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

[jasonsim]

The 300mm II is a great lens; probably Canon's best thus far in terms of IQ and resolving power. I also have a 600mm II and only use it when I know my subject will be a known distance and I will be stationary (it is still heavy when you add a beefy monopod and 1Dx to it). So 300mm II + converters are the way to go when walking around and potential subject is an unknown. Also it's just much more versatile; thinking field sports, air shows, even some portrait work.

Here are some shots with the 300mm II + 2x III combo:

 

[Canon1]

I previously owned a 300 f2.8is version I and absolutely loved that lens. Razor sharp, very versatile, small and light (relatively) and worked very well with a 1.4x TC. The one down-side is that it was very SOFT with a 2.0x TC.

I ended up selling this lens to fund a 500 f4 is Version I. I have been pretty happy with this lens for the most part, however it does not perform super well with TC's from both an IQ standpoint as well as an AF speed standpoint. I find that I almost exclusively use this lens without TC's to produce images I am consistently happy with.

I really miss my 300 2.8, and have been considering the newer version II for quite some time. I would need to sell my 500 to afford one so I thought I would ask for feedback from those who own the 300 Version II and have used it with a 2.0x converter Version III. The lens comparison tool from TheDigitalPicture indicates that this lens does quite remarkably with a 2.0x TC. So well to my eye that I am thinking it would be a nice replacement for my 500 f4 Version I, and give me the 300/420mm that I so often miss. Has anyone used this 300+2.0 combo? How do the images look? How snappy is the AF? Compared to the 500f4is? Any feedback is appreciated.

Happy Shooting,

Why not consider the 400/4 DO which reaches nearly 600 with only a 1.4XTC.
Lighter to carry around as well.
Seems to be a good seller for Canon.

This is an old thread from 7 months ago and was recently resurrected. About 6 1/2 months ago I went ahead and bought the 300ii and the 1.4 and 2.0 version iii.

I am loving this combo and highly recommend it to anyone. I like everything about this combo and it is far better for me ten my 500 and consistently makes better images. For the bird and wildlife photographer, it is tough to beat this combo.

 

[Jack Douglas]

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

 

[Kerry B]

For me the 300 with the 2 x extender is a perfect combination, yes it is slightly slower attaining focus and there is a little image quality loss but you gain so much more. The 300f2.8 mk11 is probably Canons sharpest telephoto lens, hook it up to the new extenders and you have a very versatile lens combination.
I recently posted the Robin image, the first one with no crop, the second image is cropped from the original. Make up your own mind.

 

[jasonsim]

Of course, for the very best versatility:

When 600mm does not cut it, the 600mm II + 2x III is nice option to have too. But I'm still on record for the 300mm f/2.8L II being the best with teleconverters.

Taken with 600mm II + 2x III on 1Dx:

 

[mackguyver]

Great shots all over this thread - and I love this combo as well. If you don't shoot birds, exclusively, you really owe it to yourself to try the 300II with 1.4 & 2x III TCs. It's so versatile. I use it to shoot everything from wildlife to portraits, to sports and being able to go from 300 to 420 to 600mm in a relatively short amount of time is awesome. I love the bigger whites, but they are heavy and bulky. I with this combo, I can hand carry and hand hold the lens for hours.

It requires a different type of shooting to get closer to your subjects, but its small size and weight allow you to do just that. I've posted the shots below elsewhere, but here are some more at 600mm to go with this thread:

Shot from a tripod & with the drop-in CPL:

Shot from my (cramped sports) car:

Handheld at 1/30s proving the 4+ stops of IS:

 

[JPAZ]

Thanks to all for posting some truly spectacular photos on this thread. I rented the 300 f/2.8 in November and now recently purchased one (through the "group buy" deal last month. I've not had time to fully try it out yet, but here are a couple of OOC jpegs from a trip to Bosque Del Apache in November using the 300 + 2xiii combo. These are only cropped to fit here. I STILL have not gotten to post processing on any of my shots from that trip. These are hand held.

 

[jasonsim]

Awesome shots mackguyver! I especially like the hawks!

