A 300mm Question

[Loupey]

For many of you who now have a 300mm prime telephoto, are you finding that these lenses are too short even with the Canon's 1.6x crop factor (or Nikon's 1.5x?)? That is, do you most often than not, have a 1.4xTC or 2xTC when using these lenses for wildlife shooting?

If this is the case, would the 400mm f/5.6L be a better choice? In my case, I knew I'd be using it for both macros and wildlife (with tubes and TCs, respectively) so the 300mm was the better choice for me.

In the film days, a 300mm was definitely too short for "serious" wildlife shooting. But with the smaller imaging sensors, these lenses should be sufficient w/o converters. Or is it just human nature to want more - so whatever we have we'd end up putting something on it if we could ?

But before I bought the 300mm, I had to think long and hard about the 400mm too. Just curious what you thought. Perhaps your input here will help others with future purchases.

[Copy_Kot]

"It is super sharp, the IS is wonderful, and the price is a relative bargain. If one is looking for a solid Canon prime telephoto, it (and the 400mm f/5.6L prime) really can't be beat on the performance-to-price ratio. All the other primes in Canon's telephoto lineup cost 3 to 5 times more for, what a 1 stop faster lens or 100mm more telephoto?!" ~Loupey

I do not have any experience with any other lenses besides the 18-55mm kit lens my camera came with so I do not have anything to compare the lens with.

So far for me the 300mm is working out great! By its-self, I wasn't getting the reach I wanted, with the 1.4X TC it seems perfect for the kind of photography I like. I do not think I could have found a comparable lens for what I spent on the 300mm and converter.

Last night I ordered the Canon 2X TC. I've read a lot of mixed reviews about this converter, so I wasn't sure about buying it (we'll see, got my fingers crossed), and then I read that it could be stacked with the 1.4X TC I can't imagine what an equal lens would cost... I'm going to need a sturdy tripod next

[livin4lax09]

the 1.4x will give you about a 672mm lens on a 1.6x body. if you're going with the 300 f/4, you'll get a 672mm f/5.6 and if you spend the money for the 300 f/2.8, 672mm f/4. Sounds like a good deal to me! From what i've seen, i dont like the 2x. the bokeh is crap, and you lose a lot of sharpness.

but its still human nature to want more.

[Loupey]

Thanks for quick responses, guys.

Livin - coming from a sports guy, I figured that more is virtually always better

Copy - nice quote btw . So you would agree that recommendations to other nature people regarding this lens would almost always include the 1.4x?

So at the end of the day, is it the flexibility at f/4 (allowing it to be f/5.6 and thereby retaining AF and respectable speed with the 1.4xTC) with IS a better compromise than the straight 400mm? I know a few people with the 400mm prime but I don't know anyone who has and regularly uses both.

Copy - I'm very curious as to how you'll like the 2x compared to your 1.4x with this lens. I will probably go the other way (have the 2x now, buy the 1.4x later).

[livin4lax09]

well i would use the 300mm with the 1.4x because you're getting more focal length than the 400mm, at a cheaper cost, with the same f-stop (if you get the 300mm f/4), and you still have the ability to turn it into a 300mm if 400 is too tight.

[terryger]

i use the 1.4x on my 70-200 as well as my 100-400. with both lenses. i have been told you are not supposed to use an ext on a variable but haven't heard why. you have to tape off the pins on the ext for it to af on the 100-400. it does serach a little but it also produces more range and a very decent image when it locks.

i am not sure how it would do on a 300 prime as i don't have one. i would give a very educated guess that it will work swell.

btw, i have the canon ext not an offbrand.

i will put up some side by side w/without i took saturday of some geese and swans that came in. let you see for yourself.

bottom line is there is NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH RANGE FOR WILDLIFE!:thumbsup:

[Copy_Kot]

Loupey, I will be sure to post some comparison pictures this weekend as well.

[Bevb]

I use my 100-400L an awful lot now for bird and wildlife shots, and that extra 100mm makes an awful lot of difference, i know its not as quick as the prime but i am more than happy with my flight shots that i have been getting, although it took a while to come to grips with the push/pull zoom! I prefer the 1.4 TC, i dont use it a great deal but out of my 2x or the 1.4 il always go with the later for moving wildlife shots as i find the quality of image is preferable.

[paulnj]

If one wants a super sharp image at 400mm get the 400f5.6 L, but adding a 1.4TC will render it MF(so the story goes) unless using a pro model DSLR(1DmkIIN). For most people the 300f4 IS with a 1.4tc is a better choice due to IS, but I would go 400F5.6 L myself. I have never heard of a lens with enough reach for me

[Loupey]

I use my 100-400L an awful lot now for bird and wildlife shots, and that extra 100mm makes an awful lot of difference, i know its not as quick as the prime but i am more than happy with my flight shots that i have been getting, although it took a while to come to grips with the push/pull zoom! I prefer the 1.4 TC, i dont use it a great deal but out of my 2x or the 1.4 il always go with the later for moving wildlife shots as i find the quality of image is preferable.

That makes sense since you're probably using your new 1DmkIIN with the 1.3x conversion factor with the zoom. Your 400mm on the 1D, verses my 300mm on the 10D is very close in apparent comparison (520mm to 480mm, respectively).

