Canon 300 f2.8 on a 40D.

[canonman77]

At this moment In time & for the next 12 months I am saving up for a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens to use with my 40D. Now I have asked about the 300 f2.8 before & now know Its a cracking bit of kit, what I want to now Is, Is the partnership with a 40D a good combination for birding/wildlife & can the setup be handheld quite easy with a 1.4x & 2x each on their own not stacked or would It be beneficial to use a Monopod & can you use any Monopod, I dont want a 500/600 prime, because that would mean a different type of photography with the use of tripods etc & I prefer to walkabout a lot.

Regards.
Sean..

[Robert_Scanlon]

The 300 is a fab lens to use with any camera body. It is fine to handhold, even with an extender, as long as you've got plenty of light, but a(ny) monopod would no doubt help. Frankly, in this country you will probably need to crop fairly heavily if using a 300mm as a walkabout lens, so any way of improving stability should be capitalised on as the slightest bit of camera shake will be very obvious on heavily cropped images.

[mike nesbitt]

Sean.
I've now had four "L" series lenses and the 300 f2.8 is by far the best IMHO. I use it often with a 40D and only in hides etc do I resort to the 600 which is rapidly becoming redundant
It is a fairly heavy chunk of gear and my first impression was that I'd made a mistake, however a camera seems to balance it and I can easily carry it for a few hours and never tire of it.
It takes a 1.4X convertor really well and I have no problems handholding. The 2X also is fantastic on this lens, but I have to have some form of support when I use mine with it attached.
I dont subscribe to the popular opinion that it's too short for birds. Sure you'll be found wanting on some occasions but more often you'll be smiling.
For walkabouts it must be the best that canon has to offer. Get one!!!!
Mike.

[hollis_f]

I find it quite easy to handhold and the results with a 1.4x converter are excellent. I'm hoping the weather will be nicer today so I can go out and try it with my new 2x on my new 50D. Since getting it I've not used the 100-400 at all.

With the long Canon strap attached to the lens I can carry it over one shoulder and it's easy to swing it around for shooting. If I have a long walk I'll carry it in a ThinkTank Glass Taxi.

I hope I might be able to post a few sample images later today.

[RoyH]

At this moment In time & for the next 12 months I am saving up for a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens to use with my 40D. Now I have asked about the 300 f2.8 before & now know Its a cracking bit of kit, what I want to now Is, Is the partnership with a 40D a good combination for birding/wildlife & can the setup be handheld quite easy with a 1.4x & 2x each on their own not stacked or would It be beneficial to use a Monopod & can you use any Monopod, I dont want a 500/600 prime, because that would mean a different type of photography with the use of tripods etc & I prefer to walkabout a lot.

Regards.
Sean..

Hi Sean
I've had my 300 f2.8 for nearly a year, great lens too heavy for me to use as a walk about, I use the 300 f4 for those situations. The first time I used the f2.8 all day was at Cadwell, my shoulder ached for many weeks afterwards. Old age does not help when your carrying 3 kilo piece of kit so I mostly use that lens on location on the monopod. I have been retired 15 years suffer with muscle waste that does not help being an old git. Works fine with both converters, great piece of kit.
My mate GyRob hand holds his 500f4 he also uses the 300f2.8 hand held so I guess it depends, how good you are at weight lifting...

www.royhowell.co.uk.....few samples on my site..note the picture data.

regards

Roy.

[Roy C]

Interesting thread as I have though long and hard about a 300 2.8 (with tc's) as a means of getting more reach than my 400mm f5.6. I have no doubt that it is superb with the 1.4 but to gain any real reach advantage I would have to use a 2x (or stacked 1.4's !). I am weary of relying on the 2x as the norm because of mixed opinions from other birders - in fact I have just read a comment from a guy over at POTN who says that he is always disappointed by the softness and lack of contrast when using a 2x with this lens. I would have no qualms about using support but need to be convinced that the 600 f5.6 option is the way to go. Mike seems happy enough with a 2x, I will be pleased to here your opinions Frank.

Sean, why don't you try a monopod, It can be carried quite easily and is very less obtrusive than a tripod (albeit not as effective).

[canonman77]

I do have a Slik Monopod, which I would use when using the 2x TC or Beanbag. I have seen more good reviews regarding the 2x on a 300 f2.8 than bad & a couple of months ago I missed out on a 2nd hand 300 2.8 at a steal at £1.5k, but didnt have the funds then (God dammit), but will probably buy one brand spanking new from Warehouse express. So keep saving my pennies....

[mike nesbitt]

A sample of the 300f2.8 + 2X
Certainly good enough for me, but support is a must.
Mike.
http://www.pbase.com/mikenimages/image/106582439

[canonman77]

thats a great image Mike, I am definetley getting the 300mm & both TC's, but will still keep my 100-400. I think It will be a nice pairing..

Thanks for the pic Mike.

[Peter Ericsson]

I suggest anyone interested in what this lens can do have a look at this
http://www.pbase.com/ingotkfr/favorite_shots


I borrowed one over a couple of days and though I didn't think it was that heavy it did give me a bit of a back problem. I think it is something one has to gradually get used to and easily can overdo with.

