Lens dilemma- 300mm f2.8 with tc or 500mm f4L MkI

[Mikehit]

Current gear is 7D2 with 100-400 MkII.
After deliberating whether to go upgrade the body (to 5D4) to give me better low light performance, or to upgrade the lens to a wider aperture, I have decided to go the lens route (I will keep the 100-400 for the flexibility of the zoom). Being very close to getting a 300mm f2.8LIS II to compliment my 100-400 MkII I have just found a good condition second hand 500mm f4L (MkI) advertised and the MkII is way out of my price bracket.

The 300mm is my default position and I have listed below the advantages of each as I see them. But what is harder to define (and where comments based on experience would be fantastic) is whether there a significant difference in image quality between the 300+1.4 and the 500mm?



300mm f2.8 advantages:
lighter, more compact, more handholdable
best part of a kilo lighter than the 500mm so more likely to take it out
with 1.4 TC still excellent image quality and losing 'only' 10% image size to the 500mm
Offers f2.8 if light is really challenging.

500mm f4 advantage:
500mm is 500mm...
with extenders takes me even further
£1,000 cheaper than the 300mm f2.8

500mm disadvantage: bulk and lower spec IS means I will probably end up using a tripod more often.

Any suggestions?

 

[Maximilian]

Mike, I would like to be in that kind of dilemma

While not owning either of these two lenses I'd surely prefer the 300/2.8 II.
Reasons:

• all of the advantages you've listed, PLUS
• f2.8 is great
• f2.8 is even better
• f2.8 can be hand-held in this case
• higher versality, esp. to use it hand-held
• latest AF, IS, coatings, etc.
• with 2x TC you can also get 600 mm

And if you're concerned about IQ with TC look at Brian's tests. He also tests with TC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=117&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I'd only go for a 500 mm lens if I'd feel the real need (!) for more reach.

Enjoy your GAS

PS.: Shall we make a bet, how long you're gonna keep your 100-400 II?

 

[Mikehit]

PS.: Shall we make a bet, how long you're gonna keep your 100-400 II?

Ha!ha!

I think the 100-400ii is an excellent lens and I like the idea of keeping it for my 6D as a flexible dual-camera set-up. But I do have the 70-200 f4LIS so you never know...

 

[takesome1]

Insufficient data to make a determination.

As far as IQ if you are shooting at 500mm the 500mm is the way to go rather than the 300mm with extender.
The big difference is size and portability. The 300mm for me is more like carrying the 100-400 you own. The 500mm is Huge in comparison.

The insufficient data:
We do not know what, where and when you want to shoot.

Decide on these two issues, focal length you need and portability. Define if your shots at 300mm are more important to you than those at 500mm.

If you always shooting at 500mm and portability is not a problem for you then go with the 500mm.

If you primarily shoot at 300mm go with the 300mm.

 

[Random Orbits]

It comes down to the focal length you require and how willing you are about using support systems (monopod or tripod). The 300 f/2.8 IS II and 400 f/4 DO II are near the limit of hand holdability for longer stretches of time. Being lighter and smaller, it's also more comfortable to walk around with. However, it still loses to the 100-400 II for portability. The 70-200s/70-300/100-400s also mark the boundary (for me) for " nonlinear conspicuousness". Yes, people start staring at those white zooms, but their interest level grows a LOT more with anything larger.

The longer the focal length the less general the lens becomes. 300 is still versatile and can be used in many situations (including indoor), but it has less utility for you when you have the 100-400 II. For anything longer, you should have a clear use case for it.

 

[Mikehit]

Fair point, takesome1.

My main interest is wildlife with a growing interest in sports. Of wildlife, the most common subject is birds but that is partly because they are easier to find.

When DSLR was my only rig, I found myself taking the camera less and less (dog walking, round town etc) because of the bulk so I bought MFT set up so I guess that gives some indication of how much I value portability and to be honest this is partly why the 300mm is so attractive, especially as I am what you could call an 'opportunistic photographer'.
As for final use of images, I like to print up to A3 otherwise viewing on the computer. The thing that led me to this was watching wildlife in British Columbia and not getting the shutter speeds (this is where considering the 5D4 came in because I am impressed by the 100-400 MKii) so having f4 at 400mm would be an advantage on that score. And having f2.8 (or f4 at over 400mm) does have its own attractions regards DOF.
Having f2.8 will give me the added option of pushing the exposure to reduce the appearance of noise, so giving a bit more leeway on the ISO and so reducing the benefits of the 5D4 (or so my logic goes).

