I owned both and used both with converters a lot and found the IQ of the 500/4 IS + 1.4X and the 300 + 2X to be excellent...so good that I probably couldn't tell which was which looking at processed images. IMO the 300 is one of the those rare lenses that takes the 2X very well.
Your choice makes sense to me...IMO you're more likely to get a higher percentage of keepers in the field with the rig you're more comfortable with.
Thanks Chris, glad to hear of someone else with a similar experience in comparing the two. I think the 2xIII could be a significant factor in the comparison, I don't believe the version II would fare as well, but I have not compared that one.
I also think that not every converter works as well on every lens...maybe due to slight variations in manufacturing tolerances or something? I've owned a few copies of the 70-200/2.8 II IS and used them all with the same set of converters. For some reason the latest copy is noticeably better with my converters than the others so I assume this one is just a better 'match' with them.
My 300 was like that too...seemed to work better with my 2X than any other lens I've used it with...(including the 500).
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 have both and have noticed that the 300+2x vrs 500+1.4x can be very close IQ wise when you shoot a frame filling subject. But the 500 1.4x does seem to have a little more saturation. Sharpness was very close... but the AF speed of the 300 vrs the 500 set up, 500 wins hands down. But the 300 is such a sweet lens, I find it hard not to give in to my version II lust. Definitly a hard choice to upgrade, the 300 is a pretty versatile lens!! The 500 has never given me that wow shot that the 300 2.8 has, but then again, I find the 300 gets used more My uneducated 2c
alundeb wrote:
May I ask why you don't upgrade your teleconverters to version III? The 300 2.8 + 2xTC III combo should be noticeably better than with 2xTC II.
I haven't upgraded my TCs from version II to version III because from everything I've read, there is only a very small improvement in IQ withe the version III TCs when used with lenses that aren't the newest version.
The only thing this test shows is that the 2xTC and 300 were better calibrated with your body than the 500 and 1.4xTC. This is no big shocker. Calibrate both lens/TC combos with FoCal and then give your findings.
PetKal wrote:
Superb shot, Mark.........Sandhill crane images are a dime a dozen, yet those uniquely and pertfectly rendered like yours are quite uncommon.
Thanks Chris, Jo, Peter, and Rage. The MKIV and 2xtc III reassured my thinking in not getting a 500 f4. Even though I would love to have the 500 I just don't shoot enough of that type of wildlife to justify it. Every so often I get out and shoot some larger distant birds like Sandhills and Eagles where the 300 + 2x do an adequate job. For all my other wildlife shooting I use the 400 5.6 and just try to get closer. The 300 is my most used lens and it's one that has paid for itself many times over with actual income. It's also nice to be able to travel light, and handhold it all day at an event (I don't even own an expensive, heavy duty tripod). The only telephoto change I may consider is going from the 300 2.8 I to the 300 2.8 MKII. Even in that more logical combo I'm not sure the weight savings and increased IQ would be enough to make the switch.
Canon's introduction of the MKII teles is forcing some serious thought as to what upgrade path makes the most sense for each user. For me, the 300 2.8 v1 is going to be my staple lens for the foreseeable future.
I am careful not to say what is best for everyone else to buy because there are those like Peter(Petkal) who can afford many toys and it is his choice to buy what he wants. Many times you hear comments on here like "those prices are ridiculous and nobody should ever pay that for a lens/body". Canon has given us all a reality check with these new lens prices, but also there have been some real improvements in the products.
I hope the 70-200MKII scenario can be repeated. The new 70-200II came out with a price of $2,500 and had killer IQ. Now the price has dropped to $2,000, which is only $200 more than the v1 was selling for several years ago. If you adjust for inflation then the new lens is actually less than the old one. I think that it is probably a dream to imagine the same price drops with the supertele though.
I have a similar experience from shooting the 24 Hours of Daytona last year. I rented a the 500, the 300 and 2x II. I liked the pictures way more from the 300 + 2x than I did from the 500. The 500 was brand new, never been used before. After looking at the pictures from that weekend, I was forever disappointed with the 500, I'm hoping a re-visit with one can change my mind.
I have the 500 and am very pleased with the results.
Bushawk makes a base holder and attachment for the foot of the 500. I have found this combination allows for a modest handhold for the 500 and am pleased with the results. There is the question of a females anatomy and use of the Bushawk but, you have to learn to adjust the device for your body whether you are male or female.
When I was younger the handhold of the 500 would have not been a problem. It's either a tripod with a gimbel or a Bushawk to get acceptable images for me.
The new 500 and 600 will sell a lot because they are lighter. I think the 600 will out sell the 500 when they finally deliver them.
Richard Nye wrote:
I haven't upgraded my TCs from version II to version III because from everything I've read, there is only a very small improvement in IQ withe the version III TCs when used with lenses that aren't the newest version.
From what I have read, and my own experience, the improvement with a 2XTC III on a 300 2.8 IS (not the latest version) can be quantified to fill half the gap up to the 500 4 IS with 1.4 TC III. If that improvement is very small or not, is of course an individual judgment.
martines34 wrote:
I have the 500 and am very pleased with the results.
Bushawk makes a base holder and attachment for the foot of the 500. I have found this combination allows for a modest handhold for the 500 and am pleased with the results. There is the question of a females anatomy and use of the Bushawk but, you have to learn to adjust the device for your body whether you are male or female.
When I was younger the handhold of the 500 would have not been a problem. It's either a tripod with a gimbel or a Bushawk to get acceptable images for me.
The new 500 and 600 will sell a lot because they are lighter. I think the 600 will out sell the 500 when they finally deliver them....Show more →
I find the 500 is my most used lens and am happy with it as well.
I also have a Bushawk, but have only used it with my 400/5.6 or 100-400, and there is a learning curve.
I use my 500 with a monopod set up like the RRS site suggests. I would also mention different folks have different shooting styles (and physical abilities). I work out specifically to improve my ability to hand hold with a monopod and have improved at least two stops by specific exercises.
I do notice this topic comes up a lot and there seems to be those who favor the 300 and those who favor the 500. Part of this is probably due to physical ability; but I also do not discount shooting style as a big factor. One of the first things I do before a shoot is consider where I will be shooting, what I will be shooting, and expected lighting conditions and select the lens that best fits. For me the most common answer is the 500.
Andrew J wrote:
The only thing this test shows is that the 2xTC and 300 were better calibrated with your body than the 500 and 1.4xTC. This is no big shocker. Calibrate both lens/TC combos with FoCal and then give your findings.
I have to disagree with this statement since both shots I showed as samples appear EQUALLY SHARP to my eye. They were indeed both calibrated to the 7D. It's not a case of the 500 being unsharp and the 300 being sharp. If anyone can see $3000 worth of difference between those two shots, more power to them. My customers won't see the difference, nor do I.
Even people that have both lens A and lens B will often claim lens B is better, just because they had to spend a few more thousand dollars on it. The same can be said of camera bodies.
My uneducated 2c 