Here is a shot I got with this lens and borrowed camera
http://www.pbase.com/peterericsson/image/106614083

[Sandpiper]

I use a 300 2.8 on a 20D. AF is extremely quick, marginally slower with a 1.4x TC, slightly slower still with a 2x TC, but still possible with stacked 1.4x+2x TC's. It is possible to hand hold the lens with a 2x TC for short periods but I find that results are better when using a monopod. Also the monopod takes the weight off your arms or shoulders. If you are standing waiting to get a particular shot a monopod is very useful for that reason. On occasions when I intend remaining in one position I prefer to use a tripod, particularly when using stacked TCs, and a remote shutter release which I attach to the pan handle.

There is some loss of contrast when using a 2x TC or above, but I generally find this can be rectified in Photoshop. There are several shots taken with this combination in my gallery.

[Roy C]

A sample of the 300f2.8 + 2X
Certainly good enough for me, but support is a must.
Mike.
http://www.pbase.com/mikenimages/image/106582439
That one is certainly very nice Mike. Do you use the 2x most of the time or just occasionally?
p.s. may I ask what pod and head you use with the 300 Mike.

[Roy C]

I suggest anyone interested in what this lens can do have a look at this
http://www.pbase.com/ingotkfr/favorite_shots


I borrowed one over a couple of days and though I didn't think it was that heavy it did give me a bit of a back problem. I think it is something one has to gradually get used to and easily can overdo with.

Here is a shot I got with this lens and borrowed camera
http://www.pbase.com/peterericsson/image/106614083
Some very nice stuff there Peter, great looking birds.
I notice everything is stopped down one notch, I have read before that this helps a lot with the 2x attached to the 300 2.8.

[hollis_f]

in fact I have just read a comment from a guy over at POTN who says that he is always disappointed by the softness and lack of contrast when using a 2x with this lens.

Is that softness and lack of contrast in comparison to the bare lens? Because anything at all is going to be disappointing in comparison to that.

Mike seems happy enough with a 2x, I will be pleased to here your opinions Frank.

Damn weather decided it was going to be foggy all morning then rain in the afternoon, so no chance to give it a try.

[mike nesbitt]

That one is certainly very nice Mike. Do you use the 2x most of the time or just occasionally?
p.s. may I ask what pod and head you use with the 300 Mike.

Hi Roy.
I bought the 2X specifically for use with the 300 2.8 as every report I'd read on the combo was positive.
This was the one and only time it's been used so far and I used a beanbag, it is encouraging and bodes well for the future. Most of the time I have a 1.4 X attached, although I am currently experimenting to improve my atrocious record with BIF shots and just use the lens on it's own for this.
For support I use a Gitzo 3540LS and Wimberley11.
Mike.

[GYRob]

The 2x tc does work quite well but not to bring a distance bird closer but to bring a close bird closer .
TCs often fail in the IQ states simpley because the bird is to far away in the first place and wont even cover the center circle in the VF -Thats fine for a record shot but not for getting fine detail.
Rob.

[a.dancy]

The canon 300 f2.8 is a top drawer lens and can produce top drawer images with either a 1.4 or 2x converter when used correctly. As with any lens you play it and its combinations to its advantages to achieve the best results. If the almighty declared I would not be able to use anything but a Canon 300 f2.8 plus converter options I certainly won't go to bed crying....in fact I'd probably have a good night! 8-P:king::king::king:

[CCRII]

The canon 300 f2.8 is a top drawer lens and can produce top drawer images with either a 1.4 or 2x converter when used correctly. As with any lens you play it and its combinations to its advantages to achieve the best results. If the almighty declared I would not be able to use anything but a Canon 300 f2.8 plus converter options I certainly won't go to bed crying....in fact I'd probably have a good night! 8-P:king::king::king:

One of the funniest things I have read on here! :)

[Jim Lundberg]

I found the 40D and 300 2.8 too heavy to carry on a strap around my neck. This setup with a monopod is less fatiguing for me.

For a shoulder-pad I use an original Camelback water carrier. I replaced the water bladder with three layers of foam. The lower end of the Camelback is empty, and I wound the lower Camelback straps to secure the lower end of the Camelback to the monopod. The business end of the lens hangs downward over my back, I grasp the monopod in front for security. I don't know if Camelback still makes the "original" which is simple and required no modification for this purpose other than as I described and to cut off two nylon straps on top.

[hollis_f]

Took this in the only semi-decent light we've had on a weekend for ages.

Shot at f5.6 1/90. It's handheld which may explain why the 100% crop isn't as good as I might have expected.

[Roy C]

Took this in the only semi-decent light we've had on a weekend for ages.

Shot at f5.6 1/90. It's handheld which may explain why the 100% crop isn't as good as I might have expected.
Nice effort Frank but hand holding 600mm at 1/90 sec is pushing it, even with a 2 stop IS. Still shows what can be done.

[CCRII]

I thought the IS on the 300 f/2.8 was the new 4 stop IS?

I think if your after sharp images you would be better off going with the 400 f/5.6. There was a guru who compared all of the 400mm options out there including the 300 f2.8 + 1.4x tc and it clearly favored the 400 f/5.6. However there is more to bird photography then just sharpness imho. The 300 f/2.8 has some of the best bokeh you can get for the money imho. Also the focusing is incredibly fast which would be great for action photography/bif.

I had the 300 f/2.8 and it gave me very good results. The thing is, I am not a pro so I really have to think about costs. I just could not justify the price tag of the 300 f/2.8 IS vs. the 1-4 zoom Just did not feel that the added features gave me any real advantage. While the 420mm and 600mm gave good results, I never felt they were leaps and bounds above what the 1-4 gave me. I would say if you can afford it, then definitely go for it!

[Roy C]

I thought the IS on the 300 f/2.8 was the new 4 stop IS?