If I were looking at the MKII 500mm the decision would be a bit easier, but I have looked at the comparison charts for the MkI vs the 300mm f2.8ii and if anything the 300mm edges it on image quality even with the 1.4x extender and if real-world experience supports that then I am closer to making a decision.

 

[JMZawodny]

I have to agree with some of the earlier posts, you have not provided enough information. Do you need the f/2.8 or do you need 500mm. Judging from the way you composed the original post, it sounds like you want a longer lens than the 100-400 you currently own.

I own both the 300 f/2.8 II and the 500 f/4 II, I have no experience with the Mark I version. For me, they have completely different uses. I bought the 300 first thinking I'd like the flexibility of the 300 with the options to use the 1.4x and 2x extenders, but I really needed a longer lens for other applications. The 1.4x lives on my 500 and the 300 is used for low light when I can't get close enough to use other shorter and faster lenses. Depending upon what you intend to do with these, the 300 with and without the 1.4x might be exactly what you need.

I think you need to get some input on how the original 500 f/4 compares to the mark II. I can't help there. You also need to think about what you really need a new lens for.

Best of luck.

Update: Your last post just proceeded mine while I was writing. Personally, I do not use the 300 for birds. It and the 1.4x could have sufficient reach if used with a 7D2. The 300 is certainly much easier to carry and handhold for long periods. If compactness is your primary metric, your decision is already made.

 

[takesome1]

I upgraded from the version I 500mm to the version II.

IQ is not a reason to make that move. Weight and IS are a valid reason.

But with a 1.4x you are comparing 420mm to 500mm. It doesn't edge it.

For wildlife and birds I would go with the 500mm unless I had to compromise for portability.

 

[Mikehit]

Thanks guys, this is really helpful.

So I've been reviewing my reasoning.

Overcast days, the 7D2 and 100-400 at f5.6 - having to push to ISO 1600 (not too bad) and 3200 (can work depends heavily on the subject) but soon the shutter speed becomes to0 slow for anything other than stationary subjects and wildlife is often not that compliant (even 1/400 at ISO 1600 became a luxury!).
The IQ on the 100-400 on the 7D2 is proving really nice so I was thinking f2.8 (or even f4) = higher shutter speed or can push exposure to the right to help offset noise at those ISOs.

I am also aware that if the 300 is noticeably sharper than the 100-400, that alone gives more cropping options and a bit more reach again. So this is where I ended up with the 300mm as my immediate choice for a 'low light 400mm' with benefits of DOF.

Then 2 things happened:
- the 5D4 getting a good reception and offering superior low light performance (higher ISO, fast shutter speed) - but then we are talking about the old issue of pixel quality vs pixel quantity when cropping
- I saw this cursed 500mm MkI !

I don't think I am pushing the technicalities of the 7D2 to the point where the camera is the limiting factor, which leaves the lens.

As I said above I was looking at it along the lines of 'if the 500mm is not significantly better than the 300mm then stick with Plan A' but now you have got me asking 'is the IQ of the 300mm significantly better than the 100-400 and if not then I change to the 5D4'.
As you say, takesome1, the choice is then 'do I want DOF with a focal length I am happy with; or do I want significantly longer reach'.

Sorry if I appear bumbling on this one. I have never made such a significant choice before and and this really is helping me gel my thoughts.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Mikehit, it is next to impossible to really be sure about these things. Then the day comes and a decision is required as opposed to muddling your life away indefinitely. Imagine the internal turmoil I've had with now choosing the 400 DO II to couple with the 1DX II.

There are so many slightly different ways of framing your logic to benefit whatever decision is made. I rationalized that getting to 800 with F8 would be desirable based on my history with the 300 almost always being attached to the X2 III. I rationalized that moving from 600 to 800 would alleviate some of the cropping I've been doing with the 600 in spite of stickling with the 6D equivalent 20 MPs of the 1DX II. I rationalized that the weight difference of the 1DX II relative to the 5D4 would be insignificant especially considering I come from the 6D (camera plus heavy lens => camera is smaller proportion).

