jxsq wrote:
Here is my personal experience on AF speed,

1. + EF 1.4x II

Still very fast, very close if not at 135L and 400L level.



Based on several years of fast action photography with both, I can tell you that bare 300 f/2.8 IS is not as fast to focus as 135L, let alone with the 1.4xTC.
300 f/2.8 IS with 1.4xTC is slower to focus than 400 f/5.6 in decent light.

When it comes to any BIF, except the largest and slowest of all birds, the 100-400 is not a very good choice at all.

milmoejoe wrote:
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.



If I was shooting moving birds at f/11, "sharpness" would be my least concern compared to severe high ISO noise degradation of the image.

rwalkernm wrote:
Chris,

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.

All my soccer shots this year used the 300 + 1.4x, except at night, where I need the wider aperture on poorly lit fields.

I may escalate to a longer lens some day, but for traveling, I'll always want to bring the 300. Best lens ever for me.

You can see lots of photos at my pbase gallery --
http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm (sports or nature galleries)

Bob Walker
Nice soccer work in your gallery!
The 300/2.8 would be a great lens to have...

darryn patch wrote:
If cash is tight I'd pick up a 500/4.5 in a heart beat.

Actually, the way I'd put it, if the budget could possibly allow it, one should get 500 f/4.5L on top of any other supertelephoto one might own.
Unless one has used 500 f/4.5L quite a bit, one can not really understand how good and convenient that lens is.

Jess,

Thanks! And yes, I do like the lens!

Bob

Nice soccer work in your gallery! The 300/2.8 would be a great lens to have...

PetKal wrote:
jxsq wrote:
Here is my personal experience on AF speed,

1. + EF 1.4x II

Still very fast, very close if not at 135L and 400L level.



Based on several years of fast action photography with both, I can tell you that bare 300 f/2.8 IS is not as fast to focus as 135L, let alone with the 1.4xTC.
300 f/2.8 IS with 1.4xTC is slower to focus than 400 f/5.6 in decent light.

When it comes to any BIF, except the largest and slowest of all birds, the 100-400 is not a very good choice at all.

You do know that there is a distance switch, and the IS can be turn off, do you?

What i said is also based on many years of experience. Looks like we two have quite different experiences here.

You seems likes to go extreme when talking about gears, but with all respect, i didn't see you are pushing your gear to extreme.

Of course, 400L will be better than 100-400L on BIF, and 500/600 will be better than 300/2.8 with TCs for birding. But that is not the point of discussion. What the OP and some others are saying is that 300/2.8 with TCs is a very versatile package and can cover large variety of shootings with better than decent results.

back to 100-400L for BIF, are these 'large and slow' birds? Not the best example and i can get better results with 400L and 300/2.8, but if someone can get this kind of BIF shots, the tool is seems to be good enough, at least for me.

Some time we go the the best, sometime we go for 'good enough', these are two different things.

Jxsq, let us not lose sight of my comment above.
Here we go again: When you said that 300 f/2.8 IS +1.4xTC had as fast AF drive as 135L, then that indicated to me that you were lacking sufficient experience with one of those lenses or even both .

PetKal wrote:
Jxsq, let us not lose sight of my comment above.
Here we go again: When you said that 300 f/2.8 IS +1.4xTC had as fast AF drive as 135L, then that indicated to me that you were lacking sufficient experience with one of those lenses or even both .




Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I can tell you that i have more experience with both lens than you did.

www.pbase.com/jxsq

jxsq wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Jxsq, let us not lose sight of my comment above.
Here we go again: When you said that 300 f/2.8 IS +1.4xTC had as fast AF drive as 135L, then that indicated to me that you were lacking sufficient experience with one of those lenses or even both .




Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I can tell you that i have more experience with both lens than you did.www.pbase.com/jxsq



No problem, I am still learning and trying to improve a bit every day.
And even when I don't improve any, I am still having fun with whatever little gears I own.

Here are some results, with the 300 + stacked TC's.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/838642/0#7809749

Petkal- no offense, but your style of "BIF" entails shooting common (aka 'trash') species in urban areas, at very close range. It's a cool niche, but it's misleading to force your style amongst other folks looking for objective information. I digress.

Schlotkins, take a look for yourself. These professional wildlife photographers rely on the 300/2.8IS as a bread and butter lens and their images are a testament to its potential.

http://flightschoolphotography.com/

http://www.shootthelight.com/

http://davidhemmingsbirdphotography.com/

milmoejoe wrote:
Petkal- no offense, but your style of "BIF" entails shooting common (aka 'trash') species in urban areas, at very close range. It's a cool niche, but it's misleading to force your style amongst other folks looking for objective information. I digress.



Photography is photography, Joe, whether you are shooting handsome people or ugly people, exotic birds or "trash" birds.
Your notion of f/11 equivalence between lenses is photographically less than relevant or even knowledgeable when it comes to shooting anything that moves faster than a snail. I think this is fairly rudimentary, for crying out loud.

Hi Chris! I have all the three lenses you mentioned. I alternate this using a 1D Mark III and the 7D. The 300 2.8 IS is the most versatile one because you can shoot birds (with TC) and sports with it. I use this with a monopod but there are times I hand hold it but not for long. This has become my lens of choice lately.

For BIF in good light the 400 f/5.6 can't be beat except when you're shooting where there's a busy background and the bokeh won't be took pleasing.

