Over the course of the last year, I've been shooting more and more wildlife, especially birds. I've been shooting with a 400 5.6 with and without an extender, which has worked out fairly well. Like anyone, I of course could always use more reach. My general problem is the lens has no extender and at f8 with the extender, I have very limited AF even on my 1D MKII.
I've been thinking about a 'big white' lens. While the 500 f4 seems optimal, it's pretty pricy at $6120 on BHphoto. I've considered getting a used 500 4.5, but I'm a little concerned about it potentially breaking with the servicing problem.
The bottom line is I have been considering gettign a 300 2.8 and using it with and without extenders. It's 'light' at 6 pounds (I could use my current tripod and just get the proper head unit), it's $2000 cheaper than the 500 f4, it's got IS (not sure which version) which would be a huge bonus. I looked at crops on the-digital-picture.com and it's crazy sharp at 2.8 300. At 420 f4 and 600 f5.6, it seems about as sharp as my current 400 5.6 without and with the 1.4x.
While I wouldn't get much more reach (I'm sure IQ would be pretty horrible at 840mm f8), I would get an extra stop and get IS. Both should help with shooting and allow me to get into the big white door. Of course, I have full seriveability and can then upgrade later to the 500 f4.
My concern is how bad AF will suffer from the 1.4x and 2x. Would it be too slow for birds? Am I misjudging sharpness? I guess it's about $3000 for a stop and IS but it may be a start.
I was in the same situation as yours and I ended up buying a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 for around $2000. It is sharp and can be handheld for longer time than canon 500 f/4.
But if IS is a factor then this might not be for you.
On a Mk III, it will AF fine. It's slightly slower with a 2xtc, but I swear that lens was MADE for tcs.
The IQ is absolutely astonishing.
I'm more than comfortable using the 300 plus tcs on my non-1 series bodies. I'd expect you to have an even better time with your Mk III mated to this lens.
I don't shoot birds too much, but have always found tracking with a 2xtc to be pretty good - about the same as the 100-400!
Seriously, believe all the hype you hear of this lens. It's one of the best from ANY manufacturer.
On my 1VHS the AF is fast with 1,4x and ok but a bit slower with the 2x.
On my 40D AF with 2x is a real pain in the you know what. Quite good with the 1,4x though.
Over the course of the last year, I've been shooting more and more wildlife, especially birds. I've been shooting with a 400 5.6 with and without an extender, which has worked out fairly well. Like anyone, I of course could always use more reach. My general problem is the lens has no extender and at f8 with the extender, I have very limited AF even on my 1D MKII.
I've been thinking about a 'big white' lens. While the 500 f4 seems optimal, it's pretty pricy at $6120 on BHphoto. I've considered getting a used 500 4.5, but I'm a little concerned about it potentially breaking with the servicing problem.
The bottom line is I have been considering gettign a 300 2.8 and using it with and without extenders. It's 'light' at 6 pounds (I could use my current tripod and just get the proper head unit), it's $2000 cheaper than the 500 f4, it's got IS (not sure which version) which would be a huge bonus. I looked at crops on the-digital-picture.com and it's crazy sharp at 2.8 300. At 420 f4 and 600 f5.6, it seems about as sharp as my current 400 5.6 without and with the 1.4x.
While I wouldn't get much more reach (I'm sure IQ would be pretty horrible at 840mm f8), I would get an extra stop and get IS. Both should help with shooting and allow me to get into the big white door. Of course, I have full seriveability and can then upgrade later to the 500 f4.
My concern is how bad AF will suffer from the 1.4x and 2x. Would it be too slow for birds? Am I misjudging sharpness? I guess it's about $3000 for a stop and IS but it may be a start.
on a 5D2 shooting a little soccer the 1.4x TC did reduce AF quality a bit maybe to somewhere around bare lens plus a 20D level, hard to say exactly.
the resolution is still fine though, still sharper with the TC on than a bare sigma 120-300 i think and a little sharper than a bare 300 f/4 non-IS too even
Nov 20, 2009 at 04:24 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Lars Johnsson wrote:
If you have a 400, there is not really any point in buying the 300 to shoot birds. Save your money until you can buy a longer lens
Agree with Lars, however if you already got 300/F2.8L IS than I am not sure if keeping F-slow 400F5.6L good idea. Personally I had same decision to make and I decide to sale 4005.6L to partially finance mk IV coming soon ... 300F2.8L IS will blow away any lens in IQ with or without tc
Lars Johnsson wrote:
If you have a 400, there is not really any point in buying the 300 to shoot birds. Save your money until you can buy a longer lens
+1
Buy a 500
Schlotkins wrote:
I've been shooting with a 400 5.6 with and without an extender, which has worked out fairly well. Like anyone, I of course could always use more reach.
