Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3

end

Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

gkinard1952
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

Watched the video, I've owned the IS 1 and IS II version of the Canon 300 2.8. Exactly the same results as the guy in the video. Looks like nothing has changed. I got rid of both of those lenses for birding.
IMO you will see the same thing with the new 200-500 (the hyped lens ) Canon is supposed to bring out.
Looks like Sony has cracked the 300 2.8 as far as TC's goes. If a birder and used to larger primes stay away from Canon's 300 IMHO. Over priced and over hyped, as usual with Canon..

If a sports shooter and using the bare lens (or with TC's). Then I would pick up a used one in a heart beat. Especially if you use the 100-300 focal length the majority of the time.

Aug 05, 2024 at 07:15 AM

ChrisHA
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

I don’t have the RF400 but did get the RF100-300 after all of the helpful tips/photo shares/advice from this forum. I had/sold the EF300 as reference and still have/use the EF500II/1.4x. Anyway, I took the RF100-300 to Patagonia in May/June, paired it with the R3, and did use the 2x full time. The temps were 15-25F with snow/overcast sky and I used a ProMediaGear monopod/HM1 tilt head. All I can say is that this zoom is a joy to use :-). It tracked puma cubs racing behind tall grass and grabbed shots during the very brief moment that their faces were clear; and, the tonality is on par with the EF500/EF800. As always, sharpness is better the closer subjects are to the frame. And truth be told, my AF struggled in falling snow/low visibility but it was because of my settings/brain fart. Also, my keeper rate was lower than normal/expected when a puma’s face got within near minimum distance and I needed more TV after stopping down quickly in low flat light aka operator error. My backup rig was the R5/100-500 but I never touched it ‘cause I love/need to have the smart controller on the AF-On button plus the ability to turn tracking on/off at will. BTW, these features are still MIA on the R5II, right? Anyway, thanks all again for your help in helping me to make this purchase. I haven’t tackled being able to load images here yet, but did post a few RF100-300 w/2x images on FB. Chris Prestegard

Aug 05, 2024 at 10:03 PM

docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

gkinard1952 wrote:
Looks like Sony has cracked the 300 2.8 as far as TC's goes.

There’s no difference in the optical quality between the Sony and Canon lenses. Even considering the R5 has an AA filter the 100-300 doesn’t look softer @ 600mm:
https://bit.ly/4dArvtn which is absolutely insane for a zoom lens.

Aug 06, 2024 at 02:18 AM

koenkooi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

ChrisHA wrote:
(...) ‘cause I love/need to have the smart controller on the AF-On button plus the ability to turn tracking on/off at will. BTW, these features are still MIA on the R5II, right? (...)

Yes, the R5II lacks the smart controller, you'll need to use the joystick.

Aug 06, 2024 at 03:58 AM

Dave_E
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

Testing with the 2 X TC, just before it poured.

Canon EOS R5 RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens 561mm f/5.6 1/1000s 5000 ISO 0.0 EV

Canon EOS R5 RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens 600mm f/5.6 1/1000s 5000 ISO 0.0 EV

Aug 13, 2024 at 08:02 PM

docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

I received the lens today and it's nothing short of amazing with the 2x. It's very sharp with lots of contrast. Also it renders background much smoother compared to the 100-500 @ 500.

The only thing this lens is missing is the MFD - 6m limiter. I was shooting hummingbirds from a blind very close to MFD and sometimes the camera was trying to focus on the trees far behind. The limiter would help, but unfortunately it's either "Full" or "6m - infinity".

I also noticed my lens S/N is 3, then a bunch of zeroes and 88. I know folks here on FM got their 100-300 a while ago, and I'm wondering if these lenses are popular? Does it mean that in ~15 months Canon sold 88 lenses total?

Aug 16, 2024 at 08:57 PM

Yaniv
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

docusync wrote:
I received the lens today and it's nothing short of amazing with the 2x. It's very sharp with lots of contrast. Also it renders background much smoother compared to the 100-500 @ 500.

