300mm F4.0 with TC2.0

[Peter Ericsson]

I wonder if anyone has or is using the above mentioned set up?
Is it worth considering? I am keen on upgrading from my 400mm F5.6 and I believe I particularly need increased reach. The 500 is on the expensive side so I am looking for alternatives. ...

[postcardcv]

You'll get similar reach by adding a 1.4x tc to your 400 f5.6, with either option you'll be at f8 so will be relying on MF unless you're using a 1D. One option would be a Sigma 300 f2.8 with a 2x (giving you 600mm f5.6 and AF), it's a good deal cheaper than the Canon equivilent. If you don't mind the weight then consider a Sigma 500 f4.5, secondhand they cost ~ 1/3rd of the Canon 500 f4 and aren't too far behind in terms of IQ and AF speed. I used to use one and found that it gave me good results with a 1.4x tc (pins taped to retain AF)...

[Peter Ericsson]

You'll get similar reach by adding a 1.4x tc to your 400 f5.6, with either option you'll be at f8 so will be relying on MF unless you're using a 1D. One option would be a Sigma 300 f2.8 with a 2x (giving you 600mm f5.6 and AF), it's a good deal cheaper than the Canon equivilent. If you don't mind the weight then consider a Sigma 500 f4.5, secondhand they cost ~ 1/3rd of the Canon 500 f4 and aren't too far behind in terms of IQ and AF speed. I used to use one and found that it gave me good results with a 1.4x tc (pins taped to retain AF)...

I really don't like my 400 with the 1.4 TC that I have. It overexposes, drags AF and delivers soft images. The Sigma 300 F2.8 sounds like something noteworthy.

Tx for your help..
Peter

[a.dancy]

I have the Sigma f2.8 300 (prime) and the f4.5 500. The 300 f2.8 is bitingly sharp but lacks focus limiters. If you look in my gallery at my most recent pheasant shot which was taken in very low light and my peregrine stooping shot you may get an idea of how sharp it is even used at f4. None of this stopping down to f8 is necessary. I have used it with both 1.4 and 2X Sigma converters. With the 1.4X the results are superb but with the 2x less so, but nonetheless, given the right conditions you can get acceptable results when mounted on a sturdy tripod or with good support such as a bean bag . The contrast does drop but that can be corrected. Having said that ,I may have a slight fault with the 2x converter as there is quite a bit of rattle in it. You may get better results by stacking two 1.4X converters. I am not over keen on 2x converters.

The Sigma 500f4.5 is razor sharp even when wide open, though does not quite match the Canon which is a slightly faster lens and has image stabilization. However with extra care you can get pictures to match the Canon if you apply good long lens technique. I have used it with a 2X converter and still got superb images though the hit rate is much less where I am unable to use additional weights for my relatively light rig and modest tripod head. When I have been with other photographers (using the 500 canon) I have never felt like the poor man with the results I achieved...though there are situations, where with the canon you can leave the Sigma standing...using the1.4 converter with IS as an example,but for me these times are rare. I have been using my shorter lenses more often recently and wished I had used the 300 lens more often in the past. I will use it more in the future.

I have read the sigma 120-300 is sharper than the 300 prime. I believe this started off as a bit of a rumour from a salesman and caught on on the internet as these things do. I do not believe the claim. However from the reviews I have read , it is a hard lens to bash.

You may wish to consider a secondhand Canon f2.8 300 IS with a dedicated 2X canon converter and a Kenko 1.4X. Check out Andy Bright's review of the Canon f2.8 and its use with converters. It is a good read.

Good luck.


AD

[Peter Ericsson]

That was very useful AD. I will carefully consider. I would like to buy 2nd hand but in Thailand that is not easy. For one thing noone ships here from the US or Europe.

[Roy C]

You may wish to consider a secondhand Canon f2.8 300 IS with a dedicated 2X canon converter and a Kenko 1.4X. Check out Andy Bright's review of the Canon f2.8 and its use with converters. It is a good read.

Good luck.


AD
There was a thread recently where Gyrob did a comparison between the Canon 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f5.6 with various tc combo´s. Basically the 300 on its own is of course mega. 300 with 1.4 tc is about equal to bare 400 f5.6.
300 with 2x is slightly inferior to 400 with 1.4 tc.
If you are not happy with the 400 with 1.4tc then it is unlikely you will be happy with a shorter lens with tc combos.

