Superteles: 300 vs 500

[AlanF]

With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x. The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime. No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

many world renowned wildlife photographers tend to disagree they are useless.

but i guess amateurs have a higher standard.... 8)

I have done pretty exhaustive testing and my results were that rezzing up the 1.4 was not as good as using the 2xTC. The TDP site shows the same. Maybe your 2xTC isn't so good or there is an AFMA problem?

 

[msm]

With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x. The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime. No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.

That depends on what you put the 2x on. The new 2x TC on a 300mm IS II works just great together, hand holdable 600mm reach with great IQ at less than 3kg and no perceptible loss of AF speed on a 1dx or 5DIII body.

 

[Lnguyen1203]

If you shoot birds, by all means make the trade. For wildlife, it depends on where you are, 300+1.4x is enough for Africa, but not in other parts of the world depending on what you shoot. On the other hand, handholding a 500f4 on a boat shooting orca may be tough.

From what you describe, I'd get a crop body to go with the 300 and get the 2X III in case you need even more reach,

I loaned my 300f2.8 IS to my brother after getting a 500f4 II and never look back. I just came back from a trip to Africa and the 500 performed great for me from the safari vehicle. But I don't hike 4-12 miles with it and don't shoot orcas.

Loi

 

[can0nfan2379]

Slightly off topic but has anyone here used the Promedia Katana gimbal?

 

[Jack Douglas]

Hi All,

I'd been agonizing for months over this choice that's presently being debated here. I am now comfortable with the 300 2.8 II and 2X III. I would never argue it's equal to a 600 but it sure is hand holdable and the IQ is nothing to be ashamed of. This shot is typical of what I get. It represents a crop of about 1/4 of the original. I wish that the comments that are made in CR could be accompanied by sample pictures because it's so hard to get a handle on what one person considers acceptable and another does not, but I know that's a tall order.

Jack

6D 300 F2.8 III with X2 III at 500th F25 ISO 1250 (should have dropped the ISO for this bright shot)

 

[can0nfan2379]

Photo212 -- I usually hike, take some pics, hike some more take some pics.....certainly don't camp out in one spot all day long.

Thanks for the sample pick Jack.

Lnguyen1203 -- Based on your experience the combined 420 was pretty similar to the 500 in Africa? I lived in South Africa for 3 months and at the time I was shooting with a 7D and 70-200 IS 2.8L Mk I. When I was driving around Pilanesberg, I found on several occasions that the 320 effective focal length was just too short which was why I was skeptical about the 420mm still being short so I may go the route of adding a crop body again to my kit when the 7D replacement arrives.

 

[can0nfan2379]

East Wind -- I look forward to seeing what your results of that comparison are.....

Eml58, looks like you have used a number of lenses in the past. I was wondering what your opinion is on using the 300 2.8L II +1.4iii+apc-c compared to a 600 F4L IS mk1+full frame?

Wondering if the new 300 combo on a crop is as good as the old 600 by itself on a full frame?

I'll have one of the new 300s in a couple of weeks for eval and plan to run this comparison through it's paces.

My thoughts based on what I own & have owned.

300/400 f/2.8 Version 1 Lenses, both great, but heavy.

300 & 400 f/2.8 Version 2 Lenses, IQ I feel about the same as the Version 1 Lenses, but 30 percent less weight.

600f/4 Version 2 Lens, lightish, great IQ

200-400f/4 great versatility, great sharpness, but horrible price.

When I purchased the 200-400f/4 I sold the 400f/2.8 as I dont feel I'll use the 400f/2.8 that much anymore.

I kept the 300f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II as they do a different job, 300f/2.8 great for low light, hand holdable, all round in my view the sharpest Lens Canon make, works really well with Series III 1.4x

I kept the 600 f/4 as with the 1.4x gives me some Legs.

If you shoot Birds, at some point you will need good IQ 600 +, the 600f/4 with 1.4x will give you that with spades, clearly seen from Images from people such as Gary Samples with his Eagles.

The 300f/2.8 I will work very well with the Series III 1.4x, But for Birds I think you will find yourself short most of the time.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

If you shoot mostly wildlife your 300f/2.8 plus your 1.4x converter should work just fine, look to upgrade at some point when you can afford it to the 600f/4 II if you find your shooting BIF more than other wildlife, the issue is you may then find the 600 is too long for wildlife but just fine for BIF, Life, full of difficult decisions.

Which ever way you go, good luck with the Imaging.

 

[Lnguyen1203]

Hi All,

I'd been agonizing for months over this choice that's presently being debated here. I am now comfortable with the 300 2.8 II and 2X III. I would never argue it's equal to a 600 but it sure is hand holdable and the IQ is nothing to be ashamed of. This shot is typical of what I get. It represents a crop of about 1/4 of the original. I wish that the comments that are made in CR could be accompanied by sample pictures because it's so hard to get a handle on what one person considers acceptable and another does not, but I know that's a tall order.