Your previous comments about the 1.4x to 2x TC's comparison is one reason why I'm now looking to purchase the 1.4x to try it out

[Loupey]

The reason I brought up this question is to help others who may be in the market to buy a telephoto lens. If many people here are using the 300mm f/4 and the 1.4x (or 2x) teleconverter a lot, then the budget may need to be adjusted before purchasing this lens. At least taken into consideration when comparing to other lenses like the 100-400 zoom.

I know that the image quality resulting from the use of a teleconverter should never be used to compare against a longer telephoto (especially a prime). But, depending on the use and especially the cost, it can be very handy. Especially since the new generation of DSLRs capable of high ISOs/low noise can essentially negate the light loss that the TC's impart.

A quickie chart - most of the satisfied comments are coming from the cluster of combinations on the left. Pretty good performance considering the prices

[SmartWombat]

A quickie chart - most of the satisfied comments are coming from the cluster of combinations on the left. Pretty good performance considering the prices

Price per mm would be interesting

[Copy_Kot]

Just a quick question...

I read some where yesterday that the pins on the 2X could be 'taped' and then you would be able to keep AF, has anyone here tried doing this?

[Loupey]

Just a quick question...

I read some where yesterday that the pins on the 2X could be 'taped' and then you would be able to keep AF, has anyone here tried doing this?

Here's the last discussion that I'm aware of:

a ????? for canon experts

[Lava Lamp]

I've been through several alternatives:

1. Cheap 70-300 (too short, bad pics)
2. Better 75-300 (still too short, better pics, too slow)
3. 75-300 with 1.4X TC (a little too short, way too slow)
4. 300mm f/4 with 1.4x TC (good optics, way slow AF)
5. Sigma 50-500 HSM (pretty good optics, pretty good AF speed, maximum aperture of f/6.3 is problematic - often used with flash)
6. Sigma 300mm f/2.8 (good optics, way to short without 1.4x TC, faster than another combination at 420mm equiv. but slow AF and bulky/heavy)

[Loupey]

Thanks, Lava - those are great specific examples.

As far as focal length is concerned, the concensus appears that 300mm is too short for general N/W shooting (even with the crop factor taken into account).

So for others out there looking to upgrade, consider buying at least a teleconverter with the 300mm; or a longer (400mm+) zoom or prime.

Happy shooting

[Copy_Kot]

Here are a couple of comparison pictures that I took yesterday (they are pretty bad, this is just to show the difference in magnification). The only editing that has been done was a compensation for light, equally to both images. Both images were taken from the same distance.

The first image was taken with my Canon 300mm f/4 (prime) coupled with my Canon 2X converter.



Another bird watcher asked me if I would like to snap a couple of pictures with his Canon 500mm f/4 (prime), which had a Canon 2X converter attached. I turned down his offer the first time, but when he asked again... I couldn't resist



The extra reach was nice, but I'm not so sure it's worth an extra $3,500+. I do want the Canon 600mm f/4 now maybe I'll learn to take some decent pics by the time I can afford it.

[Loupey]

WOW! Thanks for the side-by-side comparison, Copy!

So the first is at 600mm and the second at 1000mm - both at f/8 I assume on you same camera body? Perfect opportunity to do a 100% crop on the eagle from your RAW image (before you scale it down for posting) to see the detail difference.

I'd love to see the comparison at that level. Can you also include the shooting specs?

Thanks a bunch!

[Copy_Kot]

Loupey, I was using the Tv mode on my camera. The aperture value was at 29.0 :blush2: Of all the things I'm still struggling to understand it's aperture, and the way it affects image quality. So far all I understand is that it affects DOF by which-ever f-stop you have your camera set up at... and the amount of light captured :blush2:

And yes, the first image is at 600mm and the second image is at 1000mm.

[Loupey]

Copy, if you are going to use one of the AE modes, I would highly recommend using Av over Tv under almost EVERY situation. Especially since you are using lenses other than extremely fast (i.e. f/1.4 to f/2) lenses. Simply set the aperture to what you want - example, f/5.6 with the straight 300mm - and let the camera set the suitable shutter speed.

Using Tv will often result in underexposed images when used with medium to slow lenses (f/4 and slower) because often you'll set a shutter speed too fast for the lens. Example: you set 1/2000s which is OK in the sunlight at (say f/5.6). Now the bird lands in the shade but you haven't had a chance to change the shutter speed. The camera wants to use f/2.8 but can't since your lens is an f/4.

Does that help?

[Loupey]

Another example: think of a "proper" exposure as a full bucket of water. You can fill a bucket in two ways, 1) by the rate (closing or opening up the faucet - aperture) and 2) by the time (leaving the faucet on longer - shutter). As long as the bucket is full, you don't care how you got there.

It doesn't matter with exposure either. If the aperture and shutter were stepless, the combinations would be infinite but the respective values (aperture to shutter speed) would be specific to achieve the "full bucket" every time. That's the beauty - you can control which combination to use to achieve the goal you set.

As for the "quality" controlled by the aperture, generally stopping down the lens 1 to 2 stops from the maximum opening will achieve the best quality. Theoretically, stopping down further should continue to increase the quality but, in the real world, this is not further noticeable. So unless you are really trying to get a large specific DOF (macros for example), you will most likely use most telephotos at this "1 to 2 stops down from max" rule to get the best quality at the highest shutter speed.

[Copy_Kot]

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.

[Copy_Kot]

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

[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!