[goodallian]

I have exactly the same gear as Roy C mentions and agree completely with his comments. I have also had some success with stacking the TCs on the 300f2.8 in good light. I still get AF albeit with a bit of hunting and at f8 the results are acceptable because of the quality of the bare lens. The camera only "sees" the 2x giving me an aperture of f5.6 on the 40D.

[Peter Ericsson]

Hm, Roy, I can't believe that a 300F2.8 with a TC1.4 would be equal to a 400F5.6 without the TC. The elements in the 300 must be far superior? Or are you talking about 300F4.0?

I have a Tamron TC1.4 and I think it is LOUSY as far as IQ as well as exposure readings.
I am using a 350Rebel, maybe that is the problem?

[chrisli]

Peter, I have used both the combo, the 400mm f/5.6 with 1.4TC and the 300mm f/4.0 with 2.0TC, the 400mm combo will give you a better IQ than the 300mm combo. Yes the 400mm combo would need a 1D series to AF, but the best bet for you would be the 300mm f/2.8 combo, the IQ is sharp even at wide open and will AF with your 350D, it is a little expensive but it is worth it. I believe you know Ingo of AWA he is using this combo. Other alternative is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 which I have seen some of the results and is very much cheaper and can still AF with 2.0TC. Check with some of the guys from AWA, some of them are using it. Hope this will help.

[GYRob]

Hm, Roy, I can't believe that a 300F2.8 with a TC1.4 would be equal to a 400F5.6 without the TC. The elements in the 300 must be far superior? Or are you talking about 300F4.0?

I have a Tamron TC1.4 and I think it is LOUSY as far as IQ as well as exposure readings.
I am using a 350Rebel, maybe that is the problem?

mY Tests are here Peter - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=111068
Rob.

[Roy C]

Hm, Roy, I can't believe that a 300F2.8 with a TC1.4 would be equal to a 400F5.6 without the TC. The elements in the 300 must be far superior? Or are you talking about 300F4.0?

I have a Tamron TC1.4 and I think it is LOUSY as far as IQ as well as exposure readings.
I am using a 350Rebel, maybe that is the problem?
Peter I am talking about the Canon 300mm f2.8, many people reckon it is the sharpest lens ever made by Canon.
I have never had exposure problems using the 400 f5.6 with a 1.4tc. While I handhold the bare 400 just about all of the time I do find that with a 1.4tc I need support of either mono or tripod. I also stop down the lens to f8 when using a tc. I have had some great results with the 400 5.6 and 1.4tc (Canon and Kenko Pro)

[postcardcv]

Hm, Roy, I can't believe that a 300F2.8 with a TC1.4 would be equal to a 400F5.6 without the TC. The elements in the 300 must be far superior? Or are you talking about 300F4.0?

this doesn't surprise me... I've not done any bench tests but in everyday use my 400 f5.6 seems to be just as sharp as my 500 f4. The only disadvantages to the 400 f5.6 is the lack of reach and light gathering. To get the more reach of the same quality does mean buying a big, expensive lens.

[citrinella]

Hi Peter,

Reading your own comments I wonder if you need a new lens at all ... have you thought of trying a Canon or Kenko pro convertor (latter might not work so well on a 40d) ? It realy sounds as if your 1.4 isn't up to the mark. The 400 5.6 is supposed to be a really excellent lens, something strange if you are not happy.

I am using a 300f4 with EFII 2x for travelling, 1.4 when I want AF. It doesn't match my 500 but I am very happy. I bought this rather than a 400 f5.6 for IS, which I need. 400 f4 DO was too dear, but is a grand cheaper than a 500 and much lighter. That would AF on a 350 with a 1.4TC. Would that fit your requirements ?

Mike.

[Peter Ericsson]

Tx guys, as you can see there are a lot of arguments on every side.
First of all, I am very happy with my 400F5.6. I am also very happy with the 350Rebel and won't upgrade until it 'burns out'. I am foremost a birder and need something that can be hung over my shoulder. Problem is that the 400 often simply does not have enough reach as I approach birds on foot. A lot easier from the car if possible.
I have read a number of threads on using the 400 with a TC 1.4 and it simply seems to be something Canon has deliberately limited to its high end cameras. At least with AF.

I want something with longer reach that doesn't loose the IA too much. Can't afford the high end lenses. I'd love that 300F2.8 but even that is a lot of money. This is why I posed my initial question about the 300F.4 with a TC2.0. I haven't been able to find many pictures with such a set up.

Peter

[Peter Ericsson]

Roy,

It is hard for me to think that the 300F2.8 with a TC1.4 only is on par with the 400F5.6
From what I have seen it is considerably better in IQ wouldn't you say?

