on a stick (static subjects); some oare using the 500 for BIF and most are on a tripod.

And some do use the 300 with or without TC for BIF, by choice or not :D. Personally, I think for BIF, depending on the birds you photograph and where you are, a 300 can be enough because the birds can be flying close and around you.

Have to admit that I don't have a 500 and so have no idea about the opportunities a 500 can bring to me :o