Not according to Canon, they state that it is a 2 stop IS system, the 300 f2.8 is first generation IS. it is only the newest IS lenses that have the 3 and 4 stop IS systems. I know the 70-200 f2.8 IS has 3 stops and the new 800mm f5.6 has 4 stops.

[CCRII]

Not according to Canon, they state that it is a 2 stop IS system, the 300 f2.8 is first generation IS. it is only the newest IS lenses that have the 3 and 4 stop IS systems. I know the 70-200 f2.8 IS has 3 stops and the new 800mm f5.6 has 4 stops.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Mick Johnson]

I have the 300mm and 40d and find it much better with a monopod, especially when using a 1.4x converter.

I actually use the monopod all the time, even without the converter, for birds anyway, unless in flight.

With the 2x it's really needed if you want a half decent hit rate of sharp shot's.

It takes the weight off as well, of course.

I see you have the 100-400mm as well so you can compare anyway at similar focal lengths.

Only problem you may have when getting this lens is your 100-400 'will' become redundant like mine has because it's so good.

[mike nesbitt]

Sean,
One thing that you may need to consider is how you carry the gear around whilst in walking mode.
I didn't really fancy having all that weight dangling from my neck on a strap.
The obvious way is to hold it is by the tripod mount [it's well balanced you'll get used to it]
The problem is that the foot is quite small and clearance between the foot and the lens is minimal, particularly dodgy if you have sausage fingers.
I permanently attach a QR plate to the foot which solves the problem. Another 50 quid though!
Regards, Mike.

[hollis_f]

Only problem you may have when getting this lens is your 100-400 'will' become redundant like mine has because it's so good.Yes, I've kept the 100-400 because it's much easier to take on holiday. Now, of course, I'm trying to figure out how to take the 300 to Africa even though the total weight limit is 15 kg.

[canonman77]

hi Mike, I will probably hold It by the monopod, because I will more often than not always have it at the longest length (600mm) so will need a monopod, Is there any particuloar monopod to get or will middle of the range do?. I have a Slik at the moment

Sean..

[mike nesbitt]

Sean.
I've never owned a monopod so like you I'd like to hear peoples obsevations/experiences with them.
I would be inclined to say run with the one you've got.

[Mick Johnson]

When I first got this lens I took a shot of a Heron (below) just to see how good it was with converters.

The first shot is the whole image, no cropping.

The second is obviously a crop + levels and sharpening.

The contrast had dropped and the feather detail is not fantastic but it's pretty good I think, considering I used a 1.4x Plus a 2x stacked. I also used my monopod and was leaning against a bench. It does auto-focus with the two converters but you need good light and contrast for any accuracy.

Would you be happy with the quality seeing as it's quite a big crop to start with as well as 2 converters.

[Mick Johnson]

Is there a size limit as the second shot has been resized to 800px. I posted it at about 950px....oh well does'nt look quite as good.

How do I get it to show at the bigger size...or can't I.

[Mick Johnson]

Have resized it to 800px now.

[canonman77]

hi Mick, The Heron seems good to me, having both Tc's stacked, so whats the focal length with stacked TC's. But If thats with both TC's stacked then just using a 2x will be just fine for me using a monopod or beanbag to rest on. Do you have to turn the IS off when using a monopod or resting on something with the 300mm f2.8?

Regards.
sean.

[Roy C]

When I first got this lens I took a shot of a Heron (below) just to see how good it was with converters.

The first shot is the whole image, no cropping.

The second is obviously a crop + levels and sharpening.

The contrast had dropped and the feather detail is not fantastic but it's pretty good I think, considering I used a 1.4x Plus a 2x stacked. I also used my monopod and was leaning against a bench. It does auto-focus with the two converters but you need good light and contrast for any accuracy.

Would you be happy with the quality seeing as it's quite a big crop to start with as well as 2 converters.
That's pretty good with 840mm on board Mick.

[Mick Johnson]

hi Mick, The Heron seems good to me, having both Tc's stacked, so whats the focal length with stacked TC's. But If thats with both TC's stacked then just using a 2x will be just fine for me using a monopod or beanbag to rest on. Do you have to turn the IS off when using a monopod or resting on something with the 300mm f2.8?

Regards.
sean.

You don't have to turn the IS 'off' when using a monopod or tripod.

[a.dancy]

Sean
Without good light (remember we are in England) I think you may be asking a lot from the 300 with a 2X converter even with IS and a monopod. Getting critical focus on the eye and maintaining it on a bird moving around with the slight sway of your monpod will I suspect mean that you will not get as many critically sharp pics as you might hope for. Remember that the use of a 2X converter will not be quite so forgiving for cropping.

You can get some useable images with stacked converters.

I'd be inclined to start off with a 1.4 converter and hone your technique. I recall seeing somewhere on the web advice on how to make best use of monopods.

Attached is a heron shot using Sigma 300f2.8 and stacked converters, and tripod but no IS. Sorry for the sloping water :eek!: Note the chromatic aberation on the leaves and highlight areas of the water. You will get this creeping at times even with canon though you can deal with it in photoshop. You should be able to enlarge my pic by clicking on the photo tab at bottom right corner.

[Mick Johnson]

That's pretty good with 840mm on board Mick.

It's better than I thought it would be Roy, but, it's really tripod territory I think, not monopod.

[Mick Johnson]

At the end of the day, if I wanted to use my 300mm with a 2x 'all the time' I think I would buy a 500mmf4, if I could afford it of course.