The only thing this lens is missing is the MFD - 6m limiter. I was shooting hummingbirds from a blind very close to MFD and sometimes the camera was trying to focus on the trees far behind. The limiter would help, but unfortunately it's either "Full" or "6m - infinity".

I also noticed my lens S/N is 3, then a bunch of zeroes and 88. I know folks here...Show more →

Yeah! i was waiting for someone to confirm this. I just put in my order for the 2x.

Thank you!

My S/N starts with a 4 and 124 at the end btw.... Make sure you are running 1.06 firmware...

Aug 16, 2024 at 09:19 PM

docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

Yaniv wrote:
Yeah! i was waiting for someone to confirm this. I just put in my order for the 2x.

Thank you!

My S/N starts with a 4 and 124 at the end btw.... Make sure you are running 1.06 firmware...

Interesting... so apparently the first number can be anything

Thank you for the suggestion - I'll update it tonight.

Those are just throw away samples, no processing except for LR NR = 35 and basic slider moves.
ISO 3200, 1/1250s (I tried to catch them in flight lol), f/5.6, close to MFD, 25-27Mpx crop.

_F3A9846

_F3A9784

Aug 16, 2024 at 10:30 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

docusync wrote:
I received the lens today and it's nothing short of amazing with the 2x. It's very sharp with lots of contrast. Also it renders background much smoother compared to the 100-500 @ 500.

The only thing this lens is missing is the MFD - 6m limiter. I was shooting hummingbirds from a blind very close to MFD and sometimes the camera was trying to focus on the trees far behind. The limiter would help, but unfortunately it's either "Full" or "6m - infinity".

I also noticed my lens S/N is 3, then a bunch of zeroes and 88. I know folks here...Show more →

My first one from August 2023 starts with 29 and ends in 124.

Aug 17, 2024 at 12:02 AM

EBCowboy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

As far as I know they're still using the same date code format in lens serial numbers. First two digits show the manufacturing date, trailing digits are identifier within that month.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

Aug 17, 2024 at 12:48 AM

docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

EBCowboy wrote:
As far as I know they're still using the same date code format in lens serial numbers. First two digits show the manufacturing date, trailing digits are identifier within that month.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

That is very helpful, thank you!

It turned out my S/N starts not with 3, but 43 which now makes total sense (July 2024), and it's #88 lens made in July 2024.
I'm going to bookmark that TDP page

Aug 17, 2024 at 01:54 AM

thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

Added to summary also, but some details:

I have finally processed all my photos that I want to keep from my recent trip to Alaska. I ended up taking both 100-300 & 400 f2.8 to the trip, but based on the results, If I had left the 400mm back, it would not have had a huge impact on my keepers.

Top photos , the ones I am sharing and printing etc: total: 35
100-300 f2.8: bare:15, 1.4x:4, 2x:9
400mm f2.8: bare: 0, 1.4x:4, 2x:0
24-105mm : 3

Photos that I like enough to keep them including variations of similar shots:
Bear photos in Hallo Bay
100-300 f2.8: bare:160, 1.4x: 55 , 2x: 215
400mm f2.8: bare:0 1.4x:60, 2x:0
24-105mm : 40

Sealions, Sealife, Artic Terns,Eagles,swans etc in Valdez/Anc:
100-300 f2.8: bare:8, 1.4x: 7, 2x: 3
400mm f2.8: bare:11,1.4x:52 , w/2x: 13
24-105mm : 98

All the photos in my two posts from hallo bay are with 100-300.

Aug 17, 2024 at 10:20 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

thedutt wrote:
Added to summary also, but some details:

I have finally processed all my photos that I want to keep from my recent trip to Alaska. I ended up taking both 100-300 & 400 f2.8 to the trip, but based on the results, If I had left the 400mm back, it would not have had a huge impact on my keepers.