My 500 f/4 IS is strictly used with the Wimberly / Gitzo set-up. I seldom hand hold this puppy because its so heavy. However a 500 with 1.4x combo will give you reach if you need it but the focusing does slow down. If I'm lucky today, I'll shoot some skimmers with this combo and can compare images with the 300 2.8 2X combo. I'll share with you the images that I capture. Mind you, the birds are at least 30 - 50 feet away so I'm shooting very far subjects in flight.

If you need to see images of 1D Mark III and 7D with the 300 2.8 and 2X combo you can find some images below:

http://www.voltaireyap.com/Animals/Birds-in-Fall-2009/10270666_pRwjW#712457239_9sdf8

Hope this helps. Thanks.
Voltaire

I ordered the 100-400L (arriving tomorrow) just for BIF .... for my trip to Bosque del Apache next week. Are you saying I've made a mistake? Reason I opted for the 100-400L instead of the 400/5.6L is because (a) it has IS, (b) it's a lot more versatile being a 100-400 zoom, and most importantly, because (c) the newer copies are really sharp - it's sharp wide open at 400mm:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/830581

And (d) even Arthur Morris loves this lens!

PetKal wrote:

When it comes to any BIF, except the largest and slowest of all birds, the 100-400 is not a very good choice at all.

bobbytan wrote:
I ordered the 100-400L (arriving tomorrow) just for BIF .... for my trip to Bosque del Apache next week. Are you saying I've made a mistake? Reason I opted for the 100-400L instead of the 400/5.6L is because (a) it has IS, (b) it's a lot more versatile being a 100-400 zoom, and most importantly, because (c) the newer copies are really sharp - it's sharp wide open at 400mm:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/830581

PetKal wrote:

When it comes to any BIF, except the largest and slowest of all birds, the 100-400 is not a very good choice at all.



Bobby, all that comes down to keeper rate, target type and experience level with the lens and particular targets.
There have been good BIF images captured with 100-400. There have been some BIF images captured even with very short/slow telephoto lenses such as 100 f/2.8 macro , 85L, 180L etc.
However, the keeper rate would generally suffer. Also there is more of required experience level in order to compensate for the shortcommings of the tool.

I do consider the 100-400 to be an excellent all around wildlife lens and more. However, the lens is not a BIF "specialist". When it comes to your trip, if you are going to shoot birds such as cranes and geese in flight, you should probably be OK with it. If you will try to get a Harrier, that might be a bit more difficult, particularly so in imperfect light.
Please note, that's a double hit you are taking.....the lens AF drive is sluggish and the nominal aperture is rather slow so it starts to encumber the camera AF in imperfect light.

One way or another, I hope your new copy of 100-400 is at least as good as mine.
Enjoy.

jxsq wrote:
Get 300/2.8 LIS, now!

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.

No, keep saving for the 500L. The 300L + 1.4x converter may be better than the 400L F5.6 alone. But, you are talking about the price difference between a $4000+ 300L versus the $1300+ 400L F5.6. Your image quality may be a bit better. You are still reach limited. I guarantee you that your converter will be glued to your 300L as long as you are shooting birds. In most cases, you may not have the enough reach at all.

The 500/4L is definitely the ideal lens (good compromise between focal length and bulk/weight) with sharpness and bokeh to die for, but it costs an arm and a leg for most hobbyists. The 400/5.6 or 100-400L is a poor man's birding lens. It will still do the job, but will require a little more care and technique, and a lot of practice to get those keepers.

I wasn't quite expecting this level of interest, but I really have learned a lot from the discussion and I thank everyone for taking the time to stop in. As mentioned, my choice today is trade in my 400 5.6 and get the 300 2.8. I have the extenders. The alternative choice was to hold on, save for a while longer and go straight to the 500. Buying a 500 today is not an option nor do I want to risk buying an older, non-serviceable lens. I of course recognize that a 500 f4 > 300 2.8 for birding.

It seems that the 'cost' of 'renting' the 300 is probably low. If I get a used one, prices are typically fairly stable (even if a new version comes out) and I can sell it for close to the original price and it's not like the $2500 is earning much interest in the bank. The debate comes down to whether a 300 + 1.4 is better or worse than my native 400 and whether a 300 + 2x is better than my 400 + 1.4x over the course of that waiting period.

Optically, I think the results would be similar wide open, plus I'd pick up a stop lower ISO as well as use of all my 45 focus points even at 600mm. It sounds like, however, the major downside would be focus speed. 300 + 1.4 is slower than my 400 5.6 and although I don't see anything about both with extenders, I'm assuming the 400 again would be faster. (I'm not sure how much of the slowness is caused by less light or due to the extender itself minus the light loss.)

I'll have to ponder the focus speed. I do take pictures of hawks, kites, etc in flight, and although I don't usually shoot smaller birds in flight, I'm worried the combo would be too slow.

Thanks again,
Chris

darryn patch wrote:
Of the 10s of thousands of posts, have you ever read one that said my pre IS lens does not work anymore?

I've never seen one and I doubt I'll see one for years to come??

My grandad still drives his 1940s ford From Sydney to Brisbane, about 1000kms

If cash is tight I'd pick up a 500/4.5 in a heart beat.


Did you see this?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834092/0

I shoot birds – no sports-

I used a 400 5.6 with & without a 1.4 for 2 years. I really wanted to upgrade to
a better lens. I rented a 300 for a week & shot it daily. When it was said & done
I decided the 300 f 2.8 was not much of an improvement(to short) & continued to save, a few months later I managed to get a 500. I am so glad I waited.
If birds are your thing keep your 400 f 5.6 & get the 500 when you can, anything less is a half step.
JMHO