Jack

6D 300 F2.8 III with X2 III at 500th F25 ISO 1250 (should have dropped the ISO for this bright shot)

Jack, I have shot with both the 300f2.8 IS (version I) + 2X III and the 500f4 II + 2X III. The latetr IQ is far superior. I hear the IQ of the 300f2.8 II + 2.0X III is fantastic since the 300f2.8 II shares the same optics with the 500f4 II and 600f4 II. The issue here is not IQ, but reach and crop. Everytime you crop, you lose IQ.

Here is an example of a 500f4 II + 2X III, so focal length is 1000-mm, cropped to about 75% of original.

I have seen folks with fantastic photos and IQ with a 450D and Sigma 150-500mm. Getting close and having good light is key.

Loi

 

[AlanF]

Here is a typical example of what IQ is like for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a series III 2xTC attached. There is no PP on these, no unsharp mask etc, changing of contrast etc. The 5760x3840 full frame of the 5D III is reduced to 1200x800 to have it on screen. There are 100% crops of the centre and the head to show the level of resolution. These are tiny: 210x163 pixels at the centre and 763x619 of the head.

ps f/5.6, iso 800, 1/400s

 

[Lnguyen1203]

Here is a typical example of what IQ is like for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a series III 2xTC attached. There is no PP on these, no unsharp mask etc, changing of contrast etc. The 5760x3840 full frame is reduced to 1200x800 to have it on screen. There are 100% crops of the centre and the head to show the level of resolution. These are tiny: 210x163 pixels at the centre and 763x619 of the head.

That IQ looks good to me. TFS. Loi

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Lnguyen1203,

I'm older and retired and also tired after packing a camera and heavy lens around for hours. I'm thrilled with having 600 via 300 X2 because I simply would not be using a heavier lens, even if I was to try to justify the cost as a hobbiest.

As a newcomer to this CR world it is pretty obvious that everyone is quite naturally competitive and that's reasonably healthy except if it inhibits the display of good photos from folk who can't afford the very best. My friend suggested Canon and got me looking at upgrading from my Nikon D5100 (I have no regrets as I'm loving the 6D and 300 II, except for BIF) but now he's backed out of upgrading and I'm shooting with the better equipment and honestly I feel awkward in this reversed situation since he's the more experienced guy.

For those mobile hiker types wafflling about 300 2.8 II and 2X III my advice is go for it. It's got me so motivated to get out in the bush and I'm so thankful I'm not always tied to a tripod!! If I can shoot 420 or 300 I do but clearly I'm reluctant to start out without the 2X mounted.

To help anyone agonizing I've again included a shot that's typical, both cropped and uncropped for scrutiny. I've printed similar at 19 X 13 and been very pleased. Of course the 300 alone or with 1.4X does a little better but I'd never give up my 2X III.

6D 300 X2 1250th F8 ISO 1250 focused close to eye
Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Crop

 

[can0nfan2379]

Crop

Looks fantastically sharp to me!! Nice pic Jack.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks can0nfan2379,

A 300 owners worst nightmare to have folks pointing out the images are not sharp, dread. Still, for whatever reason all my shots are not sharp.

Worth mentioning, using the 300 X2 gives a closer image which in turn allows a narrower region of focus and more accuracy and less hunting caused by such things as stray branches. So even if a 420 crop proved to be equal in quality there is still a 600 advantage. And the 600 view is more realtime informative.

Also I'm finding the 300, 420, 600 to be great for closeups, almost as good as a macro but with that extra distance from the subject.

When I first bought the 300 I was fussing like crazy and finally returned it and the extenders and 6D under warranty. They said nothing was wrong but both my friend and I are convinced they tweaked things up. Upon return AFMA for 300 was 0, for 420, 0 but for 600 +3 and those were not my settings initially. Anyway, I have no choice but to be a happy shooter now! And I truly am!!

This dragon is about half the frame, 6D 300 X2 1000th F16 ISO 3200 I had the shutter speed up because I was trying for moving targets, so it's a little grainy.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Whatever the detractors say, we are happy 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III shooters able to get very sharp images, hand held at a relatively light weight, as shown by the previous series of images. I'd quite like a 600mm f/4 II with a 1.4xTC III as a complement for ocasions spent sitting in a hide all day as it is a fantastic lens with longer reach. The 300mm is a very nice compromise for sports shooting and birding. We are spoilt
for choice.

 

[Jack Douglas]

AlanF you've nailed it.

We've made our compromises for good reasons as have others who prefer alternate lenses. I'm just happy to provide first hand personal information on why I'm satisfied with the 300 so that it helps others make their decisions, including a mild defence of the 2X III extender.

Jack