A 300mm Question

[Copy_Kot]

:blush2: :blush2: :blush2: I just snapped a couple of pics outside using Av, much better!

[Loupey]

Thanks Loupey, that does help. I'll have to stop relying on fast shutter speeds in low light to try and keep an image sharp. I will also try shooting Av more often until I can get a better grip on all of this.

Great! Seriously, if you want the fastest "crash course", shoot in full MANUAL mode. Once you understand how to use the three parameters (shutter, aperture, and ISO), YOU are the master of the camera. The camera becomes a dumb box which you can then make perform amazing things.

At some point, you will be able to overlook a scene without a camera and say "that is a 1/250s, f/5.6, ISO 200 kinda light".

Besides, you may never come out of "M" ever again

[Loupey]

For those of you wanting to see the magnification that a 300mm provides, here is a demo shot of a downy woodpecker that landed 10' behind me as I was shooting the mushrooms in a crack in a tree thread.

Not terribly proud of the shot (ugly feeder, ugly background) but uncropped to show just how close and/or how much of a telephoto it takes to get a large subject size.

[paulnj]

She looks proud to eat that suet pal ;)

don't forget that you are talking about 300mm on a 1.6x digi 300mm on a 1DmkII is wider as is a nikon digi or a full frame camera.

[Photo-John]

I'm not a wildlife shooter but I shoot a fair amount at or near 300mm. I have the Canon 300mm f/4L (non-IS), the 70-200 f/2.8L, and the original Canon 1.4x tele-extender. I use them for mountain bike photos. For the past couple of years I've been very interested in the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 lens. There's nothing else like it, it's fast, the auto-focus is supposed to be almost as good as the Canon 300mm f/2.8L, and the optics are excellent. It's not cheap, but I think it offers a whole lot more than a prime 300mm lens, if you can sacrifice what is arguably a negligible amount if image quality. After all, if people even compare it to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L, it's got to be great. Pair the 120-300mm Sigma with a 1.4x teleconverter and you've got an f/4 420mm lens. That's pretty sweet.

By the way, have all you folks with long lenses posted reviews for your glass? We need reviews for your equipment! Plus, we have a review contest right now. Every review you post counts as a separate contest entry. Here's a link to the contest page:

Camera and lens review contest >>

Hope that adds something to the discussion. I've been coveting that Sigma lens for 2-3 years now, but haven't wanted to spend the money. Plus, I am more often than not shooting in the 70-200mm range. So it's harder for me to justify. If I were shooting birds I think it would be a no-brainer.

[Loupey]

That Sigma does look like a serious contender, PJ. The price is a relative "bargain" compared to the Canon 300/2.8. The specs look awfully good. Wonder if anyone would factor it out simply because it doesn't have IS? I might - in addition to the fact that it has a fairly long closest focusing distance. But then again, I'm probably the only one crazy enough to try to shoot macros with it

With a 2x TC, a 600mm f/5.6 seems pretty good. Still only 1 stop faster than what I'm getting with my 300+2x combo. Wonder how the images would compare with those 2 combos?

Thanks, PJ!

[scott-devon]

Great thread with lots of info, thanks guys. I'm eyeing up a Soligor teleconverter 2x at a very low price and wondering if anyone has any experience with Soligor. I'm wondering what sort of quality they are.

[Loupey]

Great thread with lots of info, thanks guys. I'm eyeing up a Soligor teleconverter 2x at a very low price and wondering if anyone has any experience with Soligor. I'm wondering what sort of quality they are.

I'm glad that you found the info helpful - that's what we're here for

I've heard some grumblings in the past about Soligor lenses in general. I don't know what lens you'll be using the 2x with, but in general, you want to get the best quality TC you can afford. Unlike extension tubes, the quality of the TC (in terms of image capturing resolution) will be just as important as that of the main lens.

Think of it as:

a great TC + a great main lens = a good image
a good TC + a great main lens = an acceptable image
a great TC + a good main lens = an acceptable image
a good TC + a good main lens = an OK image
a mediorce TC + a mediorce main lens = a poor image

Depends on what you want to do with the image. There is a wide lattitude for images for the web. On the otherhand, for enlargements of any kind, I'd stick with the major players.

[mjs1973]

This is an intersting discussion. I have never even considered adding a 300mm lens to my bag for wildlife shooting, but I still find this to be a great thread to help educate and inform.

[dadas115]

A while back I had the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens and as I shoot mostly birds (and smaller birds at that) I found the 300 to be too short most of the time on my Digital Rebel. Even with the EF 1.4x II I found that I often wanted more focal length most of the time.

I eventually replaced the 300 with the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM which I do feel is a better lens for bird photography. For starters, my experience was that the optical quality of the 400 is superior to that of the 300. I also found that the auto-focus with the 400 was faster.

When you add the 1.4x TC to the 300 you do gain 20mm of focal length over the 400 but I still found the 400 to be the lens that I got more keepers with.