JPAZ, nice shots, but the last one is definitely over exposed. Bring it down in post and it will be awesome. Bring the whites down on the first shot.

 

[JPAZ]

Thx. I always expose a little "to the right" then bring it back in post.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Just a lowly "English" sparrow but taken with 300 X2 and my new $250 1D2, for anyone still wondering about the 300. The odd spring bird is beginning to show up, mainly geese.

Jack

 

[Skulker]

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.

 

[JPAZ]

Very nice

 

[Krob78]

This is a great thread, glad it was revived. Not to hijack the thread by any means but not having the 300L, has anyone tried the 1.4xIII or the 2xIII on there 100-400L? My copy is very sharp and I really love it. Just wondering if the teleconverters would work equally as well with my 5dMk III and my 100-400mm, offering me 560mm with the 1.4xIII on the long end and 800mm with the 2xIII on the long end of my 100-400mm??

Thanks in advance!

 

[Canon1]

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.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Canon1. I forgot it was series I of the 500 you had. I'd sure like a real life hands on 300 - 500 comparison in series II with extenders.

However, I think I should just be happy with my 300 II and extenders and let others strive for the sharpest shots. I also prefer its lightness and size.

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

However, I think I should just be happy with my 300 II and extenders and let others strive for the sharpest shots. I also prefer its lightness and size.

Jack

Jack, I've used all of the II series (except the 500 II) and while they have their applications, you should be happy with what you have. It's the best blend of IQ, speed, and size/weight I've found. The other lenses are heavy and bulky and really can't be hand held for any length of time. They're also a lot bigger in terms of transporting/carrying them.

 

[Jack Douglas]

mackguyver, I bet you're just saying that so you'll have sharper shots than me!

Thanks for the reality check. I'm saving for the elusive 7D2 with hopes of decent performance with more reach. I figure the 6D and a 7D2 should serve me well as I travel Alberta/BC till my shooting days are over.

A sign of spring, yesterday. Yes a frog even though the creek is still mostly ice. Pretty heavy crop.

6D 300 X2 500th F11 ISO 640

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

mackguyver, I bet you're just saying that so you'll have sharper shots than me!

Thanks for the reality check. I'm saving for the elusive 7D2 with hopes of decent performance with more reach. I figure the 6D and a 7D2 should serve me well as I travel Alberta/BC till my shooting days are over.

A sign of spring, yesterday. Yes a frog even though the creek is still mostly ice. Pretty heavy crop.

6D 300 X2 500th F11 ISO 640

Jack

Nice shot, Alan, and I have the same gear as you (at least in Superteles), so my photos will only be sharper if I play around in Photoshop . It's funny to think about ice when I hear my fellow Floridian's complaining that it will "only" be 70F tomorrow. I grew up in New England, so I know what winter is, but the people around here...

The biggest challenge of 600mm on a FF body is getting close enough, but the more I shoot wildlife, the more I realize that no lens is long enough to shoot everything you see. Getting close is the trick to getting most wildlife shots. It seems like you always need a 200-600mm lens or a 3000mm lens Maybe that's why the 200-400 1.4x is already so popular, but it's still seems too big and bulky for my liking. I might have to borrow one from Canon to see how I like it, but my wallet is rather afraid to do that!

 

[Eimajm]

I'm shooting with a 7d 500mm mk I with 1.4tc and I have no problems with sharpness. There should be hardly any noticeable degradation wide open if properly calibrated and using correct long lens technique.

 

[Canon1]

I'm shooting with a 7d 500mm mk I with 1.4tc and I have no problems with sharpness. There should be hardly any noticeable degradation wide open if properly calibrated and using correct long lens technique.

It's just a matter of your "sharpness" tolerance. Mine is too low to be happy with the combo you suggest. I have calibrated all of my lenses and use proper technique. Not only do I believe that the 500+1.4 is too soft for my tastes, focal iq testing supports my belief. (With multiple lens copies) I'm not suggesting that this is rubbish by any means, just that I am much happier with the iq of my 300 along with the smaller lighter build.