Thinking about a Canon 300L 2.8 IS

[Zenon Char]

I think I may never see my dream of owning a 500L unless I win a lottery. I ran across a few images at Fred Miranda with the 300 and a 2X converter. This combo produced some decent sharp images.

Financially I'm closer to the 300 than the 500. The 300 and 2X will give me 600m and AF. Without the 2x now I have a fast lens. A little more versatile.

I know the 500 is a very sharp lens and so is the 300 but will the 2X will noticeably degrade it? The person at FM stated this is one of the few lenses that can really handle the 2X converter well.

I have a 300L F4 IS. A fine lens but will do as well with the 2X I don't IQ wise and I will lose AF. My 1.4 works well on it.

I tried a few moon shots with my 300L and two 1.4X converters (588mm). Did OK but just could not crop enough for a crisp lunar surface. With a 300 + 2X + 1.4X gets me to 840. Again a 500 would do better but the extra 252mm with 2X + 1.4X Should help.

Just looking for some feedback on my train of thought. Will I be disappointed with the IQ using the 2X? Without that factor I could not justify the purchase. Thanks in advance.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

I have used the 300 f/2.8 with a 2X and at f/8 (will still AF on a !DMKIII body it was OK but not special and US for BIFs (as is the 500 f/4) (size)

I use the wonderful 400 f/5.6 + 1.4X (560mm) f/8 and it AF very quickly if you pre focus and keep the shutter speed up around 2000 sec.

I am now considering the wonderful (albeit heavy) 400 f/2.8 which will take a 2X at f/5.6 and I also need to make sure that my wonderful wife never sees the receipt which will go into my gun cabinet with all the other camera gear receipts and insurance papers.

[Aravind Krishnaswamy]

I used to use a 300 with TCs before I got the 500. The 300 will handle the 2x TC and IMO sharpness or contrast isn't the problem. The AF will slow down (quite noticeably) though I have still managed to do BIFs with the combo in good light. The other thing I noticed is that bokeh suffers with the TCs (moreso with the 2x TC) which is mostly noticeable if you shoot a subject in front of a busy background.

Other than that the 300 is probably one of the most versatile telephotos in Canon's lineup.

My advise would be to get a used 300 and see for yourself. If you aren't happy, sell it and and keep saving for the 500, you shouldn't less much if any money at all.

[Zenon Char]

Thanks for the replies. There is/was a used 400 2.8 in the Fred Miranda buy and sell a few days ago. I do like the idea of buying used. Thanks for the tip on the reduced AF speed. Usually this is easy but now I'm getting into a more expensive lens.

[Benjamin Kennedy]

Perhaps you can rent/borrow a 300 f/2.8 with a TC and try for yourself. Other people may not mind the somewhat handicapped AF, but your experience may differ.

[Chris Brennan]

I also used a 300/2.8 + 2x before I was able to get a 500. Sadly I couldn't afford both so I had to sell the 300 to help finance the 500. What Aravind said above held true for me as well. The lens performs exceptionally well with both 1.4x and 2x converters and images are quite sharp. But AF acquisition speed slows down a fair amount with the 2x. But I wish I still had mine because of its versatility and lighter weight and incredible sharpness...

[Sidharth Kodikal]

I've been using the 300/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x for a couple months now and will echo the comments above.
IQ wise, the lens can handle TCs well imo.
AF is noticeably degraded without a doubt (although, even with my limited skills, with time, I'm managing to get decent BIF shots; at least the easy ones)

I simply love the mobility that this setup affords.
I can walk around all day without a tripod without too much discomfort. I also love the freedom of removing the TCs for those occasions where 300mm is long enough.

That said, there are also those occasions where I crave for that extra 100mm that a 500 + 1.4x would get you :)

[Tom Friedel]

I just got this lens for reasons listed above. I want to travel with just one big lens. The biggest issue I ran into was the minimum focal length is 2.5 meters vs. the 1.5 meters on my 300/f4. Might not be an issue for you. I can send you some 2x TC images if you like, contact me offline. I think on my 12 MB camera it is sharp enough, but I've been told on bigger sensors you start seeing some degredation in quality.

[Andrew McCullough]

The 300 2.8 with the 2x TC is spectacular in my experience.

[Jay Gould]

There are other theads pertining to the 300 f/2.8 + 2X; do a search.

Based upon the advice I received on BPN I have it and I love it!

[Zenon Char]

I just got this lens for reasons listed above. I want to travel with just one big lens. The biggest issue I ran into was the minimum focal length is 2.5 meters vs. the 1.5 meters on my 300/f4. Might not be an issue for you. I can send you some 2x TC images if you like, contact me offline. I think on my 12 MB camera it is sharp enough, but I've been told on bigger sensors you start seeing some degredation in quality.

Thanks for the info and offer. I sent you an email.

[Zenon Char]

Thanks for all the advice everyone. Still thinking about it and looking for used ones.