I eventually started using the 400 with a Tamron-F 1.4x MC4 1.4x TC and later a Kenko PRO300 DG 1.4x TC to reach a focal length of 560mm @ f/8 on my 20D and Rebel XT which was workable though still not ideal. The Canon 1.6x crop bodies are not designed to auto-focus with lenses slower than f/5.6 so I had to tape over the last three pins on the 1.4x TC to get the camera to attempt auto-focus. In good light the auto-focus is reasonably accurate but when the light gets lower the camera/lens tends to hunt a bit more than I like.

In my experience the bare 400mm f/5.6L USM is very hand-holdable but when you add a 1.4x TC to it you really are best off using a tripod or monopod. I wouldn’t let the lack of IS frighten you away from the 400 though.

I eventually ended up finding a good deal on a used EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM which was great but a bit heavy and later a used EF 500mm f/4.5L USM and then a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX. I use the Sigma quite a bit these days but still have my EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for flight shots or when I want to travel light.

If you ever do start looking for a 500mm lens the f/4.5 lenses are quite good but Canon no longer services the old f/4.5L and parts supplies will diminish over time.

The 300 is probably better for doing macro with though I have gotten some very pleasing results with the 400 and a set of Kenko extension tubes. The 400 certainly is capable in this department.

In the end it really boils down to what you will be shooting. I spend a lot of my time chasing warblers and sparrows… and even 500mm is often too short. If you are shooting larger animals like herons or deer… then the 300 should be perfect.

That’s my take on it anyway,

Greg

[Loupey]

Excellent write-up, dadas.

Nice to get comments from someone who has used both the 300mm and 400mm lenses in addition to longer ones from which to draw a complete conclusion.

Yes indeed - I did worry about the 400mm f/5.6 because it did not have IS. It was my top reason why I went with the 300mm.

Question for you: why did you go from the Canon 500mm to the Sigma 500mm? Was this Canon the older model that you mentioned? How did the images compare between the two?

[dadas115]

The original Canon 500 that I purchased was the f/4.5L version (now replaced by the current f/4L IS version). The particular unit that I had would not work (auto-focus wise) on a 1.6x crop body even with taped pins for some reason that I never was able to determine. I have been told by others who own this lens that their units do auto-focus on 1.6x crop bodies as long as the three reporting pins in the TC are covered with tape.

I purchased the Sigma because it did work on my cameras with a 1.4x TC (Tamron-F and Kenko PRO300 DG w/taped pins).

In my experience the image quality from the old EF 500mm f/4.5L USM is at least as good (contrast, sharpness, color rendition, flare resistance and bokeh) as the current EF 500mm f/4L IS USM at all matching apertures. I actually preferred the f/4.5L due to its smaller size and lighter weight. I found it to be a much more user-friendly lens in the field for bird photography. I did not find its lack of IS to be much of a detriment, especially for action shots like those of flying birds. For stationary shots (perched birds) the IS lens did have a hand-holding advantage doe to the IS though it was offset some by the greater weight of the lens. In my opinion it is a real shame that Canon stopped making the f/4.5 version of the 500. I would be in hog heaven if they came out with a new IS version of that lens.

The cost difference is also a very big advantage of the f/4.5L in my eyes as well. I picked up mine used for ~$3300 as opposed to the current asking price of between $5300 and $5500 for the f/4L IS. Obviously the old version will not have a warranty so there is more risk associated with it, however these lenses are built to last.

Since the time I bought my f/4.5L Canon USA has announced that they will no longer perform service on that lens in their service centers. They will provide you with a list of repair centers that might be able to perform work on this model but even if you do find one that can do the work parts might no longer be available. It is my impression that this has caused the price of used f/4.5L’s to drop several hundred dollars and I believe if you look hard you can find them for less than $3K now.

The Sigma is an excellent lens optically but at f/4.5 it doesn’t have quite the contrast and flare resistance of the Canon 500’s. Also, the color rendition of the Sigma is a bit different (leaning more toward yellow hues than red of the Canon). The resolution of the Sigma is pretty close to the Canon lenses at f/4.5 but might lag slightly. By the time the lens is stopped down to f/5.6 the Sigma is a very good match for the Canon lenses though the color rendition is still different. Most of these differences can be corrected for in post processing and I usually can’t distinguish which of my photos came from which lens.

I do like the way the hood mounts on the Sigma better than the Canon system and the shorter physical length of the Sigma makes it much easier to use from a car. The auto-focus consistency of the Sigma w/1.4x TC is not quite as good as that of the f/4L IS lens w/1.4x on 1.6x crop bodies. This makes sense as the f/4L IS rig is actually designed to work with those bodies with a 1.4x TC while the f/4.5 is not.

I hope this helps,

Greg

[Loupey]

Makes sense. Definitely pros and cons with both Canon and Sigma 500's.

Still, either one strapped on to 1.4x TC for 700mm f/5.6 (1120mm eqivalent!) makes me salivate