October 22, 2014, 08:19:31 AM

Author Topic: Superteles: 300 vs 500  (Read 6712 times)

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2013, 04:40:56 AM »

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.


Most of what you wrote is sensible.  But, many of would dispute that sentence.  I use the 1.4x TC III  and the 2xTC III with the 300mm f/2.8 II and find the IQ with both extenders excellent.

Whether you keep the 300 or buy a 500 depends on your style and physique.  If you don't work out with weights, like walking and hand held shots and not carrying a tripod, then keep the 300mm. If you don't work out but like sitting in a hide or elsewhere for hours, then get a 600 or 500.  If you are Arnie or Rambo, carry both plus a tripod. 
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2013, 04:40:56 AM »

Michael_pfh

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2013, 06:57:53 AM »
The 500 F4L IS is a great lens, you will not regret upgrading.
1DX | 14 2.8L II | 16-35 2.8L II | 24 1.4L II | 24-70 2.8L II | ZE 35 2.0 | ZE 50 2.0 | 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8L IS | 135 2.0L | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 200 F2.0L IS | 300 2.8L IS II | 400 2.8L IS II | 500 4.0L IS

East Wind Photography

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 712
  • EWP
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2013, 07:41:47 AM »
With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x.  The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime.  No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

many world renowned wildlife photographers tend to disagree they are useless.

but i guess amateurs have a higher standard....  8)

East Wind Photography

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 712
  • EWP
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2013, 08:05:19 AM »
Eml58, looks like you have used a number of lenses in the past.  I was wondering what your opinion is on using the 300 2.8L II +1.4iii+apc-c compared to a 600 F4L IS mk1+full frame?

Wondering if the new 300 combo on a crop is as good as the old 600 by itself on a full frame?

I'll have one of the new 300s in a couple of weeks for eval and plan to run this comparison through it's paces.

My thoughts based on what I own & have owned.

300/400 f/2.8 Version 1 Lenses, both great, but heavy.

300 & 400 f/2.8 Version 2 Lenses, IQ I feel about the same as the Version 1 Lenses, but 30 percent less weight.

600f/4 Version 2 Lens, lightish, great IQ

200-400f/4 great versatility, great sharpness, but horrible price.

When I purchased the 200-400f/4 I sold the 400f/2.8 as I dont feel I'll use the 400f/2.8 that much anymore.

I kept the 300f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II as they do a different job, 300f/2.8 great for low light, hand holdable, all round in my view the sharpest Lens Canon make, works really well with Series III 1.4x

I kept the 600 f/4 as with the 1.4x gives me some Legs.

If you shoot Birds, at some point you will need good IQ 600 +, the 600f/4 with 1.4x will give you that with spades, clearly seen from Images from people such as Gary Samples with his Eagles.

The 300f/2.8 I will work very well with the Series III 1.4x, But for Birds I think you will find yourself short most of the time.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

If you shoot mostly wildlife your 300f/2.8 plus your 1.4x converter should work just fine, look to upgrade at some point when you can afford it to the 600f/4 II if you find your shooting BIF more than other wildlife, the issue is you may then find the 600 is too long for wildlife but just fine for BIF, Life, full of difficult decisions.

Which ever way you go, good luck with the Imaging.

photo212

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2013, 09:34:51 AM »
I have both the 500 and 300 v1.  Use the 500 10-20x more than the 300.  Now that I just got the 200-400 (lots of $), I think both the 300 and 500 will see much less use.  Eventually I will replace the 500 with a 600 for the reach, especially when shooting birds.  200-400 is great for general wildlife.

I know this is much more money than you planning on spending, but it is an alternative setup. 

BTW - I would avoid 2.0 Mk 2 (soft) and the 600F4 V1 (too heavy).  500 F4 V1 is a great lens and the V2 is not much lighter.
same here.

I use the 300mm with a teleconverter as my handhold lens whilst the 500mm and 1.4xTC is on the gimbal mount. Which is being used is dependent on if I'm standing still or on the move. So consider your shooting style. Do you campout at one spot and wait? (500mm) or do you constantly move about (300mm)?