As far as the 300 is concerned, shooting from my observatory at close to MFD it is a dream lens and now my 400 has poorer MFD. I rejected the idea of the 500 because of weight/size since honestly at 67 the 400 + extender + 1 DX II is all I can handle. If I soon can't handle that then I don't think the 5D4 would have helped me much but 30 MPs was hard to pass up. A 6D II might still be in my future.

I was committed to selling the 300 but now my daughter is considering buying a good Canon camera and ..... guess what.

Jack

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I've had a 300/2.8L IS II on a 7D then 7D2 for almost four years now. I chose it because it offered the ideal compromise - great reach and very decent image quality with the 2x III, while being back-packable, and usable without a tripod. It was a huge leap from the telephotos I had before that - 300/4L and 70-300L.

Even though it was very portable for a lens of that power, and versatile too (I've even shot dragonflies with it), I found myself wanting something smaller as an 'everyday' wildlife lens. However my 300/4 and 70-300 were both a bit too small. My prayers were answered when the 100-400L II came along, and I added that to the fleet in early 2015. What a fantastic combination with the 7D2.

Much as I loved the 300/2.8L II, it was bought in the full knowledge that it was a compromise, and having the 100-400L II meant that the compromise was less necessary and I could look at something bigger. Also the one big weakness of the 300/2.8L II plus 2x III is AF performance - I very much wanted to improve that by cutting down on my use of TCs. After much deliberation (a bit like your current situation!) and insisting I would never do it, I finally bought a 500/4L II earlier this year. I also had to buy a new tripod to go with it, but that's ok because the whole point was to have the biggest option I could realistically own, knowing that I could always use the 100-400L II when portability was more important. It's worked pretty well - I do get a bit fed up with carrying the 500 and tripod, but it hasn't made me want to go back to the 300 which is now rarely used.

So I guess what I'm driving at is that for birds and wildlife generally the 300/2.8 might not be a big enough step up from the 100-400L II, and you could find yourself wishing you had the 500. However, the 500/4 MkI is even heavier (a *lot* heavier) and doesn't perform as well with TCs. Maybe the wisest move would be to do nothing at at the present time, and wait until you can have the 500/4L MkII?

Just a quick word on the 5D4. Great spec; a friend has one already (paired with a 600/4) and it seems to live up to expectations. But for long lens use, don't underestimate how much reach you lose compared with the 7D2. There is no point in owning a full frame body unless you have the lenses to go with it - you will *need* (not want) a 500 to make it worthwhile. If you don't do that, you don't get the full frame advantage. This is assuming your subjects are mostly small and/or distant of course - the 300/2.8 on a full frame body is an outstanding combination for some subjects - just not the majority of birds!

Hope that's useful. One person's needs are never quite the same as another's but hopefully mine will at least provide some worthwhile input.

 

[Jack Douglas]

As stated the 300 X2 III on something like a 6D does take a big hit on AF speed (not accuracy). It took a big hit with the 1D4 when I had that but I don't know about the 5D4 or 1DX II (haven't had the 300 X2 on it yet) but I can tell you that 1DX II with 400 DO II X2 III is really impressive for speed relative to what I've previously experienced.

I can also say that 300 X2 has served me very well for decent IQ. However, at F5.6 I often found dull situations were forcing the ISO up and I almost always was at ISO 1250 with the 6D. Above that and a cropped image had too much grain for me and remember small birds are almost always cropped at 600, excepting chickadees etc., that are tame.

That knowledge restrained me when the 7D II arrived since there is always the debate about crop cameras and reach and higher ISOs. For sure the crop camera reach does give an advantage relative to having a spot focus point on a bird that is far away. That's why 300 X1.4 was never viable for me relative to birds- usually couldn't focus on the distant bird as opposed to the tree or whatever.

There is no choice that isn't a significant compromise even if money is not a consideration.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

Thanks Steve - your comments are almost a mirror of my dilemma.

In your opinion, how does the 300mm f2.8 compare to the 100-400 Mk II, either naked or with TC? From what you say it sounds like it was a case of 'nice but not good enough to make a real-world difference'. Unfortunately the 500 Mk II is, as I say out of my league and the only thing I am really dithering about is that it is the Mark I that I am looking at.