[canonman77]

Too expensive for me, the 500mm f4, would a sigma 500mm f4.5 take a 1.4x TC. Back to the drawing board I think... Dont get me wrong here, my main Interest Is the wildlife/Birds, but you still need to have good shots of them. The 300mm with 2x TC for me will probably be fine, as I dont sell my pics to magazines, where images have to be pin sharp & I have seen some beautiful pics taken with this setup. The main thing I think would be to try one out for a couple of days beforehand, along with the sigma 500mm f4.5. To hire them Is quite expensive, not as expensive as buying one, but Its still money being spent & I cant afford that as Im saving up now, so every penny counts...

What would be the perfect upgrade from the 100-400, If youve only got say £3000. Would It be the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS, the Sigma 300mm f2.8 or the Sigma 500mm f4.5, these are the 3 I am looking at, I could get the sigma 300 for less than half of the canon or buy the sigma 500mm f4.5 for the same price If not less than the canon 300.... I need help here guys & would really appreciate your Input.

Regards.
Sean..

[Roy C]

would a sigma 500mm f4.5 take a 1.4x TC. ..
Regards.
Sean..
It takes a tc Sean but on a non series 1 body you still have to tape the pins or focus manually.

[canonman77]

so if i got the 500mm f4.5 sigma i would have to get the 1D camera to be able to use the 1.4x TC, does it also keep AF on all focus points & does it matter which 1D camera as there are various marks of It.

Thanks Roy.
sean.

[paul goode]

so if i got the 500mm f4.5 sigma i would have to get the 1D camera to be able to use the 1.4x TC, does it also keep AF on all focus points & does it matter which 1D camera as there are various marks of It.

Thanks Roy.
sean.

My Sigma 500mm f4.5 wouldn't af with a kenko or sigma 1.4x fitted to my 1d mkIII. By taping the pins I got the kenko but not the sigma to work, but being honest it slowed the af down a lot and made the bokeh pretty lousy
At f8 the only af point that works is the centre point.

[canonman77]

Ive made up my mind, Its going to be the canon 300mm f2.8 IS & both TC's. Ive seen really good pics with a 2x & for walking around, will be perfect for me. Going any bigger, would certainly need a tripod & that Is a different type of photography altogether. I like to travel light (ish). All I need now Is to try one out somewhere...

Sean..

[Sandpiper]

Hi Sean,

With reference to post no.11 in this thread I find that carrying a 300 lens with both TC's around in a backpack is no problem over long periods, bearing in mind I usually have a telescope and tripod on my shoulder at the same time.

The lens can be used handheld with either TC for short periods but as I said earlier it is best to use either a monopod or tripod for sharpest results, particularly in our dull conditions.

The Lesser Scaup and Kingfisher shots below were taken using stacked 1.4x+2x TC's; the Hobby with a 2x only. I used a tripod for all three shots.

[canonman77]

Hi Sandpiper, I think them 3 shots of yours are fantastic, I dont really know what peole are talking about when they say that Image quality Is rubbish with a 2x TC. Do you happen to have any shots where you have handheld with a 2x, just so I can compare. I can handhold fairly heavy lenses. The sigma 150-500 was quite heavy, I know the 300 Is heavier, but It dont take long to put your eye to the viewfinder & take a few shots does It, plus I will always have my monopod with me. I would really appreciate It If anyone could post a few pics handheld with a 2x Tc...

Sean.

[Roy C]

From all the reviews I have seen the 300 f2.8 with a 2x is around the same IQ as the 400mm f5.6 with a 1.4tc and I am pleased with the results I am getting with the 400 and 1.4 (now I am using a quality tripod). I think to get consistent results with the 300 and 2x a tripod would help enormously.
Of course with the 300 and 2x you gain 40mm in length an more importantly 1 stop of light.

[Sandpiper]

Hi Sean,

Glad you liked my pics. Amazingly enough I have only taken two shots handholding this lens with a 2x TC. The first one, albeit sharply focused on the bird, had too much foliage in the way. The second shot, attached below, was taken pointing high up in a tree at 500th/second at f4 at 400 ISO and converted from RAW to jpeg. If you can access the exif data you will notice that the TC is not recognised as it is the cheap Jessops model.

Mike.

[Mick Johnson]

Sean, I don't think you will get many offers of handheld pic's with a 2x. I've tried it and personally I think it's too long on a 1.6 body for any consistancy.

If I was only using mine with a 2x I would just take my tripod and Manfrotto 393.

Anyway, as you don't live far from me I will offer you the chance to try mine with or without converters/monopod/tripod.

I only live about 20 mins from JCB world headquarters, where you can have a ball with duck's and gulls. It's a great place if you want to take a load of shot's.

[canonman77]

thats very kind Mick, but I dont drive. Is It near Wotton lodge estate?. Unfortunatley Ive never driven but thanks anyway Mick. I see that I would need a tripod all the time to use a 2x constantly with the lens. Because I dont drive, carrying a tripod Is a bit of a problem. Would a sturdy monopod do the trick? If yes then which one would be Ideal to carry the 300mm f2.8 with 2x TC..

Hi Sandpiper, Thats Is a good shot handheld, did you find It easy to get the shot & what camera body was you using...

Regards.
Sean.

[Mick Johnson]

It's in Rocester, derbyshire.

I use a Manfrotto 479. It's an aluminium monopod and it's a good height, or is it length. It is about 5-6 years old so I'm sure it's probabaly not made anymore.

Anyway I'm 6ft and it's perfect for me.

