I wonder if the 100-300 foot is interchangeable with the 200-400's because the 200-400 also included a 'short' foot with only 1/4" thread (though of course no Arca compatibility)? I immediately switched the standard foot for the short one and would certainly prefer it on the 100-300...
I don’t have the 200-400 anymore but that was the first thing I did. Too bad Canon does not include both with the 100-300
action99 wrote:
I don't know but I did order the leofoto EF 300 one to try (the only one is stock here that I can send back) as the one that comes with the lens is too big and no integrate plate. It should be here tomorrow.
I use the Wimberley AP-600 Replacement Lens Foot for Canon 600 f4.0 is III, I personally like the longer foot as a handle. It also is lower than the stock foot. I use the same on the RF 400 and RF 800. They do make one for the 400mm also which is shorter.
action99 wrote:
I don't know but I did order the leofoto EF 300 one to try (the only one is stock here that I can send back) as the one that comes with the lens is too big and no integrate plate. It should be here tomorrow.
The leofoto CF-01 Canon 200-400mm, 300mm/f2.8, 400mm/f4.0, 500mm/f4 replacement foot fits the 100-300, it is around 0.5 mm longer in front and 0.5 shorter on the back where the foot attaches to the lens but is firmly installed on the lens. So I would guess any foot for EF300, 200-400 should fit the 100-300.
Hey Rob, Re: your 2x @ 600mm samples, are you stopping down? If so, what did you use on the “I am Cute and Know It” image/in general? Thx for your input in advance.
ChrisHA wrote:
Hey Rob, Re: your 2x @ 600mm samples, are you stopping down? If so, what did you use on the “I am Cute and Know It” image/in general? Thx for your input in advance.
If you click on the link below each of his images, it will take you to that image on flickr. Just below the image in the right-hand column, where the camera icon is, is the exif data showing that information.
ChrisHA wrote:
Hey Rob, Re: your 2x @ 600mm samples, are you stopping down? If so, what did you use on the “I am Cute and Know It” image/in general? Thx for your input in advance.
For those that have this lens on an R5 ... is focusing quick?
Day 3 with my R5 and using it on my 100-400 and 300 2.8ii am finding the ability to lock onto a target is painfully slow in low light and just slow in good light. I fear a field trip would result in most opportunities missed.
any suggestions would be gratefully accepted!
TerryV
After digging today I found some similar threads with same issue ... Have played with a few settings and may be making progress !
The digital picture has the image quality charts up, I don’t find the charts particularly great as something with more fine details would be better but at least they are comparable, these are my observations:
Wide open 100-300 300 2.8 is a tad sharper than 100-300 1.4x 420 F4 but quite close as expected.
Vs RF 100-500
Wide open 100-300 1.4x 420 F4 is sharper than 100-500 400 F6.3
Wide open 100-500 500 F7.1 is sharper than 100-300 600 2x F5.6
Wide open 100-300 600 2x F5.6 is sharper than 100-500 1.4x 700 F10
Vs RF 400 2.8
Wide open 100-300 300 2.8 is equal to 400 2.8.
Wide open 400 2.8 is a tad sharper than 100-300 1.4x 420 F4 but it seems surprisingly close.
Wide open 100-300 1.4x 420 F4 seems sharper than 400 2.8 1.4x 560 F4, seems a bit strange to me.
Wide open 400 2.8 1.4x 560 F4 is a tad sharper than 100-300 2x 600 F5.6.
Vs 200-400
Comparing with the 200-400 is harder as is not the same camera R5 vs 5Ds R but it seems that 100-300 with 1.4x is similar to the 200-400 bare and 100-300 with 2x at 600 is sharper than 200-400 1.4x 560
