Jack Douglas said:
Canon1, So did you sell the 500. I was seriously wondering if the 500 with converters wouldn't be better for the added reach. I've shot for 1 year now with the 300 X2 and have been pretty satisfied except for the desired reach (might consider a 7D2). If you have both lenses I'd really love to hear the feedback on a direct comparison.
Jack
Jack,
I was quite happy with my 500 mark 1 when shooting without tc's. I found that with the 1.4 that AF was pretty slow and iq degraded a fair amount. I tested several tc's and used a few 500's all calibrated to 5diii and felt the same way. I could always get better results by cropping a shot at 500, so I never used the tc's. Also, for the type of shooting I do (hiking, kayaking) it was not the most portable lens. So the 300 was the best choice for me.
My take on the 300 for AF and iq compared to the 500:
300 without tc is the sharpest lens I have ever used. It's unbelievable. And the AF is so fast.
300 with 1.4tc has almost no iq loss, is sharper then the 500 at f4 and AF is still very very fast.
300 with 2.0 is not quite as sharp as the 500, AF is not quite as fast, but still excellent for fast moving subjects and blows the 500+tc away with both iq and AF.
Of course, this is the 300ii with v iii tc's compared to a 500i with v ii tc's. it is my understanding that the new 500ii and 600ii lenses are extremely sharp even with tc's.
I went with the 300 because the focal length fits my shooting style so perfectly, and with tc's it is still great. Go with version ii lenses if you can afford them. They are worth every penny.