Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS vs. 500mm f/4L IS

[Ed Vatza]

Having read through the 400 2.8 vs. 500 4.0 thread, I have a feeling where this is going to go but I thought I would ask anyway. My birding lens right now is the Canon 400mm f/5.6 on my 30D. I am saving for a 500mm f/4.0 but a little voice in the back of my head keeps whispering that I should seriously consider the 300mm f/2.8. I keep thinking the 300 is going to be more versatile and with the 1.6 crop it is already the equivalent of 480mm on a full frame camera. (Yes I know the 500 is the equivalent of 800.) And besides with a 2X TC, I would have the equivalent of 600mm at f/5.6 and the AF should still work on the 30D.

Does this make any sense at all? Or should I just kill the voices?

[Fabs Forns]

Kill the voices. The 500/4 will outperform. Most people I know ended up selling the 300/2.8

[Christopher Hill]

It depends a lot on how much you are willing to carry and how much reach you want. No one but you can really answer those questions. Personally, I find the 300 is easy to travel with and IQ with TCs is good enough to get by on for most situations. That said, I lug the 600 when I know I need the reach - as good as the 300 is, it just ain't 600mm.

[Bonnie Block]

Ed--basically Christopher has said it ---only you can decide how much you want to carry and how often you would use just the 300mm by itself.
I have tossed this question around for a couple of years now (and I own a 300/2.8)
I will never sell the 300--as I use it for dog sports--and it is awesome for that. So..I use it consistently with a 2X converter for bird flight and stills.
I would love to have a 500, and someday I will, but right now I am still working, my opportunities to shoot are limited--and I plain cannot afford to own both lenses at this time, so I stick with the 300 and converters--and I have learned to use it quite well, I think.
If you are only using the lens for birding, and really have no justified use for 300 mm--then go for the 500 right off the bat!

[Alfred Forns]

Don't think thee is much of a controversy They are totally different lenses and complement each other

For a first lens the 500 would be the way to go The 300 would be used with converters all the time and as good as it is will not hold a candle to a straight 500.
Most people use an over the shoulder 400 as a flight lens.

[c.w. moynihan]

Kill the voices. The 500/4 will outperform. Most people I know ended up selling the 300/2.8

Outperform ? Not sure what you mean by that.:eek: If you meant reach, okay. Definately not sharpeness, color or contrast. The 300 f/2.8 is easily the best super telephoto out there in terms of sharpness, color, contrast and AF speed. It takes TC's better than any other lense too, especially the 2X which is more than acceptably sharp shot wide open....(f/5.6)
If I had to keep only one lense my 600 or my 300, the 300 would stay for it's far greater versatility. Fortunatley I don't have to make that decsion and use both as the situation dictates. ;)

Cheers !

[Jeff Nadler]

Well, many may know that I have recently downsized my equipment, as I move away from strictly birds as a business to general nature photography as a hobby. This Sunday, I met a BPN participant and traded my 500mm for their 300 2.8 IS plus cash. While I've had little time to try the 300mm and comment on it, and I realize it will not be a true bird lens, I am so happy to have a lighter lens now, and even downsizing tripod heads and mounts. Now as a hobby, i expect to spend the bulk of any photo time on the go-walking, hiking, etc. and not along side my car. I truly look forward to the weight reduction, knowing that birds in flight and larger birds would be my bird subjects and no longer the warblers and small songbirds I once enjoyed. Remebering that I also paddle for moose at low-light dawn, i expect the 2.8 to be a welcome benefit as well. I would not have done this if birds remained my primary focus however.

[Robert O'Toole]

The 300 is so specialized. I think the main use for a lens like this would be indoor sports not nature photography.
I have had the 300, 400, 500 and 600. I now use a 600/4 IS and a 200-400 VR. Havent regreted selling the 300/2.8 for one second.

Almost everyone that I know that has had the 300/2.8 one has sold it, once the new lens honeymoon is over.