[Roy C]

Roy,

It is hard for me to think that the 300F2.8 with a TC1.4 only is on par with the 400F5.6
From what I have seen it is considerably better in IQ wouldn't you say?
I am only going by what others with both lenses have said Peter. GYrob has both lenses and did some test and I have also read other threads and this seems to be the common verdict. The bare 400 f5.6 is a very fine/sharp lens. I have toyed with getting the 300 f2.8 but would only get much reach advantage by using it with a 2x tc (or stacked 1.4´s) and opions vary considerable as to how good it is. With the 300mm f2.8 you pay a lot because it is a fast lens. If you could make use of the bare 300 then it is a superb lens.
Remember if you use the 300 f2.8 with a 1.4tc you are still gaining a stop of light and IS over the 400 5.6.

I am wondering if some of your problems with the 400 and 1.4tc is not down to the 350D - when I had a 350D I never had much sucess with a tc with the lens but both the 30D and 40D are much better, could be down to the better AF.

From what I have read there is no way that the 300mm f4 and 2x tc would be as good as the 400mm f5.6 and 1.4tc.

[Peter Ericsson]

(am wondering if some of your problems with the 400 and 1.4tc is not down to the 350D - when I had a 350D I never had much sucess with a tc with the lens but both the 30D and 40D are much better, could be down to the better AF.)

Now that is an interesting angle. I wonder if anyone out there can verify this? It would take care of my problem with insufficient reach........

[GYRob]

(am wondering if some of your problems with the 400 and 1.4tc is not down to the 350D - when I had a 350D I never had much sucess with a tc with the lens but both the 30D and 40D are much better, could be down to the better AF.)

Now that is an interesting angle. I wonder if anyone out there can verify this? It would take care of my problem with insufficient reach........

One thing is this, having more MP is giveing more room to crop so in effect gives a little more reach .
Rob.

[chrisli]

(am wondering if some of your problems with the 400 and 1.4tc is not down to the 350D - when I had a 350D I never had much sucess with a tc with the lens but both the 30D and 40D are much better, could be down to the better AF.)

Now that is an interesting angle. I wonder if anyone out there can verify this? It would take care of my problem with insufficient reach........

Peter, I never had the 350D, but I have both the 30D and 40d, that is before I dumb my 300D, yes the 40D has a faster AF, and I have both use the same combo of 300mm f4.0 with 2.0TC and the 400mm f/5.6 with 1.4TC, and I still prefer the 400mm combo on my 40D where the IQ is much better than the 300mm combo even if I have to manual focus. I even try stacking two 1.4TC on the 400mm on manual focus, the IQ is still very acceptable. See attached.

Shot with 40D with 400mm f/5.6 with two 1.4TC stacked.
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w195/chrisli023/_N4G1879.jpg

[gmax]

1. I am wondering if some of your problems with the 400 and 1.4tc is not down to the 350D - when I had a 350D I never had much sucess with a tc with the lens but both the 30D and 40D are much better, could be down to the better AF.

2. From what I have read there is no way that the 300mm f4 and 2x tc would be as good as the 400mm f5.6 and 1.4tc.

1. That's an interesting point, I much prefer my 20D's behaviour with a TC over my 350D's ...
2. Absolutely, although I've tried that only a couple of times (I do not own a 2x Tc) on my 300 and 400 lenses ...

Max

[Paul Jarvis]

Heres one for you Peter if it helps 30d 300 F4 2 x 1.4 kenko pros stacked.

[Peter Ericsson]

Hi Paul,
Tx! Looks like you have sharpened the bird quite a bit. How far were you from the bird?

[Paul Jarvis]

Peter I was about 15 to 20 foot I would guess. Sorry for the late reply I just got back from my hols.

[Malcolm Stewart]

Most of the long lens combos seem to have been covered in the above, and I note that you're using a 350D. Are you using RAW or jpegs? I've seen reviews (in mags such as the AP etc.) that suggest that Canon's cameras in the 300D, 350D range tend to soften the jpeg file more than on the other bodies. Might be worth giving RAW a try.

[Peter Ericsson]

Interesting Malcolm, I confess, I shoot JPG for most part. Never thought much about it.

[Malcolm Stewart]

So do I, (i.e. shoot jpeg) and I've done tests on my 5D comparing good quality glossy A4 prints made from the pair of jpeg and RAW files taken at the same time, and with the minimal processing I do, I've not been able to tell the difference. However, I have noted that many reviewers consistently say that jpeg is lower quality than RAW with some ranges of bodies, so it might be worth a try.