I use it with the Manfrotto 234 (non quick release)

[a.dancy]

This may sound daft but what birds are you likely to be photographing and where do you bird most of the time? I live in a location which is not particularly well known for large variety of species. I dont have a car either but I regularly take shots at just 300mm and less. Is it rarities you are after?

[Sandpiper]

Sean,

I use a 20D and had no difficulty obtaining the shot except for waiting for the displaying bird to come into view. With care it is possible to handhold with a 2x attached, but after a minute or so my arms and shoulders begin to ache. Whenever possible I prefer to use a monopod. I have an old Jessops model which extends to my head height and has a tilting head, useful when you want to look up or down to photograph something.

[Roy C]

This may sound daft but what birds are you likely to be photographing and where do you bird most of the time? I live in a location which is not particularly well known for large variety of species. I dont have a car either but I regularly take shots at just 300mm and less. Is it rarities you are after?
I think there is a valid point here. If you shoot from hides, feeding stations or can get close to birds then you can take advantage of the 300mm f2.8's brilliant performance at 300mm. If, however, you are like me and shoot mainly on wide open estuaries where there is little or no cover then you will need the 600mm length just about all the time and to use a lens like this with a 2x tc glued on does not seem right to me.

[mike nesbitt]

Hi Sean.
There's some sound advice emerging here, Get a 2X by all means, it's a good addition to the 300 2.8, I've had one for several months but have only used it twice.
As GY Rob says it will be good to bring a close bird closer. To use it as standard practice may create more problems than it solves. The 1.4X is a different matter, you can use that baby on a regular basis.
Mike.

[canonman77]

I go to my local fishing lakes where I can get fairly close, as I have got better at my field skills of stalking the birds & there are lots of different birds to photograph, there are 3 lakes with woodland In between so theres a lot of variation. No you mention It, I could probably get away with just the 1.4x, because Its always best to get as close to your subject, Isnt It, but to have the 2x for those times when Its needed. Roy I hear what your saying & totally agree 100%, but the 500/600mm primes are way out of my league, so I thought the 300 with 2x would be a superb compromise, used with a monopod.
Hi a.dancy, Its not rarities that I got out for specifically.. Because I have to walk most places I am trying to travel as light as possible you see, without having to lump a tripod everywhere.... This might sound daft, but what would you guys do, If you were you me?.. I would really, really appreciate your thoughts, because Im going mental here.

Regards.
Sean.

[Mick Johnson]

Think you've answered your own question Sean when you say you could get away with a 1.4x.

I think that's what most would do, in that they would start with a 1.4x and then get a 2x, if needed.

[a.dancy]

Though not impossible it is hard to be a good birder and a good photographer at the same time. It is a concentration thing as well as equipment thing. Though it also depends on what you want to get out of birding.

I think the Canon 300 f2.8 will serve you well provided you are determined to understand how to use the equipment to best advantage and do not fall into the trap of thinking the best pictures are all close-ups. 600mm is tripod territory though you can do a lot by resting your lens on a camera bag for those low angle shots.

We will have to hook for a day some time :t:

[Jaff]

IMO you should really think about this.

A lot of people get it in their heads that a 300mm f2.8 w a 2x TC is the quickest and cheapest route to long reach and to have this lens with a 2x permanently attached is a complete waste of a crackin' piece of kit. Yes, the results it gives are pretty good but are no substitute fo a true long lens , like the 500mm f4. If the majority of shots you take now are heavy crops then it would probs be the better solution. Selling you're 100-400mm would get you pretty much towards the 500mm f4 with the money you save up and many birders get by very happily with just this lens. There's the 400mm f4 too which is a much more portable lens and might suit your needs as well, maybe even better.
Think long and hard if what you want is out and out reach or a variety of focal lengths for what situations dicate. Nikon users have the luxury of the 200mm-400mm f4 which can do pretty much every job you want from a wildlife lens, the 100-400mm aside the only comparable way of having a variety of focal lengths for Canon users with great IQ is the 300mm with TC'S I believe. I think this is what Adrian was elluding to, if you frequently find yourself in situations where you're after longer reach then perhaps this is not the solution for you.

I myself am eyeing up a 300mm f2.8 for the future because not so long ago I realised I could really do with the usage of a low-light lens and came close several times to buying a 70-200mm f2.8 to go with my 100-400mm. When Ian Goodalls lens came up in the classifieds I came to my senses and decided that what I needed was one lens to do all the jobs I want (better than carrying two weighty ones around), low-light performance when I need it and extra reach for the times I when it comes in useful. Missed out on buying it but I still know that's what I want. I'm fortunate in that the places I visit don't often require very long focal lengths so I could get by with a 1.4x or the naked 300mm. I'm not saying don't buy this lens if that's what you really want, by all means do, it's a highly regarded lens but I just hope you want it for the right reasons.

In reference to what Adrian said. There may be a gathering at Leighton Moss in the near future so if you are able to come then I'm sure you'll get some face to face advice, mostly from Adrian I hope as he actually knows what he's on about, I just make up stuff and hope it looks clever! :-O

Cheers. B (:

[canonman77]

I would like to meet up with you guys. I am going for the 300 f2.8 & both TC's, but wont be sticking the 2x on It all the time. I think I have good field skills for creeping up on birds (the feathered variety). I will also keep the 100-400 on a 2nd body, perhaps another 40D. How will we sort out a meet up sometime?

Have a very happy christmas & thanks for all your help & advice In 2008..