Robert

[Ed Vatza]

Hey there,

I really appreciate all the comments, feedback and recommendations. Here's the rub. I've only really been into photography "seriously" for about a year. I love photographing birds and have done mostly birds for most of the past year. But, and it is a big but, my interests are broader than "just" birds. I actually got into DSLR photography because I enjoyed trying to make close-up images of wildflowers with a little Canon P&S camera. I am now doing more macrophotography and enjoying it. And I want to broaden my nature photography experience rather than limit it.

Ergo the little voices telling me the 300 2.8 would be the better choice. Right now my gear consists of Canon 30D and Canon XT bodies with Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-70L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and Canon 400 f/5.6L lenses. I also have macro gear but that's another story. I keep thinking the 300 f/2.8 would fill the gap between 200 and 400 and when I really need the reach a 2X would give me 600mm all on a 1.6X crop body.

So the 300 keeps making sense to me but I also keep thinking that I would be disappointed if I didn't go with the 500 since that had been my goal for some time. I know I am making this much more difficult than it needs to be. I am reminded of a recent episode when my wife and I were walking around a local lake and I was carrying my tripod/camera/lens/ flash over my shoulder. A couple walking the other way asked if this was work or pleasure. I said "much more important than work. It's pleasure."

[Gary Olman]

I have a Canon XTI with a 70-300 IS EF USM lens. I want to up it with the use of a 1.5 or 2X convertor. Appently I cant do it with Canon. So I am looking a a kenko. Some people say not enough lite and no AF. Does any one know better?
Thanks
Gary

[Doug West]

I have a Canon XTI with a 70-300 IS EF USM lens. I want to up it with the use of a 1.5 or 2X convertor. Appently I cant do it with Canon. So I am looking a a kenko. Some people say not enough lite and no AF. Does any one know better?
Thanks
Gary

First, the easy part...no 2x. You're going to lose two stops of light right there, not
to mention AF.

You're right that Canon's 1.4x isn't compatible with the 70-300. I checked out the specs
for the 1.4x Kenko and it seems like you can use it, but is it worth it? First it states full
time AF is only possible with 2.8 (or faster). Right off the bat, your zoom will be a
5.6-6.3.

If I remember correctly, you'll lose AF at F5.6.

This is just me, but I believe in matching brand for brand. So I wouldn't even think
about putting a Kenko on one of my Canon lenses, because of quality.

Me, I would pass.

If you need more reach, maybe look into Sigma's zoom lenses. They have a nice
selection in the 500mm area. Sell your 70-300 and the prices aren't that bad.

Doug

[Steve Wheeler]

Hi Ed... I am in a similar situation and have heard similar voices. (I'm back on my meds now though and all is once again right with the world.:p) Bought my 1st DSLR (30D) in July '07... Picked up a 100-400 in Oct and just recently bought a 40D. I too find myself drawn to shooting birds (egrets, herons and the like), but for the most part here in N. TX. they just aren't that easy to get next to or even within decent range of. With my 100-400 (640mm on the 30/40D) I still find myself wishing for and needing a lot more focal length to get the shots I'd ultimately like to get.

I'd read in several places that in terms of IQ the 300 2.8 is one of the finest teles Canon makes so I rented one along with a 2x TC (960mm on the 30/40D.... and renting before you buy was a GREAT way for me to figure some of this out). The lens was a joy to use and while I don't have the experience or 'eye' many (probably most) here do, I was very impressed and pleased with the resulting IQ from that combination. As it stands today though, I'm of a mind that it's still too short for me and what I'd ultimately like to be able to shoot.

Look at a fair number of the images and focal lengths here on BPN from folks that either live, or shoot frequently in Florida for example. (I'm not pickin' on yall... just very jealous!;)) LOTS of birds that are, in general depending on WHERE you are, pretty used to people walking around among them... Meaning one can get close. Or at least a lot closer than I can here.:( They're still (generally) using lenses with focal lengths of 500mm plus and many times in conjunction some kind of TC. (I'm speaking in generalities, but I bet I'm not far off.)

