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

[Mikehit]

Well it's just arrived
Damn these early winter nights!

In all cases the differences are pretty minimal

I agree. But if all the stars align, those small differences can have an indescribable benefit to how you perceive the image. It just 'feels' different. Whether it is the critical level of sharpness that tips the balance or the coating improving contrast etc I don't know.

Still, I've now got 10 days to see if I want to return it :
Weekend weather looks OK, better mid next week.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well it's just arrived
Damn these early winter nights!

In all cases the differences are pretty minimal

I agree. But if all the stars align, those small differences can have an indescribable benefit to how you perceive the image. It just 'feels' different. Whether it is the critical level of sharpness that tips the balance or the coating improving contrast etc I don't know.

Still, I've now got 10 days to see if I want to return it :
Weekend weather looks OK, better mid next week.

Return it?!!! You're kidding. ;D Be sure to immediately put the 2X III on it! ooh!

Jack

 

[tron]

As the title of the thread says, the 300 was my initial thinking but once I thought about the amount of time I would have the 1.4tc attached, I thought I may as well go for the 400mm.

Correct! Plus you were thinking about 500 so 400 is the minimum. Up to now I have tested it with 7D2 with or without 1.4XIII and it's very very good. You will not regret it.

 

[AlanF]

I use my camera + lens as a spotting scope as well as for high quality images. The 400mm + 2xTC has opened up new vistas for me by being able to capture birds far away. Last weekend, I was able to spot and record a rare pintail hidden amongst 100s of other birds, capture and identify a starling flying, and identify a dot far away hovering as a kestrel These images of 400-600 or so pixels long are not for my albums necessarily, but I can paste them in for the record. And I could get a decent images of a waterrail and snipe (at 2000 iso and 1/80s) occupying less than 1000 pixels long, far away in the gloom.

Jack, I am not particular - I am highly demanding!

 

[Mikehit]

well, the 400 got its first run-out at the weekend and it is amazing!
The 100-400Mkii is a fantastic lens and I will definitely keep it, but in the few days I have had the 400 DO my keeper rate has gone up more than a notch! Speed of AF alone helps for birds in flight and for static subjects it just seems to nail things a bit tighter.
I am so please I went for the lens over the body (for now! ) - especially as the 1.4tc has been permanently on there.

 

[bholliman]

Interesting thread. I currently own a 300 f/2.8 II that I use for wildlife and portraits. I've found its generally not long enough, even with extenders, for 95% of the wildlife I shoot with my 5DsR, but the 50mp images allow me to do a lot of cropping and still have nice images. I have my eye on either a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 to take the next step with wildlife and bird photography. I recently rented a 600 II and fell in love with it. Its a heavy beast, but handles nicely on a gimbal head.

I'm not giving up my 300 f/2.8! Even when I get a longer lens for wildlife, I'll use it for portraits, nature and closer wildlife shots. Wonderful lens and crazy sharp.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Interesting thread. I currently own a 300 f/2.8 II that I use for wildlife and portraits. I've found its generally not long enough, even with extenders, for 95% of the wildlife I shoot with my 5DsR, but the 50mp images allow me to do a lot of cropping and still have nice images. I have my eye on either a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 to take the next step with wildlife and bird photography. I recently rented a 600 II and fell in love with it. Its a heavy beast, but handles nicely on a gimbal head.

I'm not giving up my 300 f/2.8! Even when I get a longer lens for wildlife, I'll use it for portraits, nature and closer wildlife shots. Wonderful lens and crazy sharp.

On a gimbal and if you don't have to carry it too far why not go big!

Perhaps many will say that there is never enough reach but I'm finding the step from 600 to 800 to be more than proportionally helpful. For hand holding 800 gets to be borderline tricky in terms of keeping a focus point right on target, at least for wimpy me.

Certainly the 300 has its reputation for good reason but my 400 with extenders is serving me better for birds. I agree, 300 is great for portraits on occasion.

Jack

 

[tron]

Interesting thread. I currently own a 300 f/2.8 II that I use for wildlife and portraits. I've found its generally not long enough, even with extenders, for 95% of the wildlife I shoot with my 5DsR, but the 50mp images allow me to do a lot of cropping and still have nice images. I have my eye on either a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 to take the next step with wildlife and bird photography. I recently rented a 600 II and fell in love with it. Its a heavy beast, but handles nicely on a gimbal head.

I'm not giving up my 300 f/2.8! Even when I get a longer lens for wildlife, I'll use it for portraits, nature and closer wildlife shots. Wonderful lens and crazy sharp.

On a gimbal and if you don't have to carry it too far why not go big!

Perhaps many will say that there is never enough reach but I'm finding the step from 600 to 800 to be more than proportionally helpful. For hand holding 800 gets to be borderline tricky in terms of keeping a focus point right on target, at least for wimpy me.

Certainly the 300 has its reputation for good reason but my 400 with extenders is serving me better for birds. I agree, 300 is great for portraits on occasion.