Regards.
Sean..

[eastwood]

My 300 f2.8 is almost glued to my 2X. Only occasionally when the light condition is too dim, then I might switch to the 1.4. I am not a strong man, but find handheld OK. Some support certainly help, but with a monopod, I find shooting at an elevated angle a bit clumpsy. Most of the time my 1.4 goes with my 300 f4.

[desmo-kid]

While I don't have your camera (I have 1Ds2) I do have the 300 2.8 as well as 500 4.0, so I might be able to give some persepective.

I'm reasonably strong and 215 pounds, not much fat, so I figured I could use the 500mm hand-held much of the time. In reality it's not fun holding that thing up for long, it's not so much the weight but the fact that it's all out in front of you quite a ways. I thought a lighter lens would complement it well, even if it often had a 1.4 or 2.0 on it much of the time. Owners of the 400 DO will dismiss all negative talk as applying to old models but there were too many instances of talk about funny background blur, I figured I'd go it safe and get the 300 2.8. It is MUCH easier to hand hold than the 500. I never second guess if I don't have the 500 with me, getting some image is better than no image. I have been pleasantly surprised at the performance of the 2.0. Attached is a down-res'd image along with a 100% crop, which also had to be down-res'd. I'm more than happy with this and other images I have with this lens, if you PM me I will send a larger file to you if you wish to see it.

[canonman77]

hi, I have seen that the 300 f2.8 on a 40D body is a very good combination to have, so thats a bonus, also I will more often than not take a monopod with me, It will easily fit Into the back of my assault vest (lots of pockets), plus I look damn good with It on. The other thing Is, there doesnt seem to be any specialist camera/lens shops near me where I could try the lens out first, because I dont drive It makes It harder. If anyone knows of any shops that might stock the 300mm f2.8 IS lens I would love to find out where...

Regards.
Sean..

[a.dancy]

You can try the lens out at a shop but what will you try it on and how will you view the images? If you need to try the lens out then get someone in the field and to let you have a go. Slip your card in and view images at home to hearts content. But, as I said earlier it is about maximising potential and this you learn with experience. Desmo-Kid has put up some good shots where light is good and made a kind offer, but you and I both know that such light comes to us all too rarely. We are in the wrong part of the country though you do get more light than I do in Manchester;)

[desmo-kid]

A. Dancy makes a point about light, a good one, it sure matters. But the alternatives for better low light are not very present.....at 600mm using a 2x tele on the 300 2.8 it's one stop slower than the 500 4.0. But it's also 100mm longer! Looked at another way, it's only 100mm shorter than the 500 f4 with a 1.4 tele at the same final speed of 5.6! Not much penalty for a very large difference in hand-holdability. As well as much much less. I really don't think there is an single answer here, which is why we all deliberate so much over the 300 2.8 plus teles, the 400DO, and the 500 f4. Beyond the 500 f4 they really get much less usable off a tripod. I have both the fast 300 and 500 yet I don't have an answer about which be my favorite to own if I could have only one. Since I want to do a lot of carrying and hand held shots as well as a lot of tripod shots it's a tossup. And light is usually important to me too.....I'm in New England, and we get quite a bit of overcase weather, nearly solid for the last few months it seems.

Remember, every time you are turning this over in your mind, sorting the wish list of speed (as in max aperture), ease of carrying during hikes, hand holdability, image quality, there simply is not one single clear cut best answer. Throwing price into the equation may make the arguement for the 300 2.8 plus teles a bit stronger.

[mariusz1]

has anybody test samples to compare 300/2.8+Tc2.0 and 500/4+Tc1.4 wide open or f7.1 ?

[Roy C]

has anybody test samples to compare 300/2.8+Tc2.0 and 500/4+Tc1.4 wide open or f7.1 ?
Not tested myself but have seen several comparisons and the 500/4 + 1.4 wins easy.

[mariusz1]

I heard that 300/2.0+Tc2.0 on f7.1 there is almost no difference in comparison to 500/4+Tc1.4 f5.6, is it true?

Could you get me links to these comparisons? ;)

[desmo-kid]

has anybody test samples to compare 300/2.8+Tc2.0 and 500/4+Tc1.4 wide open or f7.1 ?

I will do this comparison over the next week or so. I am curious myself, and find that many folks make wild statements (this blows away that, etc.) without ever trying them, or from just hearing someone else say something. So I trust nothing unless controlled tests were done and I can see the results myself. This one I am indeed quite curious about, so I will do it.

[Sandpiper]

desmo-kid, looking forward to seeing your results.

[Roy C]

This 400mm shoot out involves the 300mm f2.8 and is quite interesting. http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=127089

Also Gyrob on this forum has the 300mm f2.8 , 400mm f5.6 and the 500mm f4. He did some test a while ago for me comparing the 300mm f2.8 and tc's v 400mm f5.6. His results were:
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 is about equal to the bare 400mm f5.6
300mm f2.8 + 2x is slightly inferior to 400mm f5.6 and 1.4
of course in both cases the 300 gains a stop over the 400 and also has IS but this was pure IQ.

[Mick Johnson]

Not tested myself but have seen several comparisons and the 500/4 + 1.4 wins easy.


I tried both before getting the 300mm (because of the size and cost) but I found very little difference at all between the 500+1.4x and the 300mm+2x.

[Mick Johnson]

I've been out today and took a few shot's with a 2x just for the hell of it. This is one and if anyone wants the 'raw' file to have a closer look, I'll email it to you. 10mb

[canonman77]

Thats a great shot Mick & If thats with the 2x TC handheld then that will do for me, Great shot....