In your opinion, the 100-300 with 2x was a suitable alternative to the 400 & 1.4x?

I had a peek at the bear threads over at N&W and would not be able to pick out one lens from the other. I also enjoyed that you included a number of more environmental photos that set the scene/location, than just 'portraits' with blown out backgrounds.

Aug 18, 2024 at 08:18 AM

Dave_E
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

Excellent data report, very interesting to view all the numbers . How did you find the quality of the 100-300 + 2x vs 400 +1.4. I see at Hallo Bay you shot twice as many shots with the 100-300 +2x as the 400 +1.4, is it the flexibility of the zoom that wins out

Aug 18, 2024 at 08:38 AM

thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

rscheffler wrote:
In your opinion, the 100-300 with 2x was a suitable alternative to the 400 & 1.4x?

Yes and no; My confidence in the 400 is much higher than 100-300, the pixel peeping indicates that the 400 w/ 1.4x is sharper than 100-300 w/2x, needing less processing to bring out the details.

---------------------------------------------

Dave_E wrote:
How did you find the quality of the 100-300 + 2x vs 400 +1.4. I see at Hallo Bay you shot twice as many shots with the 100-300 +2x as the 400 +1.4, is it the flexibility of the zoom that wins out

TBH, I got a little spooked about the quality of 100-300 w/2x during the first 2 days of my trip. We were shooting in high moisture/humidity conditions, with not a whole of of ability to debug problems / review photos and when I saw some of the photos taken with this combo come out really poorly, I lost confidence. In hindsight, it looks like it was a user error, where I had swapped in a 2x to the bare 100-300 and it caused some moisture issues. But even accounting for that, the IQ of 560F4 appears to be better than 600F7.1, so there is a tradeoff.

I am considering taking only the 100-300 + 2x on an upcoming trip to Alaska next month, time permitting, if I can do a bit more controlled testing in the coming weeks I will keep you posted. But the numbers have also made it clear, that the flexibility of the zoom won out.

Aug 18, 2024 at 10:48 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?

rscheffler wrote:
In your opinion, the 100-300 with 2x was a suitable alternative to the 400 & 1.4x?

thedutt wrote:
Yes and no; My confidence in the 400 is much higher than 100-300, the pixel peeping indicates that the 400 w/ 1.4x is sharper than 100-300 w/2x, needing less processing to bring out the details.

OK thanks, that is pretty much what I would expect - that the prime & 1.4x will still have some advantage, though it might be mostly noticeable at the pixel level.

After leaving the 400 & 600 primes about 11 years ago for the 200-400, I have difficulty giving up the zoom's flexibility for non-reach limited situations, which is the majority of what I shoot (a lot of field sports). My 2-week experience with a loaner 100-300 and 2x was overall very good, but also noticed some odd behavior at times. With the 1.4x I thought it was excellent and wouldn't hesitate to use that combo all the time. I tried it at football and hockey and didn't use the TCs for hockey (used APS-C crop mode instead), but used it FF and mostly with the 2x for football. There were instances where it seemed the AF with the 2x either slightly missed the subject or lagged slightly behind the action. But it was seemingly random because I also got a lot of well focused images from this combo. My dilemma is that for field sports I'd probably use the 100-300 with a TC all the time, but 140-420 is often a bit on the short side (I still use the 200-400, and with the internal 1.4x probably 50% of the time), so it would probably be mostly with the 2x. I really missed not having an internal 1.4x because it was a PITA to swap in/out TCs between plays and in poor weather. If it had an internal 1.4x I'd probably use an external 1.4x on it permanently and flip in/out the internal as needed for ~600mm. I might also be getting back into some motorsports and what I recently shot at 560mm was often quite loose; 800 would have been better. So my thinking is that while the 100-300 is good with the 2x, it's a bit outside its 'sweet spot' and I'd be better starting with a longer lens... such as the mythical 200-500/4.

Aug 18, 2024 at 11:50 AM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.