300mm 2.8

[Alan G Douglas]

I have over the past year looked in on the sidelines here and I must first say a big thank you to all.
I have learned so much from you guys.

I have for the past 3 years used a Canon 100-400 for my bird & wildlife photography with my 40D & produced some fine images but on the way I have had to put up with this lenses limitations in quality & limited use in low light situations but I feel it is now time to look at a faster prime. I know the obvious choice is a 500 f4 but that is more than my budget and I do like to carry a lens on long walks and hand hold.
So my thoughts are a 300mm 2.8 with a 1.4x or 2x converter. But using 1.4 I will be at 420 not much different to what I have now so my questions are:

With the 1.4 attached to give me f4 will the quality & sharpness be enough improvement over the 100-400 to justify the outlay?

If I get 2x converter instead to gain focal length but be f5.6 will the quality be worse than 100-400?

Does Anyone out there have this set up? If so how do you find the weight for hand holding & Long walks?
How does this combo perform for BIF?

I have thought about a 400mm 5.6 prime and spend the difference on a 7D and 70-200 f4 :)

The money I have for this upgrade is a one of and I want to get it right, so I would be grateful for any help on the best route to take? based on my criteria of: Improved image quality-faster lens for low light-increase my reach. Need to hand hold & be mobile.

Many thanks for any help

Alan

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Alan Glad you decided to join in !!! Big Warm Welcome !!!

Quality wise I'm sure the 300 2.8 will be as good or better than the straight 100-400 but do remember AF will be a lot slower. Price wise why don't you look at a 400 DO? Can use a 1.4 with a prosumer body and its one fine lens !! ... a lot lighter than the 300 2.8

Anything you do is a compromise just figure what will suit you best !!! Might want to rent before you buy and try for yourself !!!

[Doug Brown]

No easy answer to your predicament Alan. The 300 f/2.8 and the 400 DO are both excellent lenses, but the 400 costs $1,500 more than the 300, and is only $600 less than a 500 f/4.

With the 300, a 1.4x will give you 420 and f/4; that's a full stop faster and slightly longer than what you currently have. I suspect image quality will be better than what you get with your 100-400. A full stop is pretty important, particularly if you like doing BIF. You can always use a 2x to get 600mm and f/5.6; probably not great for BIF but plenty good for static subjects.

[Jia Liu]

I just upgraded from 300/2.8IS to 400DO. From my test, 400DO is sharper than 300/2.8 + 1.4x, and 400DO + 1.4x is a lot sharper than 300/2.8 + 2x, and AF is a lot faster. The degradation of IQ from TCs is amplified when we go into high density pixel realm, such as 50D or 7D. You might have known that 400DO is a lot lighter, so it's much easier to hand hold or bring along for a long hike. The new lens price between 300/2.8 and 400DO may be big, but on used market, 400DO runs from $4000 - $4500, which is only $500 to $800 more than a used 300/2.8, and you can save the money on 2xTC, which costs around $300.

[Magnus Thornberg]

I have upgrade from 400/5.6L to 300/2.8L IS USM! I use it with 1.4x and 2x converter most of the time!
I think the autofokus and sharpness on the 300+1.4x converter is better then the 400/5.6L! I think the sharpness with 2x converter is very good if you stop down to f6.3!
The sharpness test i have seen shows that the 400DO is softer then the 400/5.6 and same as 300/2.8 with 1.4x converter! You can compare the lenses with and without converter here!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...=0&FLI=0&API=0

Here is a sample with 300/2.8 f6.3 and 2x converter very little crop
http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/view...1659658&target=

I think the 2x combo works fine with BIF!

Here is a sample with 300/2.8 and 2x f8 !
http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/view...1678016&target=

[Charles Glatzer]

The Canon 300 f/2.8 w/2x is a sharp combo that will allow for excellent BIF images. AF is slower with 2x, but the 300 f/2.8 is among the fastest to aquire w/o converters. Get on the bird early enough for tracking to lock and it will do a fine job.

Best,

Chas

[Alan G Douglas]

Many thanks for the replies, interesting option in the 400mm Do, seems like there is a trade off between a lighter set-up in the DO, slightly better IQ etc but more expensive option if I buy new.

Or 300mm 2.8+1.4 which okay may be a heavier set-up but I think I can handle that, IQ seems on a par, slower AF is a concern, Chas is there a big difference in AF if I used the 1.4 instead of the 2x? I did plan on a 1.4x & this set up will still give me F4 & the option of 2.8 at 300mm. Anyone out there used this set-up on the 40D?

As you say Alfred anything you do is a compromise!
I do not have the rental option as I have just moved from the Uk over to Vancouver Island & I am based in a small town (Port Hardy) way up North Island.

Many thanks

Alan

[Charles Glatzer]

The 300 f/2.8 is sharper w/o converters and at least on par when used with 1.4X to the 400DO straight.
According to Canon and in practice the 2x is approx 20% slower in AF than the 1.4X.