Sean.

[Mick Johnson]

It's with the 2x and monopod.

[canonman77]

that will still do for me, thanks Mick.

sean.

[Roy C]

I tried both before getting the 300mm (because of the size and cost) but I found very little difference at all between the 500+1.4x and the 300mm+2x.
That's very interesting Mick, I have been looking at the 300/2.8 or the 500/4. I would prefer the 300 from a weight point of view but have spoken to several people who have used both and they all said the 500/4 + 1.4 was superior to the 300 + 2x (opinions ranging from almost as good to the 500 combo was vastly superior). If I was convinced the 300 at 600 f5.6 was as good I would get one without a doubt.
Just when I have made my mind up to get the 500 along come as thread like this :-O Ah well, back to square one.
Looks like I will stay with my 400/5.6 + 1.4 for a while longer - at least that gives me 560mm at about the same IQ as the 300 + 2x BUT 40mm shorter and 1 stop slower.

[Peter Ericsson]

I think the best gallery I can find online done with the 300F2.8 in combination with either the 1.4 or the 2.0 TC is found here:
http://www.pbase.com/ingotkfr/favorite_shots

Ingo is a birder who brings his camera along where ever he goes. He is also good at post processing. It is mainly due to his work I keep lusting after this lens.
His galleries from Sulawesi and India are also with the 300F2.8. Fantastic stuff!

I have the 400F5.6 and it does produce great images but not as consistently as the 300F2.8. It is a massive advantage to have IS and 2 more F stops.

Peter

[Mick Johnson]

That's very interesting Mick, I have been looking at the 300/2.8 or the 500/4. I would prefer the 300 from a weight point of view but have spoken to several people who have used both and they all said the 500/4 + 1.4 was superior to the 300 + 2x (opinions ranging from almost as good to the 500 combo was vastly superior). If I was convinced the 300 at 600 f5.6 was as good I would get one without a doubt.
Just when I have made my mind up to get the 500 along come as thread like this :-O Ah well, back to square one.
Looks like I will stay with my 400/5.6 + 1.4 for a while longer - at least that gives me 560mm at about the same IQ as the 300 + 2x BUT 40mm shorter and 1 stop slower.


Roy, I did say I found very little difference, the 500mm is better, but there's very little in it, I found. 'Vastly superior' no way.

At the end of the day......you want both.|:d|

[Mick Johnson]

I think the best gallery I can find online done with the 300F2.8 in combination with either the 1.4 or the 2.0 TC is found here:
http://www.pbase.com/ingotkfr/favorite_shots

Peter

Some very nice images there Peter, and so many lovely colourfull birds too.

[canonman77]

I agree with, there are some super Images taken with the 300 f2.8 + 2x TC & some are handheld, thanks for the link Peter..

Theres nothing to hold me back now from buying It, It seems that everyone has something positive to say about this lens, the only negative I can see Is the price, which to be fair, you get what you pay for In this world. So all In all Its not that expensive....

Sean.

[Peter Ericsson]

I agree with, there are some super Images taken with the 300 f2.8 + 2x TC & some are handheld, thanks for the link Peter..

Theres nothing to hold me back now from buying It, It seems that everyone has something positive to say about this lens, the only negative I can see Is the price, which to be fair, you get what you pay for In this world. So all In all Its not that expensive....

Sean.

In the end I don't think it is only a question of being able to afford it or not.
It is also a question of consciousness and what the end purpose is.
It is very easy to get greedy and overly materialistic. I live in a country where the cost of one lens equals 2 years salary for an average worker. I find it a bit hard to justify such lavish spending in my situation.
I don't think I have exhausted the potential of my present gear (400F5.6) and could probably improve my images a lot by enhancing my field crafts.
Still, I am human and that desire for 'more' is always there!

[hollis_f]

Ingo is a birder who brings his camera along where ever he goes.
And that, for me, is the reason why I went for a 300 without even thinking about the 500. There is absolutely no way that I could carry a 500mm lens and a tripod around all day. But the 300 and a couple of TCs is dead easy to carry.
The weather looks like it might be quite good today - so I'm planning to go out to try the 2x TC in nicer weather. I might even try swapping lenses with Didi so I can do a direct comparison of the 300 vs 500.

[desmo-kid]

Wow, I guess that site with all of the 300 2.8 + TC images puts to rest any image problem questions when using the 2x TC. If I did not own the lens and had not recently seen some great results I would almost wonder if those shots really could be with the TC!

All of us would rather avoid a TC but the reality is that with a truly portable lens that is easily hand-held and has good reach it's going to come down to the 300 2.8 or 400 DO and most times a TC is going to be glued to it. I am curious to see what I'll be missing with the 300 2.8 + 2X TC so I'll run the test against the 500 4.0, but it will still be a bit of a moot point.....for long hikes, or most travel it will be the 300 2.8.

Another thing that site should point out is that paying attention to the craft is more important than fixating on the optics, especially when the optics are up at this level.

[Paul Jarvis]

Wow. Now I'm no expert here but that has got to be as good as a 500 f4 and about 2000 quid cheaper. you would have to be happy with those results.

[Jaff]

Wow. Now I'm no expert here but that has got to be as good as a 500 f4 and about 2000 quid cheaper. you would have to be happy with those results.

£2000? Try doing your sums again bro.

I've just noticed the price on warehouse for the 300mm is over £50 cheaper compared with a few weeks back. £2874.99 down from about £2938 I think it was.