[Zenon Char]

There are other theads pertining to the 300 f/2.8 + 2X; do a search.

Based upon the advice I received on BPN I have it and I love it!

I don't know if I love them or hate them. :) As far as your reply that is what I am afraid of.

[Zenon Char]

I would like to thank everyone for all the input. I have made a few decisions witch are 180 degrees of this thread. Although the 2.8 is a great I decided it was a crutch for a 500L. That is was I really want. I am doing well with my 300L and 1.4 ex extender so I'm pretty happy at that end.

I have a list of photo accomplishments. Besides birding I want at least one great moon capture. I have done it with my 300 F4 and two 1.4 extenders but I just can't crop to get size I want without starting to destroy detail. I will start saving for a 500 but I plan to rent one next summer cool my blood on that moon shot. It will also let me know if this is what I really want.

I have other interests so I traded in my Canon 85 1.8, 100 Macro and 17-40 for the new 100 Macro IS and a 24mm TSE.

The old 100 Macro and 85 was a no brainer. SLRgrear blur index shows the new 2.8 Macro is sharper than the 85 even when it is stopped down to 2.8. Only 15mm difference and I get a Macro and a portrait lens with IS.

My 17-40 was a nice lens but I wanted a lens with good corner to corner sharpness for landscapes. Something for when we travel I can stick on a tripod and work with while my wife relaxes with a good book. I don't like that bulbous front element on the 17mm TSE so it was between the 21mm Ziess Distagon and 24mm TSE . TSE won as it can be used for architecture as well.

Actually 24mm is pretty wide on a full frame which I will use it with my 5D. Sometimes Ultra Wide angles are almost too wide I find. Besides if I need that I have a Tokina 11-16 I can use with my 7D.

[Roger Clark]

Zenon.
If you really want to photograph the moon, get a telescope ;). Much cheaper than a super telephoto lens. Here is a recent photograph the moon with different lenses web page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test2/
A 500 f/4 ad 300 f/2.8 are shown (out of camera jpegs) for comparison.


Roger

[Zenon Char]

Zenon.
If you really want to photograph the moon, get a telescope ;). Much cheaper than a super telephoto lens. Here is a recent photograph the moon with different lenses web page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test2/
A 500 f/4 ad 300 f/2.8 are shown (out of camera jpegs) for comparison.


Roger

I have read about that. I may look into it. Thanks

[Zenon Char]

I looked in some images in previous posts on other sites to find some great of the great images I have seen using the 500L, etc and came across this. I did not know this.

Other than the new moon, the full moon is the worst time for moon photos. The lighting is very flat and featureless across the whole moon. You will not see any crater detail at all in full moon photos. "One thing that surprises the inexperienced is the fact that the most boring moon is the full moon. Detail on the moon is seen by virtue of contrast. Strong shadows make mountains and craters stand out in high relief. Full Moon is Noon on the Moon and there are no shadows and as a result, no detail can be seen through a telescope or photographed." This holds true if you are trying to get a closeup of the moon with interesting detail - if it is an object in a landscape then the full moon can be nice.
I have found that there is no perfect formula for taking a photo of the moon as the exposure can vary considerably with the phase. Because the surrounding dark sky can fool the meter into overexposing (if the moon doesn't fill the frame) or into underexposing (if the bright area fills the frame) you can't depend on automatic metering except as a starting point. You have to take a shot and view it on the LCD and judge the exposure and keep adjusting it until you get it right. And even then it might be good to do some automatic or manual exposure compensation shots to insure a good photo. Take LOTS of photos because atmospheric disturbance, camera motion, and the motion of the moon itself can all result in less than optimal sharpness. It will also need so post processing to increase contrast once you have a decent exposure.

[Roger Clark]

I looked in some images in previous posts on other sites to find some great of the great images I have seen using the 500L, etc and came across this. I did not know this.

Other than the new moon, the full moon is the worst time for moon photos. The lighting is very flat and featureless across the whole moon. You will not see any crater detail at all in full moon photos. "One thing that surprises the inexperienced is the fact that the most boring moon is the full moon.

Zenon,
The above statement is just plain wrong. The full Moon is full of detail and that detail is due to the composition of the moon.

Detail on the moon is seen by virtue of contrast. Strong shadows make mountains and craters stand out in high relief.

Everything is seen by contrast. Strong shadows near the moon's terminator certainly do show the relief, but that high shadow contrast hides compositional contrasts. At higher sun, the compositional contrasts become apparent and one can distinguish different basalt flows and crater ray patterns, for example.

Full Moon is Noon on the Moon and there are no shadows and as a result, no detail can be seen through a telescope or photographed."

So are the images on this page showing no detail?
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test2/
Note the last image on the page and the color differences in the Mare. Stronger processing brings out those subtle color differences. Note also the ray patterns which mostly disappear near the terminator.

New moon can be interesting too:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...244.b-800.html

All phases of the moon can be interesting. Some other moon images:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.moon/

I do know a little about the Moon ;)

Roger