I spent a few days in Bosque del Apache last Nov. with a good friend that let me use his 500 f4.5. I still found myself wanting a little bit more reach much of the time and you can get pretty darn close to a BUNCH of BIG cranes there! I think if I'd had a 1.4 in the mix I'd been right about where I wanted to be.

In my research prior to deciding on my 30D and 1st lens I can't tell you how many threads I read in different forums suggesting it's all about what your 'Style' is and "What you want to shoot". I got so frustrated because I was new and didn't KNOW what my 'Style' was or what I wanted to shoot! What I'm finding out though is there really is no getting around those questions. Still dunno about style, but I know what I want to shoot and I'm not quite there yet on the equipment end to be able to accomplish those goals, but I think a 500 and 1.4 will get me pretty darn close.

Steve

[Ed Vatza]

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts Steve. Over the past year, I have photographed maybe 150 species of birds if not more and almost all of them have been with my 400mm f/5.6 without any TC even though I do have a Kenko 1.4x. I don't like the idea of losing the AF.

Compound the 400mm lens with the fact that most of the birds I end up photographing are small songbirds and it is a double whammy. I'm not sure any lens is long enough for warblers, sparrows and such. What I have done is come up with a two-pronged solution of sorts. First for a big guy (6'2" 240 lbs), I have learned how to sneak up and get closer to birds that I wasn't able to even a year ago. Must be some of that flyfishing experience sneaking up on the wary trout. And second, I find that even if I crop down to something like 1500 x 1200 pixels, I still have an image that reproduces well as an 8x10 (and 2000 x 1600 works as an 11 x 14). I know these would not work for a two page magazine spread but I'm not there yet. And I can generally do pretty well filling a frame with big birds like herons, egrets and such.

Don't get me wrong. If money were no issue, I'd buy both the 300mm f/2.8 and the 500 or 600. But money is an issue as is my love for all things natural not just birds. But birds are high on the list.

So I continue to twist in the wind between the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4.

[Steve Ashton]

I would say the 300mm is much less specialist than the 500mm. But this is a bird forum and for birds reach is everything. I have the 300mm and use it for everything from portraits & landscapes and with convertors birds. But For bird work I will be getting a 500 or 600mm.

As a general telephoto the 300mm is superb on of the best lenses I have ever used. From you comments and range of interests for me the 300 is the way to go.

One other point here and I may be wrong having never used a non pro body but will full AF work with the 500 and convertors? If not possibly another reason to go 300mm

[Steve Wheeler]

As I understand it the 5/20/30/40Ds will AF to f5.6 or faster while the pro bodies will AF to f8. A few weeks ago I rented an older non-IS 600 f4 and 1.4TC for use on my 30D (1344mm @ f5.6) and had no problems at all with AF... It was actually pretty fast, but then I wasn't trying to do BIF. Carrying it around for any length of time on the other hand might be another story.... What a LUMP!!!

Sure was fun using it though!

Ed... Fieldcraft plays an obvious role in all this and is not something I brought up in my response... I'm long winded enough! Dialing in that part of this bird photography equation is from what I can tell probably just as, if not more important than total mm of focal length and is not a skill I've developed quite yet. Maybe you could share some of your secrets here....

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=4169

Good luck on your decision!

Steve

[Jeff Hammond]

Ed...

I tend to agree with Steve in that reach is so important with birds. I own the 600 f4 IS as well as the 300 f2.8 IS and love both of them. The 300 has good (read into that...not GREAT) reach and produces outstanding quality images with no TC and very good quality images with either a 1.4 or 2x.