Jack

800 in FF seems similar to 500 II with my 7D2 or 400 DO II + 1.4XIII with my 7D2. The 400 II + 1.4XIII loses one stop but it's lighter and I can hand hold it and use it much easier. Now there is a new kid in town the 5D4 that I have to test with 2XIII and some of these two lenses...

 

[bholliman]

On a gimbal and if you don't have to carry it too far why not go big!

Perhaps many will say that there is never enough reach but I'm finding the step from 600 to 800 to be more than proportionally helpful. For hand holding 800 gets to be borderline tricky in terms of keeping a focus point right on target, at least for wimpy me.

Certainly the 300 has its reputation for good reason but my 400 with extenders is serving me better for birds. I agree, 300 is great for portraits on occasion.

Jack

800 in FF seems similar to 500 II with my 7D2 or 400 DO II + 1.4XIII with my 7D2. The 400 II + 1.4XIII loses one stop but it's lighter and I can hand hold it and use it much easier. Now there is a new kid in town the 5D4 that I have to test with 2XIII and some of these two lenses...

I can certainly see that advantages of the 400 DOII, looks to be a marvelous lens. Reasonable size and weight are certainly important factors. I'll have to rent one this winter and try it with birds.

 

[Mikehit]

I can certainly see that advantages of the 400 DOII, looks to be a marvelous lens. Reasonable size and weight are certainly important factors. I'll have to rent one this winter and try it with birds.

Coming up from the 100-400 I was a bit concerned about the increase in weight but I quickly got used to it. I barely put the camera down all day, it was always in my hand and my hand never got tired (I am a moderately fit 55-year old a bit skinny in the arms) so I am very happy with it. I use it with a handstrap so was not having to actually grip the camera all the time.

If you do rent it make sure you also rent a teleconverter if you do not have one already - a 2x Mkiii if your camera will autofocus at f8.


One thing that does become more tricky with the greater magnification is putting the camera to your eye and having the subject in the frame, especially when the critters are moving around.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Interesting discussion. I've also been seeking more reach but keep putting off the decision...

The 100-400 performs better than I expected, and holds up well even on my 5DSR(!) which is nice. However, 400 isn't enough reach for many birds (on FF) and I find myself wanting a bit more. I thought about both the 400 DO and the 500 f4 II but for the latter, price and particularly weight was a big concern. If the 400 takes TCs well that could be a possible route, but reports of a 200-600 zoom and a new 600mm lens had me pausing (600 would be ideal, looking for something handholdable as I don't want to be bound to tripod).

 

[Jack Douglas]

Interesting discussion. I've also been seeking more reach but keep putting off the decision...

The 100-400 performs better than I expected, and holds up well even on my 5DSR(!) which is nice. However, 400 isn't enough reach for many birds (on FF) and I find myself wanting a bit more. I thought about both the 400 DO and the 500 f4 II but for the latter, price and particularly weight was a big concern. If the 400 takes TCs well that could be a possible route, but reports of a 200-600 zoom and a new 600mm lens had me pausing (600 would be ideal, looking for something handholdable as I don't want to be bound to tripod).

If price is no object then there might be more to consider. If weight is no object there might be more to consider. If IQ is no object there might be more to consider. If AF speed is no object there might be more to consider. ETC.

Basically, you consider the constraints that you put upon yourself and go from there. For me the 400 DO II was a no brainer once the F8 focus improvements came along. 300 X2 got me shots with the 6D but it was pitiful for AF speed. However the IQ was quite good so it served me for roughly 3 years and taught me that 600 for small birds was good but on the edge - too much cropping that made the IQ marginal.

I reasoned that 800 would bump me over that edge and it has, nicely while being hand-holdable and from Birds as Art etc. I learned that 400 X2 AF with the 1DX2 was excellent and exceeded the 5D4 so that coupled with fps tipped me towards the 1DX2. Of course I had to compromise on the 30 MP but some 1DX2 features pushed me in its direction and I'm satisfied with the compromise. When birds are active that little burst of 3-5 shots at 14 fps is addictive and productive.

1DX2 + 400 DO II + 2X III is all the weight my aging body can handle hiking. And that's assuming I stay fit

I doubt that a 600 DO is really going to be that light if you carefully analyze the comparative weight savings relative to existing lenses. The 400 benefited comparatively because F4 became an option over F2.8.

A 600 F5.6 would gain similarly but it won't be produced. A zoom would be nice but it will never be light. Built in converters are nice but they bring size and weight too, which you might not appreciate if shooting native FL. Compromises galore!

Jack

 

[Vern]

Very helpful analysis Jack and others.

I have the 300 2.8II and the 600 II and have compared them with the 2X III versus bare lens. Obviously the 600 wins on IQ, but it is a beast to carry around. Also, as Jack says, while the 300 + 2X has pretty good IQ (handles flare very poorly though, so no backlighting allowed, IMO), the AF performance when trying to capture birdies is too often frustrating. Good to hear the 400 + 2X on the 1DX II is better.

