So the V1 with the FT-1 adapter and a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens will give you a 189-540mm zoom, at a cost of around $3,500 and a weight of about four pounds.
Interesting comparison. I love my 500/4; I'm a reasonably big guy (6'2"/180 pounds), and it's really not a lens I have any interest in hand-holding at all. OTOH, on a good tripod with a gimbal-mount, it's fine.
That said, there are times when I leave it behind, and "make do" with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with the 2xIII, which is certainly "good enough" for those times when it's just not practical to have the monster; I suspect the 300 with a doubler is a very fine compromise, given your preferences.
Jo
Are the originals 100% crops or resized down?
Be interested to see them I'd say you have a really good 2x converter..
Did you try the 2x on the 500??
Feb 14, 2012 at 07:32 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Jo Dilbeck wrote:
Frankly, I was surprised by the results as well. I fully expected the 500, even with the 1.4xIII attached, to blow the 300 w/2xIII out of the water. But, as stated, TO MY EYES, the difference was almost indistinguishable, negligble to the point of making the decision to keep the 300 an easy one (and save upwards of $3K).
Jo
Most people in tests like this, get the result they like to have from the start
Jo, I think for your situation, you made the right choice. For me, I had the 300/2.8 w/1.4 & 2.0x converters. The 1.4x is great, but the AF falls apart for BIF with the 2X (too slow), so I got the 500. I got the tripod, ballhead, sidekick, but then got a one-on-one lesson and now handhold exclusively . I got very frustrated with the 300/2x combo with moving targets, but static was fine.I have wondered how the new 2x III would work, but from what I have gathered online is that the AF is not much better, unless maybe you have the new generation lenses.
Jo, thanks for sharing your findings.
I too own the 300 f2.8IS L and it is my primary wildlife lens. I have never been happy with the addition of a 2x converter, but can't say that I've used the 2x III... maybe this has some "magic sauce" that others lacked. I think that the 500 f4 IS is the perfect wildlife focal length especially if you want to shoot w/ a 5D (I or II) or 1Ds (II or III). Like many who have posted, the mass of the 500 makes this less than portable. Unlike many wildlife shooters, I hike with my gear and tend to spend a lot of time w/ overnight gear and a sturdy 3-series tripod. Here, the 500 becomes impractical for this 40-something (close to 50 year old guy).
So, like you and many others, I will continue to shoot my 300 f2.8 w/ it's ancient 1.4x vI converter and enjoy the amazing detail that this (now classic) lens offers.
I think that the only lens that could persuade me to sell my 300 f2.8 is a the 400 f4.0 IS DO. While I realize that this is not the sharpest optic in the tele-line, the light weight constantly makes me question its value.
mark fadely wrote:
I'm glad the 300 + 2x is working well for you. I have shot the 300 2.8 v1 for several years with the extenders and a MKIIn followed by a MKIII. I did notice a jump in quality this year going to the 2x tc MKIII and the MKIV body. The extra res of both the body and new extender coupled with more accurate AF made for a pretty nice set up. I shot all my Sandhills this year with that combo. I'm sure it's not quite the AF speed of the 500 f4 w 1.4, but the IQ is not bad at all.
I use a 300mm f2.8IS I with the new 2x III and the combo is significantly better than with the version II tc. I haven't compared the 300/2x III combo against a 500f4, but I have compared it to my 400 5.6L w/o a TC and the 300 w/2x is just a tad sharper IMO at 100% and scaled. The 300 and 2x combo, to me is a perfect combination, plus I also get a 420 f4 and a 300 2.8. Can't beat it for my needs!
