Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III

[eml58]

I might have to borrow one from Canon to see how I like it, but my wallet is rather afraid to do that!

Your comment puts you at the top of the slippery slope

I've enjoyed this thread, people helping people, enjoyable to see.

My own take on the 300f/2.8 II has been written on CR a few times, in my view it's the sharpest Lens Canon have made, at least of those I own and have owned. Brilliant with the 1.4x III and pretty good with the 2x III.

When I head out on Safari to Africa I invariably plan where I'm going to have either the 600f/4 II + 300f/2.8 II, or the 200-400f/4 & 300f/2.8 II, I'de love to take all 3 Lenses but when I'm travelling without my Sherpa (My Son), it's too much Cabin luggage, and Africa is not the place to be checking in Long Lenses in check in Bags.

I've never owned a 500, thinking about it I wonder why, I've owned both the 400f/2.8 I & 400f/2.8 II but not a 500, the 200-400f/4 is hands down the Lens of choice when I head out, but for Dawn/Sunset the 300f/2.8 II is in it's element, and completely hand holdable, the 200-400f/4 get's heavy quickly, as did the 400f/2.8 especially the Version I.

 

[eml58]

I use the 300 Mk11 with the 2X Mk111.

I love it its a very useful combination, very usable.

Here is an image taken with it, in poor light and pouring rain. First shot is the whole image, second is a crop of the head.

Both images processed in LR with sharpening @ 25.

Love the "Spirit Bear" Image Skulker, have to do this sometime soon, planning on a trip to the US later this Year, hope I get the chance to Photograph these Guys.

Where did you manage to see this Chap ??, would be interested to know.

 

[K-amps]

The photo attached was taken with a 5D2. AF was at least good, I don't have a whole ream of comparison data with other lenses but I could keep up with birds of prey circling.

Jim

Nice shot of Patrick Stewart. Sorry to go off track a bit; I notice the camera struggling to reproduce rich reds. Same thing happens in my 5d3, when I shoot red flowers, the reds bleed over. If I try and fix in post, the shot looks desaturated, if I only reduce red then it looks weak but I regain some textural detail... correcting the red back to proper saturation and I lose textural detail. Anyone else notice this? till this point I thought it was limited to me only...

 

[timcz]

Really like that spirit bear picture.

I use the 2x III with my 300 2.8 IS (version 1) and I get pretty good results, not stellar, but i would say acceptable. Have tested it mostly on birds and the sort, but really would like to try with large mammals.

This thread really makes me want to upgrade it to the v2.

A question I have though, with the v1 300 2.8, is it worth upgrading my 1.4 II to the 1.4 III?

 

[Canon1]

A question I have though, with the v1 300 2.8, is it worth upgrading my 1.4 II to the 1.4 III?

Nope. Optically the iii might be a sliver better then the ii, but not noticeable. When I used to have the 300 v1, I bought a 1.4 iii and could not tell any difference in IQ. FoCal numbers were a little better for the iii, but something like 4-5% higher.... not noticeable even at 100%.

The only reason to get a viii TC is if you have a vii lens. This will result in a significant improvement in AF speed and accuracy.

 

[bornshooter]

These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.

 

[AlanF]

Most lenses give great results with the image filling the frame. You see what a lens can do by looking at 100% crops of a small bird occupying just a small part of the frame, just like in the last posts. Here are three 100% crops I took with my 2.8 300mm II + 2xTCIII last weekend, with just a few hundred pixels each way occupied. I posted a few more today in the BIF thread. It is a great combo (and a nice back up for my Tamron 150-600).

 

[mackguyver]

Alan, great shots crops Those grebes that you and Eldar are posting and beautiful birds. I've never seen them before.

Also, I'm not sure if you're annoyed with DxO for having profiles of seemingly every other lens except for the 300mm +/- extenders, but if you haven't filled out their request form, that might help persuade them to build the profiles.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Please define 100% crop again - poor memory! :-[

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Please define 100% crop again - poor memory! :-[

Jack

Hi Jack
100% crop means that you have cut a section from the full frame and haven't reduced it in size. So, 1 pixel in the crop = 1 pixel from the original.
Always good to correspond with you.
Alan

 

[eml58]

These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.

Ummmm, Bornshooter, these are real "Birds".

From you ?? Real Birds ??

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Alan,

Now here is a 300 shot, cropped out and posted without applying any size reduction. That makes it a 100% crop right? Is the lens performing roughly what you'd expect, ISO 1250 1200th F3.2 How would you be evaluating this?

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

I'm looking for a similar 600, but this is 420. 400th F11 ISO 800

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Closest comparison with 600 I could find, 100% crop. 500th F14 ISO 640

Jack

 

[bornshooter]

These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.

Ummmm, Bornshooter, these are real "Birds".

From you ?? Real Birds ??

I know edward but these birds do not complain haha