Rented a big white and wow

[Chisox2335]

Recently went on my honeymoon which was a safari. Thanks to everyone soho gave advice. I rented a 500mm mki at one location. The pictures are amazing. I paired it primarily with my 70d and it was awesome. Now I want one. It will be a while before I get one but curious what ppl think. Would I be better off with a 500 mki or a 300 mki with 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. I know the 300 would give me more versatility but would the quality be on par with the 500 mki? Is a new 500 mkii worth 3-4k more than the mki?

Attached picture was taken with my 70d and the 500mki. Hopefully it loads with decent resolution I'm uploading off my ipad.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Nice shot! Looks like it came through just fine.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I'd keep that one just fine!

Jim

 

[Click]

Very nice shot. Well done

 

[Chisox2335]

Thank you all. I liked the 70d before but with the 500mm on it I got some truly amazing shots. It really convinced how much the glass truly has to do with it.

 

[FEBS]

Hi,

The above picture is vers good. The 500mm is a very nice lens. I do have the 300mm version II. The combination of that lens with mkiii extenders is very good. However the use of the mkiii extender 2x with this lens does reduce some IQ. The 500mm will be better in that case. The price gap you mentioned beween the mki and the mkii is very high. Be aware that the weight of the mkii is reduced compared to the mki and that the cooperation with a version iii extender is better for the mkii lens. That last point for sure with the 1dx, 5d3 and 7d2. If thats the same for the 70d I don't know, but I presume as this is also a newer camera. However, I did not test it with a 70D.

The verslons II of the 300, 400, 500 and 600 Lenses are really the best you can find find on the market right now.

 

[Chisox2335]

Hi,

The above picture is vers good. The 500mm is a very Nice lens. I do have the 300mm version II. The combination of that lens with mkiii extensies is very good. However the use of even the mkiii exterder 2x with This does does reduce some IQ. The 500mm will be better in that case. The price gap you mentioned beween the mki And the mkii is very high. Be ware that the weight of the mkii is reduced compared to the mki And that the coöperaties with An extender is better for the mkii lens, that last point fir sure witte the 1dx, 5d3 And 7d2. If thats the same for the 70d I presume but i did never see of test that.

The verslons II of the 300, 400, 500 And 600 Lenses are really the best you can find find on the parket richt now.

Thanks for the input FEBS. The 500 mki was amazing. It's hard to believe they could improve on it.

 

[LovePhotography]

For my 2 cents, the 300 plus the 2X. Miss fewer "closer" shots, and IQ barely affected at 600mm. I posted pics a few month ago where you could see the screws on a security camera almost a half mile away at 1:1 with the 300mm plus 2x TC. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21478.0

 

[privatebydesign]

I wish people would read the OP's question more clearly before spouting out their personal experiences with neither lens they are talking about.

Of the MkI IS teles the 500 is noticably better IQ and faster to focus than the 300 MkI IS with a TC, indeed with the 2xTC the MkI 300 is not a particularly good lens.

Best advice with teles is that they are a big investment so get the focal length that gives you the reach you normally need. If you are a 500mm shooter get a 500mm, if you want 300 then get that, just don't get a 300 to shoot 420 or 600 90% of the time. There is a cavet to that though, the MkII IS teles are so well matched to the MkIII TC's that the MkII IS 300 and 1.4 TC performance is so close as to give the nod to the 300 for it's flexibility, the iQ difference is marginal though the 80mm less might be more important. With a 2xTC even the MkII IS 300 loses IQ and aperture to the MkI IS 500.

See here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

and here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

In order I'd get

• MkII IS 500mm
• MkII IS 300mm (only if 420 works most of the time you want more than 300)
• MkI IS 500mm
• MkI IS 300mm

 

[Chisox2335]

For my 2 cents, the 300 plus the 2X. Miss fewer "closer" shots, and IQ barely affected at 600mm. I posted pics a few month ago where you could see the screws on a security camera almost a half mile away at 1:1 with the 300mm plus 2x TC. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21478.0

Forgot about that thread. Some seriously impressive pictures in there. That's the route I'd prefer to go as there is more versatility. Maybe I should rent the 300 mkii with the 2x to see if I'm happy with the shots I can produce.

 

[Chisox2335]

I wish people would read the OP's question more clearly before spouting out their personal experiences with neither lens they are talking about.