The benefit of the 300 vs. my 600 is (I think) slightly higher image quality when you take the images to 150% or higher and it certainly packs easier from both a weight and a size standpoint. That said, there really is no good substitute for reach...especially for the smaller birds and those less comfortable with nearby humans. For the larger birds in some of the Florida locales, I have actually found the 600 to be TOO long to get a flying heron or pelican into the frame in some situations. What an outstanding problem to have!

I love my 300, but bought the 600 several years before it because of the reach issue. That would be my recommendation to you as well...go long and buy the 300 later IF you find you have a need for the smaller, lighter lens.

Happy shopping!

[Ed Vatza]

OK, a little math here.

First off, both of my camera bodies (30D and XT) are 1.6x crop cameras. Let's just salt that away for the moment. Both of these cameras lose AF once the aperture value exceeds f/5.6.

Now if I were to get the 500mm f/4, I could only go with a 1.4x TC which would give me 700mm f/5.6 which would still allow the AF to work.

On the other hand if I were to get the 300mm f/2.8, I could use a 2x TC which would give me 600mm f/5.6 again allowing th AF to continue to work.

Now if I understand focal length, a 100mm difference between say 100mm and 200mm represents a 100% increase in focal length. But the same 100mm difference between 600mm and 700mm is only a 16% increase in focal length. This would suggest that the longer the focal length, the less the impact of a constant-sized increase in focal length.

Now let's say we put a 500mm f/4 on a full frame camera. Then we could put a 2x TC giving us 1000mm at f/8 and AF would still work. But the 300mm with a 2x would give us the equivalent 960mm at f/5.6 (600mm x 1.6).

Now all this assume that IQ is comparable and from what I have read the 300m f/2.8 may be the best IQ-wise. Both would have some degradation due to using the TCs (1.4x or 2x).

See what happens when I listen to those voices! :D

[Alfred Forns]

Ed you need to go back to your math

The difference in image capture between a 500 and 600 lens is 40% more Not sure about the others Basically you can talk yourself into anything with enough analysis It boils down to what you want. For making bird images you will be short changing yourself with a 300 2.8 period !!!!

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I got the 500 and am very happy with it. The image quality is great even with a 1.4x TC attached. I have a 1.3x crop camera, though. Even though the 300 is great and quite good with a 2x TC, I wouldn't want to have this as a standard setup. If you photograph small birds, you need all the focal length you can get.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Ed,
I have a 400 F2.8 L IS lens. I also have a 300mm F4 L IS USM lens. I know that the 300 f2.8 L IS USM is a nice and sharp lens. Weight is also much lesser than the 500mm. However, if you want to primarily use a lens for bird photo then you have to select either the 500 or the 600 over the 300 f2.8 IS. I find the 400 with 2x with my 1.3 factor 1D Mark II gives me 1040mm which is found wanting in terms of reach for bird photography in number of cases.

Your 300mm with 2x in a 1.6 crop factor camera will yield 960mm. Interms of reach this is simply not enough. When I had the 10D, I used to often shoot with 300mm f4 with 2x coupled in manual focus mode. I had realised that the resulting 960mm was not for bird photography. Well, if you sit in a blind and allow the birds to come near you, then it is a different story. Else, this is not enough.

Having said that, if your heart says 300mm f2.8 L IS. You can go with it and try it and exploit it to its full potential. You can always sell the lens if you feel like and get a good resale value, as it is one of the most prized lenses of Canon line up.

[Ed Vatza]

Al, Axel, Sabyasachi,

Thank you for the your thoughts and comments. I certainly have a lot more overthinking to do!

I have to go back to my one of my original points. If I wanted the lens for just birds, the 500mm would be a no brainer. The 300mm is in the picture because it seems to be more versatile for various other nature photography opportunities.

That said, I know I would be very happy with the 500mm for birds. That was my intention all along. The 300 seems to me to be more versatile as I just said but I am not sure that I would be totally happy. And $4,000 is $4,000. Not a drop in the bucket for me. So if I did tilt entirely in the 300 direction, I would have to be as close to 100% sure as I could.

