Lars got that right. I know of a number of wildlife photographers who ended up using their 300 f/2.8 lens merely as a transient point to the 500mm or longer lenses.
The 300 f/2.8 lens might be a perfect solution for some sports or perhaps something else too where 300mm is ideal. But generally for birds it is not.
The 400f5.6 is the best BIF lens going. The weight increase of a 300f2.8 plus 1.4x makes a big difference if you are handholding for any period of time.
Usually buying a shorter lens like a 300 with the long term intention of a 500 just ends up costing more as once you get the 500, you won't be using the 300 much. Keeping the 400 gives you a great combo with reach with a 500 and BIF capability with the 400.
If birds are your end goal, then the 500 is the way to go, so I suggest saving the dough for it.
Add me to the list of those suggesting that you opt for an EF 500 F4L IS USM (the "500"). The 500 is an outstandingly good lens, and will give you the reach that you want. Further, you can hand hold a 500 for
limited amounts of time and make some great captures of birds in flight; and the 500 is relatively portable.
If you cannot afford a new 500 at this time, take a look at possibly buying a used one from a reputable firm such as
B&H, Adorama or KEH. A very close friend of mine bought a pristine EF 600 F4L IS USM (the "600") from KEH this spring and has been thrilled with it.
In my view, you won't regret buying a 500. Also, please note that my comments are based on my own firsthand experience, as I owned a 500 for three years until I sold it this April to buy a 600. The 500 is a sweet, sweet lens.
I only sold my 500 in order to produce some cash to buy a 600, as I am more interested now in photographing raptors (especially bald eagles) and grizzly bears, and I need the extra reach for safety and other purposes.
I am looking at the same choices as the OP (have the 400/5.6- love it in good light!!). Looking at the 300/2.8 with TC vs Sigma 500/4.5 (can't afford the Canon 500) Any thoughts on IQ and focus speed between these two choices? Also, with the 300/2.8, are stacked 1.4's better than a 2? Looking for the best "bang for buck".
Seriously, it'd be better to get an older 1D or 1Ds, the 400, and a 1.4x TC, IMHO.
I have no problems with AF with that setup, and I can get good images even around sundown, handheld (with the "noisy" 1Ds).
PetKal wrote:
Congratulations Dawei. You are gettin' a perfect BIF lens (and much more)....if you can get close enough to them, that is.
haha thanks, you helped push me over the edge!
I sold a 400 f5.6 years ago in favor of the 300 f2.8IS. It is the sharpest lens I own and the first one out of the bag. I use the lens for landscape, flowers, wildlife, abstracts and portraits. The lens is now mated to my 1DIII (use to be on my 1DII). I shoot it with 1.4x and 2x converters. The 1.4x has little if any negative impact on sharpness and detail, while the 2x makes it about as sharp as the 100-400L at 400mm. In good light, the 2x shines... in marginal light it is soft.
Visit my website and hit the Cost Rica Link... the quetzals and sloths were all made w/ the 300 f2.8 + 2x converter on a 40D at ISO 400.
BTW... good luck finding a clean one for $3000! The new prices are up to $4600. I bought mine for $3000 two years ago before the price hike and it had a fair number of battle scars (and more now, given my travels). In the end, this lens does take a lickin' and keeps on tickin'...
PetKal wrote:
Lars got that right. I know of a number of wildlife photographers who ended up using their 300 f/2.8 lens merely as a transient point to the 500mm or longer lenses.
The 300 f/2.8 lens might be a perfect solution for some sports or perhaps something else too where 300mm is ideal. But generally for birds it is not.
I have the 300 and 500 and love them both. The majority of my work is Wildlife where both shine but for rodeo's, air shows and any other closer in action sports the 300 is primo even with extenders.
I wouldn't part with either and am just waiting for the 800 to drop to around 10 grand and I'll have what I think is the holy grail of lens combos...300, 500 and 800 (be still my heart)..
I started using a 300 2.8 IS this year, moving "up" from my 100-400 zoom. I'm shooting soccer, wildlife, birds. I got the 300 over a 500 because I wanted to be able to travel with it, and figured the 300 + TC's was going to be much easier than a longer lens.
Here's a shot of a white-winged dove at 600mm, wide open, from about 30 ft away. Little or no cropping of the image.
Thanks for posting this information. Your 100-400 IS is similar to my 400, although you have a little IS. Your images at 600 look really good - similar to my 400 with an extender. I can imagine the small increase in focal length (560 -> 600) would probably make up for the slight difference. Plus being able to use all autofocus points as well as IS would be huge plus.
Could you comment on the focus speed with the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders on compared to your 100-400? I don't know if that zoom has equivalent AF speed as my lens, but it would be good to know.
The 100-400 is not a fast focuser (nor is my copy particularly accurate unless there is plenty of light). The 300 + 2x TC is easily faster. The 300mm seems faster to me than the 135 F2 lens, and it is very accurate.
I know I saw some specs somewhere about how much the focusing speed is reduced with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC's, but it still Feels "fast" to me. Wikipedia says with the 1.4x attached, AF speed is cut in half, and with the 2.0x it's cut to a fourth of normal. I just can't remember where it was I saw actual timings in msec.
How the 300mm + TC compares to the 400mm + TC probably just scales with the basic AF speed of the native lens.