Of the MkI IS teles the 500 is noticably better IQ and faster to focus than the 300 MkI IS with a TC, indeed with the 2xTC the MkI 300 is not a particularly good lens.

Best advice with teles is that they are a big investment so get the focal length that gives you the reach you normally need. If you are a 500mm shooter get a 500mm, if you want 300 then get that, just don't get a 300 to shoot 420 or 600 90% of the time. There is a cavet to that though, the MkII IS teles are so well matched to the MkIII TC's that the MkII IS 300 and 1.4 TC performance is so close as to give the nod to the 300 for it's flexibility, the iQ difference is marginal though the 80mm less might be more important. With a 2xTC even the MkII IS 300 loses IQ and aperture to the MkI IS 500.

See here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

and here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

In order I'd get

• MkII IS 500mm
• MkII IS 300mm (only if 420 works most of the time you want more than 300)
• MkI IS 500mm
• MkI IS 300mm

Where I live there is not a lot of big wildlife save some local deer that I'm usually able to shoot with a 70-200. Most of the photo opportunities I have are birds. This would clearly point me towards the 500mm lens. While I did some hand held shooting with it, it was big. I think the 300mkii with converters would be slightly more manageable. When I shoot I prefer to walk around and don't neccassily always want to shoot off a tripod or monopod. This may need to change if I decide to get a big white though.

 

[LovePhotography]

Building in the background (upper left) that I photographed with the 300mm mk2 plus the 2x III

 

[LovePhotography]

Here is the shot I was talking about with the 300mm ii plus the 2X iii. After what I'd read about the TC degradation, I was amazed.

 

[LovePhotography]

Meh, this looks much better on my computer. Thinking CR compresses these shots or something?

Oh, I get it. If you click on the pic you get the full image. This is a tiny little area of the taller portion of the building...

 

[Chisox2335]

Meh, this looks much better on my computer. Thinking CR compresses these shots or something?

Oh, I get it. If you click on the pic you get the full image. This is a tiny little area of the taller portion of the building...

Nice, I wish canon rumors did restrict file size but they'd need a lot more server room otherwise.

 

[FEBS]

Where I live there is not a lot of big wildlife save some local deer that I'm usually able to shoot with a 70-200. Most of the photo opportunities I have are birds. This would clearly point me towards the 500mm lens. While I did some hand held shooting with it, it was big. I think the 300mkii with converters would be slightly more manageable. When I shoot I prefer to walk around and don't neccassily always want to shoot off a tripod or monopod. This may need to change if I decide to get a big white though.

If birds are your main target, then for sure go for the 500. You will find out soon that even 500 will be to short.
In fact, all lenses are to short for birds. You want to have always more.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

My Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 produces very good images with the Canon 2 x Mk3 extender, however a 500 or 600mm will do a better job at these sort of focal lengths.
I am not trying to put you off getting the 300 F2.8 it is just that, if you need longer focal lengths, it is better to get a longer lens.I do use my 300 F2.8 with extenders (and it is good) but only when my longer lens would restrict my mobility too much.

 

[Chisox2335]

Where I live there is not a lot of big wildlife save some local deer that I'm usually able to shoot with a 70-200. Most of the photo opportunities I have are birds. This would clearly point me towards the 500mm lens. While I did some hand held shooting with it, it was big. I think the 300mkii with converters would be slightly more manageable. When I shoot I prefer to walk around and don't neccassily always want to shoot off a tripod or monopod. This may need to change if I decide to get a big white though.

If birds are your main target, then for sure go for the 500. You will find out soon that even 500 will be to short.
In fact, all lenses are to short for birds. You want to have always more.

I'd primarily use it on a crop. Agreed you always want more though.

 

[Chisox2335]

My Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 produces very good images with the Canon 2 x Mk3 extender, however a 500 or 600mm will do a better job at these sort of focal lengths.
I am not trying to put you off getting the 300 F2.8 it is just that, if you need longer focal lengths, it is better to get a longer lens.I do use my 300 F2.8 with extenders (and it is good) but only when my longer lens would restrict my mobility too much.

Not at all. I appreciate the honest feedback.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I'd primarily use it on a crop. Agreed you always want more though.
[/quote]

A crop sensor will help with range but not by as much as the 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor would suggest - in fact my current FF camera at least equals and possibly beats my (ex) 1.3 crop camera(1D4). Additionally FF cameras generally give a better ISO range which can be very handy with long lenses.
However do not change your camera until and unless you find it is holding you back - glass is more important!