Which brings me to the math. Al you mentioned 500 vs. 600. Unless I am missing some X-factor, a 100mm increase over a 500mm lens would be 100/500 or 20%. Bare naked, the 500 gives me 67% more reach over the 300 (200/300). But given that I could use a 2x TC with the 300 and just a 1.4x with the 500, the comparison of "maximum reach" of the two lenses is 600mm (for the 300 plus 2x TC) versus 700mm (for the 500 plus 1.4x TC). That is a 16.67% improvement (100/600). Like I said, this is the case unless I am missing some factor in the calculation which is possible.

I really am NOT looking for an argument. I respect your opinions. Besides, can so many great photographers be wrong! :D;) I just have to feel comfortable with my decision whatever it is. And as my wife of nearly 40 years can confirm that I overanalyze everything!

[Petros Petrou]

Ed it is not so simple. Don't forget that we are talking about AREA coverage with every lens. 600 vs 500 means that you will have 20% more pixels on your subject horizontaly and 20% more verticaly. If you convert that to area coverage, you will end up that you will have 44% more pixels on your subject (0.2 x 0.2 = 0.44). I think that this was what Al mentioned before.

[Eric Wikander]

I agree 100% that the 300 with extenders does not make the best BIRD lens. The 500 and 600 are the champs in the lineup for this for sure. This being said I did go with the 300 2.8L IS for financial reasons and for versatility reasons. I not only shoot birds but also I shoot many other animals and other things too. I plan to get either the 500 or 600 in the future but for now I will stick with the 300. This lens does the trick for me for now.

PS. Living here in TN I do not care if you have the 1200 mm 5.6 you sometimes run into situation you do not have enough focal length.

You can look at my site to see what the 300 has to offer for versatility!
www.avianart.net

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

Ed you need to go back to your math

The difference in image capture between a 500 and 600 lens is 40% more Not sure about the others Basically you can talk yourself into anything with enough analysis It boils down to what you want. For making bird images you will be short changing yourself with a 300 2.8 period !!!!

Alfred, you have made my day, clear advice is what I need.
I have ordered the 500mm f4, I have a 100-400 L IS and it just isn't always long enough. With the 500mm I can add a 1.4TC if I wish and still get AF.
Jon

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

Al, Axel, Sabyasachi,

Thank you for the your thoughts and comments. I certainly have a lot more overthinking to do!

I have to go back to my one of my original points. If I wanted the lens for just birds, the 500mm would be a no brainer. The 300mm is in the picture because it seems to be more versatile for various other nature photography opportunities.

That said, I know I would be very happy with the 500mm for birds. That was my intention all along. The 300 seems to me to be more versatile as I just said but I am not sure that I would be totally happy. And $4,000 is $4,000. Not a drop in the bucket for me. So if I did tilt entirely in the 300 direction, I would have to be as close to 100% sure as I could.

Which brings me to the math. Al you mentioned 500 vs. 600. Unless I am missing some X-factor, a 100mm increase over a 500mm lens would be 100/500 or 20%. Bare naked, the 500 gives me 67% more reach over the 300 (200/300). But given that I could use a 2x TC with the 300 and just a 1.4x with the 500, the comparison of "maximum reach" of the two lenses is 600mm (for the 300 plus 2x TC) versus 700mm (for the 500 plus 1.4x TC). That is a 16.67% improvement (100/600). Like I said, this is the case unless I am missing some factor in the calculation which is possible.

I really am NOT looking for an argument. I respect your opinions. Besides, can so many great photographers be wrong! :D;) I just have to feel comfortable with my decision whatever it is. And as my wife of nearly 40 years can confirm that I overanalyze everything!