I typically use the 600 + the 1.4X III for birds and recently have been experimenting with this and the 5DSR w and w/o the extender. Jack's note encouraged me to take a look at the 400 DO II with the 2X on the TDP IQ comparator, it stacks up quite well and I could certainly walk around with it (~same as 300 2.8 + 2X). I have done so with the 600 but really find hand holding it tough for any period of time - especially when searching for a bird in a tree. On a tripod w gimbal, it is perfect, but that defeats the ability to walk and quickly capture pics - it is best from a blind for me. I have placed a gimbal mount on top of a monopod w the 600 and that is better for stalking, but still not exactly light weight.

I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame. I suppose that the mechanics that allow 14 fps just can't also be ~silent. If they were, I would have Santa deliver this combo and sell the 300 and 1DX I since I don't use the bare 300 all that much and the 200 f2 is better for the occasional tele-portrait.

We each have our special preferences, but it does help a lot to hear how others manage the trade-offs.

 

[kaihp]

300 X2 got me shots with the 6D but it was pitiful for AF speed.

The AF of the 300II + X2 combo performs very well for me on 5D3 and exceedingly well on the 1Dx.
I guess that your AF woes are due to the 6D's more simple AF system/processor.

 

[Jack Douglas]

300 X2 got me shots with the 6D but it was pitiful for AF speed.

The AF of the 300II + X2 combo performs very well for me on 5D3 and exceedingly well on the 1Dx.
I guess that your AF woes are due to the 6D's more simple AF system/processor.

Agree, I was told that the 1DX handled it quite well.

Now, for good or bad I have 560 that is extremely fast and 800 seems to be very close. For anyone not viewing the bird thread, this is 800 with the 1DX2.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

well, the 400 got its first run-out at the weekend and it is amazing!
The 100-400Mkii is a fantastic lens and I will definitely keep it, but in the few days I have had the 400 DO my keeper rate has gone up more than a notch! Speed of AF alone helps for birds in flight and for static subjects it just seems to nail things a bit tighter.
I am so please I went for the lens over the body (for now! ) - especially as the 1.4tc has been permanently on there.

Mike, do you find the 400 DO II noticeably sharper than the 100-400mm II for static birds? The lensrentals charts show the zoom to be close to the prime.

 

[Mikehit]

I've not done much of a side-by-side comparison yet - I've taken both rigs out with me intending to mix-and-match but keep getting seduced by the damned 400 DO ;D

But on the few comparisons I have, my gut feeling is not so much the actual sharpness as the perceived clarity brought about by lens coatings etc. I recall reviews comparing the 100-400 MkI vs MkII and how there was little difference in the sharpness on charts but I also felt there that there was something about the rendering that was a significant improvement. I feel the same with the 400 vs zoom.

I can easily see me having the 400 DO on my 7D2 with the 100-400 on the 6D if things get closer than the minimum focus distance of the DO (3m vs <1m).

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame.
We each have our special preferences, but it does help a lot to hear how others manage the trade-offs.

I don't have the 1DX2, I use the 1DX - which is also remarkably noisy!

I too would like a better silent shutter mode, but for humans not wildlife. With the exception of a fairly close in Vixen - who merely gave me a dirty look - my noisy camera has been completely ignored by wildlife.

With the racket that my camera makes I was expecting problems but, so far, I haven't encountered them. The local deer simply ignore it, but if I twitch they are gone! Birds at 6 to 10 meters couldn't care less. However foxes seem to prefer single shot to machine gun mode. They don't run off but they don't seem to like it - this is exactly the same with my (MUCH quieter) 7D2 as well. Perhaps Foxes just don't like the rapid slap slap of the mirror, but are quite happy with the odd clatter now and again? Who knows.

Despite my initial reservations the racket that the 1DX makes has yet to prove a significant issue - except with humans!

Perhaps your local wildlife is more skittish?

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well, I'm a human and I got used to it pretty quickly! I know the first few shots had me wondering what I had bought but now it seems acceptable. However, I wouldn't feel that way in a quiet church and would likely use my 6D. Birds seem pretty accommodating. Of course if we're talking 800mm, the distance helps.

Jack

 

[tron]

I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame.
We each have our special preferences, but it does help a lot to hear how others manage the trade-offs.

I don't have the 1DX2, I use the 1DX - which is also remarkably noisy!

I too would like a better silent shutter mode, but for humans not wildlife. With the exception of a fairly close in Vixen - who merely gave me a dirty look - my noisy camera has been completely ignored by wildlife.

With the racket that my camera makes I was expecting problems but, so far, I haven't encountered them. The local deer simply ignore it, but if I twitch they are gone! Birds at 6 to 10 meters couldn't care less. However foxes seem to prefer single shot to machine gun mode. They don't run off but they don't seem to like it - this is exactly the same with my (MUCH quieter) 7D2 as well. Perhaps Foxes just don't like the rapid slap slap of the mirror, but are quite happy with the odd clatter now and again? Who knows.

Despite my initial reservations the racket that the 1DX makes has yet to prove a significant issue - except with humans!

Perhaps your local wildlife is more skittish?

I believe the wildlife in churches and theaters is the same anywhere ;D