Chas

[Chad Griggs]

I would keep the 100-400L and add a 400 5.6L. I can tell you that you will miss the versatility of the zoom but enjoy the sharpness of the prime. So it's good to have both. Then add a 7D when you can. I think the combo between a slightly faster prime and the 7D will make a noticeable difference in low light.

OR keep the 40D a while longer and save for a 500 f/4. Plus having the reach of a 500 would give you the option of going to a full frame later for the best high ISO performance which would obviously help the most with low light.

Another option is if you just need 500mm and not any more than that, you could do a Sigma 500 f/4.5. This would be about the same price as a 300 2.8 + TC but it would be slightly faster and not have the IQ loss of the TC.

Just have to see what works for the budget and if your willing to wait and save

[Kiran Khanzode]

I specifically didn't invest in a 500 or 600 mm lens just for the same reasons you mention, I like to be mobile, my gear has to be portable,low profile and easily hand-holdable (for long time, if required). Most of the stuff fits in my Thinktank bag.

I own what you "thought about" owning: 400mm 5.6 prime,7D and 70-200 f4, but I use them on different bodies. I also own the 300 2.8 IS and use it with a 2x on a 40D (till now). So, I guess, I am qualified to give you my 2 cents here (even though I don't own a 100-400).

This combo is cheap, high quality and gives me equal or better quality images than my friends who use a dedicated 500 or 600 (I shoot mammals 90%). AF speed with a 2x on the 40D can be a bit slow if your subject is small and far away or flying, but if you shoot deer, lions etc etc (even if they are moving)...the AF is just fine on the 40D. I shoot it at 5.6 routinely and if the SS allows, at f/8. This combo is very hand-holdable and portable and does not burn a hole in your pocket (no need to buy accessories). The IS on this lens is pretty good, I 've gotten away with sharp shots 1/60 ss at 600mm for static subjects (hand held).

I plan to use it (300 + 2x) on my 7D now, that being my primary body, here's a sample shot from 75-80 yards away (40D @600mm), shot side by side with a nikon 600 f/4. My friend had no complaints when he saw how my photos turned out.
It was taken with a 300 2.8 IS with 2x tele at f/8, 1/640, beanbag. Let me know if you want a 100% crop. :-). At 2.8, this lens produces magic, and when the light goes low gives you decent SS keeping a reasonable ISO speed. I am sure that with a 1.4x, it won't disappoint (I don't use it though, cos I have a 400 f/5.6 for that coverage). I recently walked for a couple of hours with a 300 and 2.x on the 7D, didn't break a sweat. Trick is to support the lens weight by holding the hood(front end) with your hand, don't let it dangle.... ;-). An Optech strap diagonally placed across the body helps reduce the weight a bit, as well.

[Alan G Douglas]

Thanks Kiran some great information you are definitely qualified to give 2 cents here :)
Outstanding sample image. Interesting comment regarding walking around & not breaking sweat, I must admit this was a concern as I love the freedom to wander when I am out making images, I do walk around all day with the 100-400 with no probs.

Many thanks

Alan

[Alan G Douglas]

Thanks Kiran some great information you are definitely qualified to give 2 cents here :)
Outstanding sample image. Interesting comment regarding walking around & not breaking sweat, I must admit this was a concern as I love the freedom to wander when I am out making images, I do walk around all day with the 100-400 with no probs.

Many thanks

Alan

[Roger Clark]

Alan,

I have the 100-400, as well as 500 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8 L IS, 300 f/4 L IS. All the fixed focal length lenses are sharper (even with 1.4x TCs) than the 100-400 (at 400). The 300 f/2.8 is amazingly sharp and fast. I can carry the 300 f/2.8 an hand hold a lot, but it is heavier than the 100-400. I would take my 300 f/4 plus TCs before I'll take the 100-400. When you want to isolate a subject with shallow depth of field, there is nothing like the 300 f2/8 (except the 400 f/2.8).

My first choice for serious wildlife photography is the 500 f/4 but that means (for me) a big tripod with wimberly head. With the 300 f/2.8 I can take a much smaller tripod or none at all.

Another factor to consider is your age. As you get older, it gets harder to hold the big heavy lenses steady.
(I'm in my mid fifties).

Roger

[Harshad Barve]

AF will struggle with 2x mounted on 300/2.8 specially in case of BIF , though I am not using 300/2.8 , but handled it for some time

Just my 2 cents , Dont know whether I am qualified to commnet or not :)

[philperry]

I own a 100-400 and also a 400 f4 DO. Since I bought the 400 DO I must say that it has become my standard lens when on safari, with the 1.4x fitted almost permanently. The quality is great. For air travel the weight factor is critical and on my next major overseas trip the 100-400 will be staying home.

[Greg Basco]

Alan, I have the 300 2.8 and would not give it up for the world. I have used the 100-400 and it's never impressed me much, but being in Costa Rica, I do a lot of wide open shooting in the low light of the rainforest; it's well-known that shooting wide open is not the strength of the 100-400.