Ed
I have been there seen it and bought the tee shirt. I have analysed and re-analysed. If you want shots of birds you need reach. The longer the lens the better, the drawback is the weight. I came to the conclusion the best compromise is the 500mm. I haven't read anything that contradicts this. Bite the bullet mate - did! When I bought the 1000-400 L IS it opened up a whole new world, I am convinced the 500mm will do the same.
Jon

[Charles Senkus]

i have a 100-400 L on a 40D and am not really happy with the reach or iq so i bought a 500@1.4 and still wish it was longer but the iq is much better --the reach is much better also but i think in the bird game you never have enough. guess i'll have to save for the 1200mm b@h has but it will be a long time comming at 99,000.00

[Roger Clark]

My 2 cents:

I've have a 500 f/4 IS (for many years). I love the lens and will always keep it. Whenever I travel with wildlife photography as the goal, the 500 is a must. But I travel a lot for my job, and dragging a 500 with tripod and full Wimberly plus all my necessary work stuff is simply not going to happen. So then I must travel lighter. Currently I take a 300 f/4 IS, but I often (surprise) want more reach, so I think I'll buy a 300 f/2.8 for when I want to "travel light." Anyone else do this? (I would take a Gitzo 1228 and Wimberly sidekick too, with the camera a 1.3x crop 1D Mark II so I can use a 2X and if needed 2x + 1.4x TCs; sometimes I take a 30D to be lighter and then I can use the 2x.)

Roger

[Gib Robinson]

I travel with a 300 f/2.8. It fits in a Tamrac suitcase the size of the Think Tank Airport Security case. I still have room for other lenses and two bodies. I carry a TC, flash, and other gear (including lunch!) in a vest I wear. Tripod goes in a checked bag. I don't generally carry a sidekick because I normally handhold the 300.

[Ric Grupe]

Okay...since no one has mentioned it...I will add my 2¢.

Of course reach for birding is essential. But a lens you leave at home will do nothing for you. That's why I chose the 400 DO IS lens which is light enough to hand hold all day.

The reports of poor quality images with this lens is overstated IMO. You need to add more contrast and edge sharpening in post...so what?!

When coupled with the 1.4 TC and a 40D (or any 1.6 FOVC camera) you get about 900mm of reach...which ain't too shabby. If the light allows you to shoot at f6.3...which is most of the time...this is a nice birding setup that you WILL use.

JMO!:)

[Robert O'Toole]

This is the perfect travel set up for me, this goes with me on the plane. My 1.4X Nikkor and 1.7 x nikkor also fit in this bag.

My GT3530 and Mongoose M3.5 go into my check-in bag.

Robert

P.s. If you need help that is a EF600/4,200-400/4 VR, D300w/MBD10,MKIII,EF28135IS,EF2x,EF1.4X. The 6 and 2-4 have 4th Gen low profile feet.

P.p.s Wish that was a 600VR.....

[Robert O'Toole]

My 2 cents:

I've have a 500 f/4 IS (for many years). I love the lens and will always keep it. Whenever I travel with wildlife photography as the goal, the 500 is a must. But I travel a lot for my job, and dragging a 500 with tripod and full Wimberly plus all my necessary work stuff is simply not going to happen. So then I must travel lighter.
Roger

Hi Roger, I know what you mean about weight, you should give a Mongoose M3.5 a test drive. For the 500/4 the M35 makes like a lot easier.

Robert

[Ric Grupe]

Canon and Nikon residing in peace and tranquility in the same home...a thing of beauty! :-)

[Alfred Forns]

.................... you are right about the cameras ....... but what about the owner :D:cool:

[Desmond Gunatilaka]

On my crop(1.6 x) camera, I used a 400mm and 300mm(f/4 IS) and felt that it was not getting the reach even with a 1.4TC. Now using FF camera with 500mm & 1.4 TC , I still can't reach the small birds. Probably a 600mm with1.4TC may get it done. Any thoughts from 600mm lens users?

[Sabyasachi Patra]

.................... you are right about the cameras ....... but what about the owner :D:cool:

I agree. I can't imagine carrying two different systems...apart from the cost, mastering two different systems and using it as if they are an extension of your body....Amazing.