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2013, 10:55:38 AM »
With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x.  The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime.  No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

many world renowned wildlife photographers tend to disagree they are useless.

but i guess amateurs have a higher standard....  8)

I have done pretty exhaustive testing and my results were that rezzing up the 1.4 was not as good as using the 2xTC.  The TDP site shows the same.  Maybe your 2xTC isn't so good or there is an AFMA problem?
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

msm

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2013, 11:16:50 AM »
With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x.  The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime.  No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.



That depends on what you put the 2x on. The new 2x TC on a 300mm IS II works just great together, hand holdable 600mm reach with great IQ at less than 3kg and no perceptible loss of AF speed on a 1dx or 5DIII body.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2013, 11:16:50 AM »

Lnguyen1203

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2013, 11:31:52 AM »
If you shoot birds, by all means make the trade.  For wildlife, it depends on where you are, 300+1.4x is enough for Africa, but not in other parts of the world depending on what you shoot.  On the other hand, handholding a 500f4 on a boat shooting orca may be tough.

From what you describe, I'd get a crop body to go with the 300 and get the 2X III in case you need even more reach,

I loaned my 300f2.8 IS to my brother after getting  a 500f4 II and never look back.  I just came back from a trip to Africa and the 500 performed great for me from the safari vehicle.   But I don't hike 4-12 miles with it and don't shoot orcas.

Loi
1DX, 5D3, T3i, 500f4 II, 70-300L, 16-35L, 1.4x II, 2x III TCs

can0nfan2379

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2013, 11:08:25 PM »
Slightly off topic but has anyone here used the Promedia Katana gimbal?
5D3  |  Zeiss ZE 21/2.8  |  Zeiss ZE 50/2.0  |  EF 85 1.2LII  |  EF 70-200 2.8L IS I  |  EF 300 2.8L IS I  |  EF 500 4L IS I  |  TC 1.4x III  |  RRS MH-01 + MC34  |  F-Stop Tilopa BC

Jack Douglas

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2013, 12:46:55 AM »
Hi All,

I'd been agonizing for months over this choice that's presently being debated here.  I am now comfortable with the 300 2.8 II and 2X III.  I would never argue it's equal to a 600 but it sure is hand holdable and the IQ is nothing to be ashamed of.  This shot is typical of what I get.  It represents a crop of about 1/4 of the original.  I wish that the comments that are made in CR could be accompanied by sample pictures because it's so hard to get a handle on what one person considers acceptable and another does not, but I know that's a tall order.

Jack

6D 300 F2.8 III with X2 III at 500th F25  ISO 1250  (should have dropped the ISO for this bright shot)
6D  24-70 F4  70-200 F2.8 II  300 F2.8 II  1.4X III  2X III

can0nfan2379

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2013, 01:17:33 AM »
Photo212 -- I usually hike, take some pics, hike some more take some pics.....certainly don't camp out in one spot all day long.

Thanks for the sample pick Jack. 

Lnguyen1203 -- Based on your experience the combined 420 was pretty similar to the 500 in Africa?  I lived in South Africa for 3 months and at the time I was shooting with a 7D and 70-200 IS 2.8L Mk I.  When I was driving around Pilanesberg, I found on several occasions that the 320 effective focal length was just too short which was why I was skeptical about the 420mm still being short so I may go the route of adding a crop body again to my kit when the 7D replacement arrives.
5D3  |  Zeiss ZE 21/2.8  |  Zeiss ZE 50/2.0  |  EF 85 1.2LII  |  EF 70-200 2.8L IS I  |  EF 300 2.8L IS I  |  EF 500 4L IS I  |  TC 1.4x III  |  RRS MH-01 + MC34  |  F-Stop Tilopa BC

can0nfan2379

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2013, 01:19:43 AM »
East Wind -- I look forward to seeing what your results of that comparison are.....

Eml58, looks like you have used a number of lenses in the past.  I was wondering what your opinion is on using the 300 2.8L II +1.4iii+apc-c compared to a 600 F4L IS mk1+full frame?

Wondering if the new 300 combo on a crop is as good as the old 600 by itself on a full frame?

I'll have one of the new 300s in a couple of weeks for eval and plan to run this comparison through it's paces.

My thoughts based on what I own & have owned.

300/400 f/2.8 Version 1 Lenses, both great, but heavy.