If you need more reach than 400mm, then 300 f/2.8 is not an effective and economical way to get that.
Since it seems that 500 f/4 is not in your budget yet, then 500 f/4.5 L might be an excellent alternative. A 500 f/4.5 in a good condition is unlikely to fail during years of ownership and moderate, environmentally non-hostile use.
No need to wait, start to enjoy canon's best lens. If you do decide to upgrade, you can sell it with minimal lost.
AF with 2x is slower, compare to 1.4x or bare, but it is still fast enough for big birds, even raptors. You could use 1.4x, or stacked 1.4x, or even without, when necessary.
Thanks everyone for the responses. I know going from 400 -> 300 is crazy if I could use more reach. I guess i was wondering if I could shoot for a year or 2 with a 300 2.8 IS w/ a 1.4 or a 2.0 if it would be worth it or not and then upgrading to the 500. It sounds like I should just hold off.
If I put a 1.4x on a 4.5 lens, that would be f6.3 right? So I would only have AF on centerpoint correct? I know I can tape the contacts, but natively.
Schlotkins wrote:
If I put a 1.4x on a 4.5 lens, that would be f6.3 right? So I would only have AF on centerpoint correct?
That's right. For stationary or a slow moving targets that can work OK.....700mm f/6.3. However, fast BIF, if that's your interest, would become a problem.
However, even the most accomplished BIF photographers do not habitually use anything longer than 500mm for their flying targets, especially with a lens without IS.
PetKal wrote:
That's right. For stationary or a slow moving targets that can work OK.....700mm f/6.3. However, fast BIF, if that's your interest, would become a problem.
However, even the most accomplished BIF photographers do not habitually use anything longer than 500mm for their flying targets, especially with a lens without IS.
So is the 300 2.8 with a 1.4 EX the best choice for BIF? I currently have a 100-400 which is good for stationary targets but not so great for BIF. I'm thinking of getting the 300 L for the faster focusing and better light gathering abilities but would use it with a 1.4 EX most of the time.
I could continue to use my 100-400 and save up for the the 500 4.0 but the size and price is off putting.
I think the 300 2.8 sounds like the best choice. Any thoughts?
DIS Ottawa wrote:
So is the 300 2.8 with a 1.4 EX the best choice for BIF? I currently have a 100-400 which is good for stationary targets but not so great for BIF. I'm thinking of getting the 300 L for the faster focusing and better light gathering abilities but would use it with a 1.4 EX most of the time.
I could continue to use my 100-400 and save up for the the 500 4.0 but the size and price is off putting.
I think the 300 2.8 sounds like the best choice. Any thoughts?
IMO, 300 f/2.8 is the best choice if your targets will be in the range of 300mm and low light performance matters.
In all of this, sometimes the objective becomes to spend as much money as possible on gear......which might be OK for us collectors, I guess.
Seriously, one should obviously seek the loudest bang for the buck options.
400 f/5.6 is a great lens for BIF provided the ambient light is good or better.
300 f/4 is also fine for medium distance targets in marginal or better light.
200 f/2.8 and 135L are great for close quarters BIF photography in poor light or better, and they are faster focusing than any other Canon lens with a possible exception of 200 f/2 IS.
on a crop body and 1.4x or 2x you should have the focal length you need, I just picked up a 300mm 2.8 and on my DII and with the 1.4 I see no diffence in IQ or AF, the guy I bought it from same you can hardley notice with the 2x. I'm 6' 220lb and I have no problem handholding this combo, and this lens w/ IS is a dream in low light.
Thanks for the input. I'm currently using the 100-400 on a 50D (although I also have a 5DII) and think that with the 300 2.8 I get the flexibility of a very fast 300 mm, a pretty fast 420 mm and probably even a pretty decent albeit slow 600 mm. And that's without taking the crop factor into consideration.
DocsPics wrote:
Has anyone ever regretted buying a 300/2.8? What usually happens is that they regret not having bought it sooner.
I did when shooting birds like the OP in this thread. I also sold it and bought a longer lens. It's a great lens. But if you have a 400mm and need a longer lens for birding, then you will regret buying it.