If I stack the TC's, (2.0x on the 300mm, then 1.4x on the camera), it will still try to focus on the 1DMkIII, but tends to oscillate focus on it's way to finding where it wants to be. If I start off too far from being in focus, it will not even try to focus.
Maybe someone else has better specs -- these are mostly the "feel" of the lenses.
The 100-400 is not a fast focuser (nor is my copy particularly accurate unless there is plenty of light). The 300 + 2x TC is easily faster. The 300mm seems faster to me than the 135 F2 lens, and it is very accurate.
I know I saw some specs somewhere about how much the focusing speed is reduced with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC's, but it still Feels "fast" to me. Wikipedia says with the 1.4x attached, AF speed is cut in half, and with the 2.0x it's cut to a fourth of normal. I just can't remember where it was I saw actual timings in msec.
How the 300mm + TC compares to the 400mm + TC probably just scales with the basic AF speed of the native lens.
If I stack the TC's, (2.0x on the 300mm, then 1.4x on the camera), it will still try to focus on the 1DMkIII, but tends to oscillate focus on it's way to finding where it wants to be. If I start off too far from being in focus, it will not even try to focus.
Maybe someone else has better specs -- these are mostly the "feel" of the lenses.
I've seen Canon specs on it, just that can not remember where. Either way, 1.4xTC supposedly cuts the AF drive speed to 2/3 and 2xTC reduces the lens AF drive speed to 1/2 of its native value.
However, Canon likes to express the AF drive speed in terms of AF group travel time which makes more practical sense.
Therefore, when it comes to 300 f/2.8 IS, I believe its AF drive speed is 0.4 sec (probably a bit better too.) Therefore, with the 1.4xTC the combo, the speed would be 0.6 sec which starts to get a bit sluggish and it is in the range of 500 f/4.5L and 200 f/1.8. Add 2xTC to the lens, and now we have 0.8 sec AF drive speed which is not very good for fast action at all.
Just for another reference point, Canon quotes the AF drive speed for 85L MkII as 1 sec.
I think folks are driving you a bit far off topic.
The 300/2.8 IS is probably the most versatile lens there is- not only for bird and wildlife photography, but also for landscapes, sports, people, pets, etc.
Don't get too caught up in what others think is best for BIF, and so forth. The 100-400, 400/5.6, and 300/2.8 are all great lenses for such.
The 300/2.8 is particularly useful for shooting with the 2x, @ 600mm. Stopped down to f/11, you can't tell the IQ apart from the 500mm. Sharpness and saturation are top notch.
The 300/2.8 is also particularly nice because of it's packing size. I've got friends who've taken it on biking tours across country. You simply can't do this with a 500 or larger.
Yes, people often find themselves on a quest for more focal length, later upgrading to the 500, but the 300/2.8 is a lens that folks want to keep to compliment their other lenses. This one is not a "stepping stone" IMO.
Many great bird shots you see are staged or set up, and 300, 420 or 600mm is PLENTY. Numerous other (great) BIF photographers use the 300/2.8 for extremely fast AF acquisition, sharpness, saturation and handhold-ability.
Still very fast, very close if not at 135L and 400L level.
2. + EF 2x II
slowdown quite a bit, definitely slower than 100-400L bare, especially both on 1 series bodies. On xxD, xxxd, the difference is smaller. (100-400 gain more AF speed on 1 series bodies)
but again it definitely much, much faster than 85L II, the difference is, well, day and night.
3. + kenko pro DG 300 1.4x + kenko pro DG 300 1.4x ( two kenko stacked)
speed now is about 100-400L! still not good for SIF (sparrows in flight, or swallows in flight) but probably enough for other type of BIFs.
stacked Canon and Kenko is slightly slower.
stacked 1.4x IQ-wise is little bit worse than EF 2x II.
4. when stack 1.4x and 2x, it is better to use EF 2xII and Kenko pro 1.4x. on xD series (1d, 1d2, and 5d2 etc), the speed is ok and usable. stacked Canon TCs is not usable in my opinion.
milmoejoe wrote:
I think folks are driving you a bit far off topic.
The 300/2.8 IS is probably the most versatile lens there is- not only for bird and wildlife photography, but also for landscapes, sports, people, pets, etc.
Don't get too caught up in what others think is best for BIF, and so forth. The 100-400, 400/5.6, and 300/2.8 are all great lenses for such.
The 300/2.8 is particularly useful for shooting with the 2x, @ 600mm. Stopped down to f/11, you can't tell the IQ apart from the 500mm. Sharpness and saturation are top notch.
The 300/2.8 is also particularly nice because of it's packing size. I've got friends who've taken it on biking tours across country. You simply can't do this with a 500 or larger.
Yes, people often find themselves on a quest for more focal length, later upgrading to the 500, but the 300/2.8 is a lens that folks want to keep to compliment their other lenses. This one is not a "stepping stone" IMO.
Many great bird shots you see are staged or set up, and 300, 420 or 600mm is PLENTY. Numerous other (great) BIF photographers use the 300/2.8 for extremely fast AF acquisition, sharpness, saturation and handhold-ability.
You are gettin' a perfect BIF lens (and much more)....if you can get close enough to them, that is. 