And Jack - your description of the tortures are just what I am up against. I do prefer the bigger wildlife and birds are what I end up with most of all.

Maybe I need to bite the bullet and rent a couple of these bad boys to have confidence that I am making the right decision! In the good old days almost every shop had one of these as a demo model that you could try in the street outside the shop - but with money being more tight they only hold stock for sale and opening a box is a high risk for them so that option has all but gone.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Nice to know my comments evoke empathy. It's a lot of money!!

Jack

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I own the 100-400 Mk2 and the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1, on my 7D2 prefer the 300 when weight is not too much of an issue. The 100-400 takes the 1.4 Mk3 extender well but the 300 takes it better and is still very good with the 2 x Mk3 if the light is reasonable. I have tried a friends 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 but could find little advantage with it except that it did AF a little better with the 2 x Mk3 and was a touch sharper with the 2 x- but not enough to justify the extra price.

Having said that, if you feel that you will be relying on extenders or cropping a lot then I would take the 500 F4 in a heartbeat! True the 500 will require good support much of the time but it can be carried a fair distance with a good shoulder strap and is easily hand hold able for reasonable periods. The 500 Mk1 also takes the 1.4 Mk2 or 3 well and if the light is good then the 2 x Mk3 can work very well.

You mentioned the older generation IS - true the more modern lenses have better IS but the best setting is still off. Save IS for when it is really needed, rare/if ever for me, or if the lens handles REALLY badly like my 100-400 Mk2. Great lens but with the worst balance/handling of any lens that I have yet used! The 500 F4 L IS Mk1 handles very nicely and balances well on most bodies.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

In your opinion, how does the 300mm f2.8 compare to the 100-400 Mk II, either naked or with TC? From what you say it sounds like it was a case of 'nice but not good enough to make a real-world difference'.

Oh, no, sorry if I gave that impression, it does make a real-world difference. For me the most important is the reach with the 2x III - which gives 600 mm f/5.6, vs 400 mm f/5.6 i.e. 50% more. However there is a clear difference in AF performance between the 300 with 2x, and the 100-400 as a bare lens - and a perfectly-focused shot at 400 mm is better than a slight miss at 600 mm. Don't get me wrong, the 300 with 2x is very good, just not as good as a bare lens. For static shots where focusing speed is less of an issue, the 600 mm combination is clearly better.

Let me put it this way. Now that I have the 500, the 300 tends to be squeezed out because if I want reach the 500 wins (I even use it with the 2x occasionally) and if I want portability and versatility the 100-400 wins. But for the twelve months (roughly) when I had the 100-400 but not the 500, I would often choose the 300, and the reason I originally chose it - a great compromise between manageable size, price and performance, is no less true today.

 

[Jack Douglas]

In your opinion, how does the 300mm f2.8 compare to the 100-400 Mk II, either naked or with TC? From what you say it sounds like it was a case of 'nice but not good enough to make a real-world difference'.

Oh, no, sorry if I gave that impression, it does make a real-world difference. For me the most important is the reach with the 2x III - which gives 600 mm f/5.6, vs 400 mm f/5.6 i.e. 50% more. However there is a clear difference in AF performance between the 300 with 2x, and the 100-400 as a bare lens - and a perfectly-focused shot at 400 mm is better than a slight miss at 600 mm. Don't get me wrong, the 300 with 2x is very good, just not as good as a bare lens. For static shots where focusing speed is less of an issue, the 600 mm combination is clearly better.

Let me put it this way. Now that I have the 500, the 300 tends to be squeezed out because if I want reach the 500 wins (I even use it with the 2x occasionally) and if I want portability and versatility the 100-400 wins. But for the twelve months (roughly) when I had the 100-400 but not the 500, I would often choose the 300, and the reason I originally chose it - a great compromise between manageable size, price and performance, is no less true today.

Valid comments for sure. I didn't have a 1DX when I shot 300 X2 with my 6D and absolutely AF had to be close to where you needed it to lock on quickly and hunting was a hopeless case if you didn't acquire instantly. IQ was very good. However, my friend with his 1DX claimed AF was fine. I haven't yet had my 300 on the 1DX II but the 400 DO II AF's really well at X2 and will be a pleasure to use, so 300 will probably be similar. It seems the 5D4 is impressive too.