300 & 400 f/2.8 Version 2 Lenses, IQ I feel about the same as the Version 1 Lenses, but 30 percent less weight.

600f/4 Version 2 Lens, lightish, great IQ

200-400f/4 great versatility, great sharpness, but horrible price.

When I purchased the 200-400f/4 I sold the 400f/2.8 as I dont feel I'll use the 400f/2.8 that much anymore.

I kept the 300f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II as they do a different job, 300f/2.8 great for low light, hand holdable, all round in my view the sharpest Lens Canon make, works really well with Series III 1.4x

I kept the 600 f/4 as with the 1.4x gives me some Legs.

If you shoot Birds, at some point you will need good IQ 600 +, the 600f/4 with 1.4x will give you that with spades, clearly seen from Images from people such as Gary Samples with his Eagles.

The 300f/2.8 I will work very well with the Series III 1.4x, But for Birds I think you will find yourself short most of the time.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

If you shoot mostly wildlife your 300f/2.8 plus your 1.4x converter should work just fine, look to upgrade at some point when you can afford it to the 600f/4 II if you find your shooting BIF more than other wildlife, the issue is you may then find the 600 is too long for wildlife but just fine for BIF, Life, full of difficult decisions.

Which ever way you go, good luck with the Imaging.
5D3  |  Zeiss ZE 21/2.8  |  Zeiss ZE 50/2.0  |  EF 85 1.2LII  |  EF 70-200 2.8L IS I  |  EF 300 2.8L IS I  |  EF 500 4L IS I  |  TC 1.4x III  |  RRS MH-01 + MC34  |  F-Stop Tilopa BC

Lnguyen1203

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2013, 10:31:57 AM »
Hi All,

I'd been agonizing for months over this choice that's presently being debated here.  I am now comfortable with the 300 2.8 II and 2X III.  I would never argue it's equal to a 600 but it sure is hand holdable and the IQ is nothing to be ashamed of.  This shot is typical of what I get.  It represents a crop of about 1/4 of the original.  I wish that the comments that are made in CR could be accompanied by sample pictures because it's so hard to get a handle on what one person considers acceptable and another does not, but I know that's a tall order.

Jack

6D 300 F2.8 III with X2 III at 500th F25  ISO 1250  (should have dropped the ISO for this bright shot)

Jack, I have shot with both the 300f2.8 IS (version I) + 2X III and the 500f4 II + 2X III.  The latetr IQ is far superior.  I hear the IQ of the 300f2.8 II + 2.0X III is fantastic since the 300f2.8 II shares the same optics with the 500f4 II and 600f4 II.  The issue here is not IQ, but reach and crop.  Everytime you crop, you lose IQ.

Here is an example of a 500f4 II + 2X III, so focal length is 1000-mm, cropped to about 75% of original.

I have seen folks with fantastic photos and IQ with a 450D and Sigma 150-500mm.  Getting close and having good light is key.

Loi
1DX, 5D3, T3i, 500f4 II, 70-300L, 16-35L, 1.4x II, 2x III TCs

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2013, 10:31:57 AM »

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2013, 10:48:38 AM »
Here is a typical example of what IQ is like for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a series III 2xTC attached. There is no PP on these, no unsharp mask etc, changing of contrast etc. The 5760x3840 full frame of the 5D III is reduced to 1200x800 to have it on screen. There are 100% crops of the centre and the head to show the level of resolution. These are tiny: 210x163 pixels at the centre and 763x619 of the head.

ps f/5.6, iso 800, 1/400s

« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 11:03:20 AM by AlanF »
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

Lnguyen1203

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2013, 10:56:13 AM »
Here is a typical example of what IQ is like for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a series III 2xTC attached. There is no PP on these, no unsharp mask etc, changing of contrast etc. The 5760x3840 full frame is reduced to 1200x800 to have it on screen. There are 100% crops of the centre and the head to show the level of resolution. These are tiny: 210x163 pixels at the centre and 763x619 of the head.

That IQ looks good to me.  TFS.  Loi
1DX, 5D3, T3i, 500f4 II, 70-300L, 16-35L, 1.4x II, 2x III TCs

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Superteles: 300 vs 500
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2013, 10:56:13 AM »