Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC
  
 
eyal.ma
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


A friend dropped my 300mm F/4 IS. He gave me back the money to buy a new one.

So now I'm considering getting the F/2.8 (and next time he ask me for a lens, to say "no!").

I thought to get the non IS version, but decided I like having the IS.
Difference between the first and second versions with the IS, is about 2500$, and I know the first version should be enough for me.
But I was considering how they perform with the TC. I read that using the 1.4x TC on the first version will degrade IQ where the 400 F/4 gives a bit better quality, while the second version gets a small hit to its IQ.

With the 300mm F/2.8, I can use it as a "cheap" 800mm with the 2x TC and still get IS, even though IQ and AF will take a big hit.

Anyone can shed some light, if the first version is just enough and I should not have such big eyes?

I was considering the sigma 300mm and the 120-300mm, but I read that they are both not true 300mm, and using TC make them even worse.

Thanks.



Oct 14, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


Not sure what you read, but the 300 f/2.8L IS mk I + 1.4x TC II/III has excellent IQ and you will be hard pressed to tell it's has a TC. Also AF is still very fast. Even with a 2x TC the IQ is very good; mostly you will notice a drop in AF speed. The mk II undoubtedly has a small advantage in IQ, mostly in the corners and edges, but IMO the mk II is pure and simple a rip-off. You can get a 500 f/4L IS mk I for less money than the mk II 300, so why muck about with TC's when you can get longer glass cheaper.

So either get the 300 mk I or 500 mk I.

There is an updated version of the Sigma 120-300 coming out and from what I've read the current version with OS is close to 300mm. The new version adds distance limiter switches and supposedly better quality AF motors. The original versions without OS were indeed closer to 280mm. I've seen images from the current 120-300 with 1.4x TC that were very good, even wide open.



Oct 14, 2012 at 09:30 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


What Whayne said.


Oct 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM
dgenx24
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


yup. agree as above..
300 f2.8 is soooOooo versatile..



Oct 14, 2012 at 11:23 PM
thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


Make share u are OK with the 2.8 ergonomics. F4 is a lot easier to handle. 2.8 is a lot more versatile but there are hikes where the f4 goes with me but 2.8 stays home.


Oct 15, 2012 at 12:05 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


The 300/4L IS also has a relatively short MFD of 1.5m, compared to 2.5m on the 300/2.8L IS.


Oct 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


jcolwell wrote:
The 300/4L IS also has a relatively short MFD of 1.5m, compared to 2.5m on the 300/2.8L IS.


Having owned the 300 f/4 IS the trouble starts if you add a 1.4x TC and don't own a 1 series. AF on 1 series was pretty good, but on 20D/40D it was not great, a lot of hunting. Maybe a 7D would be better, but I sold it long ago since the 100-400L was better all-round than 300 f/4 + 1.4x. Also 300 f/4 + 2x is pretty poor IQ overall, with contrast taking a huge hit. 100-400L + 1.4x simply smokes it for IQ and AF (if you own a 1 series or tape pins).



Oct 15, 2012 at 02:51 AM
eyal.ma
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


Thanks guys.

Today I'm using the 70-200 for everything, either with a TC or without.
I want the 300mm because of the better IQ and reach, so I don't need to use the 1.4x III, but when I do, I don't want to get hit with the IQ bat too much.

I don't do wildlife so much, so 500mm will just stay at home 90% of the time, so I prefer a TC usable lens instead of a "stay home" lens. The 500mm F/4 L IS cost almost as much as the 300mm F/2.8 L IS II (difference is about 700$ for me), so I don't want to buy both.
Next year I plan to go to africa for a few weeks, and for that I will rent a 500 or 600 if I don't feel the 300+2x is enough, but I won't buy either at present time.

Since you say the difference between the I and II is very little, I will just go with the I.

But I will look into the new 120-300 sigma. The reason I don't like the sigma as much, is because of the filter size (105mm) and the weight/size of the lens. I don't use tripods so much, so the extra weight for the long run might bother me.
I'm not a big person to say the least (1.68cm, 64kg), but I can handle the weight up to a certain point. 2 bodies, 70-200, 300, 2 extra short lens and a macro lens, carbon tripod and some stuff, I can handle so far. But there is a limit to how much I want my back to carry.

My plan for sports to use 2 bodies, 5D3+70-200 and 1D4+300.
When I do wildlife, I go with the 1D4+2x+70-200 to get a 140-400 reach (before the 1.3 crop), and I usually use it around the end of the reach, so I don't really feel I need the zoom.



Oct 15, 2012 at 06:40 AM
Jo Dilbeck
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


I have the 300 F2.8 IS version 1, and I ALWAYS use it with a 2x III. Last winter I rented a 500 F4 IS and a 1.4x III to compare them side by side. For my type of shooting, and my usage, the two combinations were virtually indistinguishable. I have MA'd the combo with my 7D and I am very happy with the combination!

Jo



Oct 15, 2012 at 04:17 PM
fairtex
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


Jo, was the rather slowish AF of the 300 F2.8 + 2x TC III a problem for wildlife?




Oct 15, 2012 at 04:38 PM
Jo Dilbeck
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


Fairtex - I notice no perceivable slowdown in the AF most of the time since I don't use the 300 "bare" to have anything to compare it to. The 300 w/2x AF speed is comparable to my 100-400 so I think it's ok.


Oct 15, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 300 F/2.8 IS L + TC vs the II + TC


You've been misled. The 300 f/2.8 IS lens (original) handles the 1.4 teleconverter beautifully (I've only had experience with versions I and II of the converter), and as others have said, neither IQ nor AF speed drop off in any noticeable way. The only thing that changes for sure is your working aperture wide open, since you lose 1 stop with the 1.4x tc. As long as you are not light deprived, this will not be a problem. (If you've ever thrown a 1.4x on your 300 f/4, you will have noticed a very obvious and dramatic change in AF speed; perhaps this is what some are assuming would happen with the 2.8 version of the lens.)


Oct 15, 2012 at 07:22 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password