So it seems Canon's new bodies will be making their previous lenses quite a bit more usable with extenders. Obviously that was their goal. And a certain unnamed reviewer claimed this was a relatively unimportant feature of Canon. I'd like to see the numbers. My bet is a lot of people want this.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

Thank you, Steve. That makes sense.

Well, I went to Calumet and had a lo-o-ong chat with the guy there and one comment was 'if you are basically happy with the focal length you have, and simply want ability to shoot at lower light levels it is not that much more to buy the 1Dx2 than the 300mm f2.8ii'. it's back to that 'what am I really after' question.
So after cursing him putting temptation in my way, and further discussion, it did start to make some sort of sense. I know that the 7D2 beats the 1DX2 for cropping in good light but how all this started was cropping in medium to low light running at ISO 1600/3200. So if I get a more usable image at those ISOs it becomes interesting.
I do need to keep reminding myself how damned good the 100-400ii actually is, even with an extender and note get tunnel vision. And as your comment alludes to, Jack, AF performance on a powerhouse like the 1Dx2 could overcome many deficiencies on teleconverter combinations when talking about 'lower' models which could reduce the need for a lens upgrade, and the 100-400+1.4x gives almost (that word again) the same coverage as 300mm+2x. And the superior, more assured, AF of the 1Dx2 becomes another ingredient.

I am a great believer in finding out what the very best can do and then working out where I am willing to compromise so I will be looking to rent the 1Dx2 and the 300mm f2.8ii and doing crossover tests with my 7D2, 6D, 100-400 and extenders. Unfortunately we do not have many bears (or salmon) in Manchester so the local equine population will be well photographed when I get them; and being October it will be exactly the sort of weather that has caused me such frustration (but I guess we will end up with either have a 3-day heatwave or getting the tail end of Hurricane Matthew giving us biblical downpours).

 

[AlanF]

I spend a lot of time comparing shots of birds and of charts by my various combinations of lens and cameras, and these compromise many of the combinations discussed in this thread. For my bodies, TCs and lenses:

1. The 100-400mm II is a fantastic lens. In practice, at f/5.6 and 400mm it's IQ is as good as my 300mm II + 1.4xTC and 400mm DO II at f/4 (you can see that on the lenrentals MTF charts and the TDP shots). It's AF is also superb.
The difference comes out with the 1.4xTC attached. It's pretty good at 560mm f/8 but the 400mm DO II is simply stunning at 560mm f/5.6. The 300mm + 2xTC is also better.

2. The 300mm @ 600mm had terrible AF on my 7D but this was cured on the 7DII, where it focusses fast and accurately. The same is true for my old 5DIII, new 5DIV and 5DS R.

3. Both the 300mm II and 400mm DO II with 2xTC come into their own on on the 5DIV (and the 5DIII). There is a significant increase in resolution over the 1.4xTC, which is not as pronounced with the 5DSR and 7DII. I think the sensors on the 5DSR and 7DII are beginning to outresolve the lenses on going from 1.4x to 2xTC, and the 2xTC does give a hit on IQ.

I have gone for the 5DIV rather than the 1DX II for a few reasons, including the extra 640g/1.5lb of the DX II being too much for me to carry on a hike and hold in an elevated position. The same would be even more so for a 500mm - I would have to drag it to a hide and sit there with a tripod. So, my 100-400mm II will be used on the 7DII and 5DSR for lightweight travel and being carried by wife and for when zooms and close focussing are required. The 400mm DO II will be used on the 5DIV with 2xTC for long distances in reasonable light, and bare or with 1.4xTC for BIF and more general use (800mm is fine for BIF in the distance but I like the wider fields of view for ease of tracking and faster speeds). The 300mm II will probably go as I can't justify both it and the 400 DO.

 

[kaihp]

I haven't yet had my 300 on the 1DX II but the 400 DO II AF's really well at X2 and will be a pleasure to use, so 300 will probably be similar. It seems the 5D4 is impressive too.

Jack, if the 1Dx with the 300/2.8 II + 2x TC is anything to go for wrt 1Dx II performance, the it's going to be somewhere between excellent and stunning. For me, there was a significant jump in AF performance (lock-on speed and tracking) when going from 5D3 to 1DX. For the motorcycle racing I tried the 1DX and 5D3 on, the 1DX just murders the 5D3.