I wonder if that's cos of the 15% VAT?

[TobiasK]

Hi,
i went through the same considerations: after selling my 100-400 i wanted to buy a 500/4. But then, my wife probably would have killed me (and the lens) :-O

Of course, if there had been plenty of money, i would have bought a 500/4 but on the downside, using a 500/4 also limits the shots in some way
You can't make a 500/4 any shorter, but you can make a 300/2,8 longer
Using a 300/2,8 in the zoo is great: due to 2,8 you get very nice backgrounds

Like someone said before: my 2x extender is also glued to the 300/2,8 and i can't complain about the quality

Image is taken out of my car, so no tripod, the lens lay on the window
40D, F6,3 Iso 160, 1/320

Bye
Tobias

[mjobling]

Out of interest Tobias, how much of a crop was that image? How far away was the buzzard?

Lovely picture, by the way.

[TobiasK]

Hi
the buzzard sat right behind my car, i'd say about 25 feet away
the pic is no crop, it is fullframe

I wanted to change to the 1,4 extender, but then the buzzard was gone

Bye
Tobias

[macshark]

One of these days, Canon will introduce a 600mm f/5.6L IS (hopefully at a price comparable to the 300 f/2.8L IS) and solve this dilemma for many of us...

3:-)

[Roy C]

One of these days, Canon will introduce a 600mm f/5.6L IS (hopefully at a price comparable to the 300 f/2.8L IS) and solve this dilemma for many of us...

3:-)
Even a 500/5.6 would be nice :t:

[Cashie]

Seàn

The 300 2.8 L is absolutely excellent I have tried a friends and now I want one too.

With a TC I would stick with a 1.4X & you will have one of the best 400mm f4 lenses around, easily as good as the DO.
I think a 2X would be pushing it a little for hand holding IMO.

[TobiasK]

Hi,
here one more pic of the same buzzard
it is a 50% crop of the original image

bye
Tobias

[barnstormer]

I hope you got your lens cos it's £3699 on warehouse express now.........how can they justify the price increase ?. Is there much difference quality wise between the canon 300 2.8 and the sigma 300 2.8 considering there's over £2000 difference.

[hollis_f]

I hope you got your lens cos it's £3699 on warehouse express now.........how can they justify the price increase ?Because the Pound has dropped 40% against the Yen. All lenses are going up in a similar fashion.

[canonman77]

Ive just seen the prices go up at WEX, unbelievable Isnt It. The Sigma equivalent doesnt have IS or OS, but Is It like on a monopod, because I might be tempted to get the Sigma 300mm f2.8 Instead as the prices of the Canons are shot up. I would be very Interested to see a comparison test of the Canon v's Sigma (300mm f2.8 lenses) & with their own TC's....

Regards.
Sean..

[tjsimonsen]

Even a 500/5.6 would be nice :t:

True, but what may trip the scale for me when (and if) I can afford either a 500/4 or a 300/2.8 are:

1) Size: the 300/2.8 and a couple of converters is probably much easier to travel with than a 500.
2) That the 300/2.8 is exactly that: an extremely good medium tele with native f2.8!

Over the years I have been shooting a fair bit in dark places: rain forests in central America, Australia and SE Asia, dark forests elsewhere and so on. In such places a 300/2.8 would have been MUCH better than the 300-400/5.6s I've used. And if you can get an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6 just by adding converters, well then there is a real dilemma.

Thomas

[Sandpiper]

I use a Canon 300/2.8 with 1.4x/2x/1.4x+2x TC's. The combo is light enough to carry round in a backpack all day along with my scope and tripod on one shoulder. The lens with choice of TC's I find to be ideal for my type of photography on the move.

[JohnZ]

Sean, Apparently the 120-300mm zoom is sharper than the 300mm prime lens. Food for thought ?

[Jaff]

Sean, Apparently the 120-300mm zoom is sharper than the 300mm prime lens. Food for thought ?

I have it on good authority that this is, to use his exact words, 'utter tosh'.

And when you think about it then it makes sense, primes are sharper than zooms because zooms are always built with some form of compromises to accommodate the different focal lengths and invariably will have more glass inside.

[JohnZ]

To use whose exact words Jaff ?
In most cases I would most certainly agree with everything you have said regarding prime lenses and zoom lenses.

[a.dancy]

Wood pigeon about 25% cropped off. Sigma f2.8 plus battered 2X converter ISO400 f6.3....sorry my demo is not as exciting as a buzzard:king:


The 120 - 300 whilst still very sharp indeed does not match the 300 f2.8 prime. As I have stated before it is a myth to suggest that it is sharper and that myth was started by a salesman. The Sigma prime is pretty close to the Canon in IQ and would certainly warrant 'L' status if it were a Canon, added to which, many would be challenged to tell the difference IMHO.

If it is a zoom you needed the zoom will still perform well.

Edit: Please note , I have used the Sigma 120-300f2.8 as well as the Canon 300f2.8. If I did not have my Canon zoom then I would have opted for the Sigma 120-300 no question.

[shoshone]

The canon 300 f2.8 is a top drawer lens and can produce top drawer images with either a 1.4 or 2x converter when used correctly. As with any lens you play it and its combinations to its advantages to achieve the best results. If the almighty declared I would not be able to use anything but a Canon 300 f2.8 plus converter options I certainly won't go to bed crying....in fact I'd probably have a good night! 8-P:king::king::king:

I'll be dreaming with you ;)