You might be interested to take a look at this review by Juza from Italy:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...00-400-600.htm

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Alan G Douglas]

Roger, I am 49 years young so hope to have a few years lens carrying in me yet :)
Thanks for the link Greg I did check out his review earlier, we have rainforest here in Vancouver Island so a big plus to have 2.8, as you say the 100-400 has limitations but I have created some great images with my 100-400 in the right conditions but cursed it in low light :)

Cheers
Alan

[Alfred Forns]

Roger .. interesting observation regarding the 100-400 being less sharp than primes with converters?(even at 400) Don't find that to be the case at all. ... and btw if you don't think you could make a sharp image with the 100-400 and a 1.4 might want to check with Arite so see some of the ones he has made. I did not even tried before seeing his.

btw my test were made with a resolution chart and read with microscope since all involved film. Will post sample of chart below. Also I think the 100-400 is the most bashed lens in the Canon line for serious use with regards to sharpness and AF speed !!!

[Greg Basco]

Alan, I would love to get up to those temperate rainforests someday; they sure look beautiful. I too have seen really nice 100-400 shots in brighter conditions where you can stop down, but I do think you're correct that it's not a great performer for us rainforest shooters.

So, given your original criteria (improved sharpness in low light and increasing reach while maintaining mobility), I do think that the 300 2.8 used with a 1.4x will be a worthwhile investment. It certainly meets two of the three criteria. You can easily stay mobile, and I think most will agree that the 300/1.4x combo will be sharper at 4 and 5.6 than the 100-400 at the long end, which is important for your typical low light shooting. The only thing this combo doesn't do is significantly increase your reach.

For that, the 400 DO would certainly be an attractive option. It's quite light, and from what I know, would certainly be sharper than the 100-400 at 5.6 (and of course the 400 would give you f4 ability as well). And the 400 with a 1.4x would obviously give you the extra reach while maintaining good image quality.

Nonetheless, Juza's test shows the 300/1.4 combo to be sharper than the straight 400 DO at f4 and f5.6. So, I think the big question would be whether you want to spend an extra $1500 for the extra reach that the 400 DO affords over the 300/1.4 combo.

It's a tough choice!

Cheers,
Greg

[Roger Clark]

Alfred,
Here is my testing of my 100-400. Note how the sharpness declines from 300 to 400 mm.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...lens-sharpness

But then there are reports of other copies of the lens that are much sharper. I bought mine back in film days and it has performed the same on 7 different cameras. Canon's own MTF charts say the 100-400 is not as sharp as lenses like the 300 f/2.8. The 300 f/2.8 is one of the top lenses in the Canon lineup according to Canon's MTF charts.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Alan, to add my two cents - I have and love the 300 2.8 and I thank amongst others Chas and Roger for their assistance in convincing me to purchase this lens. I use it regularly with both the 1.4 and 2X converters. Recently completed a BIF hand holding course with Jim Neiger - he created a special grip out of a piece of stairway railing to use with the lens. Works a charm and I do not have a problem hand holding this lens even though I have had surgery on both thumbs.

Here is an image made with the 300 + 2X and my 5D2 at about 150 feet; today I would use it with my 7D; tomorrow the 1D4. Bright harsh sunlight, 5.6, 1/2000, 50% crop.

Sharp enough for me!

[Alan G Douglas]

Jay, thanks for your 2 cents worth (:
Interesting that you use a special grip does this screw into the collar? maybe post pic if possible? Yes looks sharp to me!

Cheers
Alan

[Jay Gould]

Hi Alan, believe it or not in its simpliest form it is a piece of stairway railing to which I have attached a Wimberley plate like sold by our fearless leader - AM. I can quickly attach it or detach it from the Swiss-Arca plate attached to the 300 collar.

It is about 1' long and 2"+ in diameter; flat on the bottom and rounded on the top.

My long term plan when I return to Australia is to have a machine shop make it out of aluminum to reduce the weight and attach the Wimberley plate. It would work for any lens that has a Swiss-Arca type plate.

Can't supply an image as this is a Jim Neiger exclusive prototype.

Cheers, Jay

[Chris Brennan]

Up until this past July, my "long" lens was a 300/2.8 with converters. It was simply incredible and worked like a charm with xxD series cameras. But I sold it to make way for a 500/4. If I could have afforded to keep it, I would have in a heartbeat.

[Marvin T. Smith]

I followed Jay Gould's thread about a year ago and followed his lead and bought the 300 2.8 and converters. I have been very happy with that set-up, but I do find that I rarely use the 1.4 converter.
Marv

[Jay Gould]

Hey Marv, glad you are enjoying the 300! Now it is time to start posting and graduate from Participant to Member.

I looked at the new 300 II which is 8% lighter and almost double in price. I will keep my current 300 and upgrade my 70-200 f/4 to the new 70-200 II f/2.8 with new TCs; I think the new 70-200 II with the TCs is the perfect all around combo to carry on a long hike/bush walk.