300mm f2.8 for butterflies?

[ChrisSearle]

I'm just deciding re the 100-400 or 300 f2.8 route. I can't afford both unfortunately and am leaning very much towards the 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters, particularly after trying a friends newly acquired 100-400 at the weekend and being amazed at the weight! I know that the 300 is even heavier but for me the 100-400 is not a 'walkabout' lens either so that is not a factor for me to consider. However, the 100-400 did seem pretty good for 'semi-macro', butterflies for example and I wondered if anybody had any experience of the 300 f2.8 for insects? Is an extension tube nessesary?

[Tannin]

According to the specs I checked just now, it has a MFD of 2.5m - i.e., a bit more than the 100-400 (which goes to 1.8m). That translates to about 1/3rd smaller image on the sensor (shorter FL, greater distance), so I think you would need an extension tube for sure. Somewhere - maybe it was on the tiny manual that ships with the Canon extension tubes - I saw a chart of what the tubes do to MFDs for various lenses. But not having it handy, I imagine that you would want a 13mm and a 25mm tube.

I think you would find the f/2.8 very useful indeed for that work.

I imagine that the other way to go would be a 180mm macro and a 1.4 converter - but converters are never as good as a bare lens.

[Steve Babbs]

I'd go much smaller for butterflies. I've bought a tamron 90mm for this purpose - don't forget the 1.4x conversion - although I do have a sigma 70 - 300 for back up, for the less co-operative species. Before I went digital I mainly used a sigma 90mm macro, which of course wouldn't have the multiplication factor. Remember the problems with shake are more significant when you are photographing close things as you usually want to maximise depth of field and so need to use lower shutter speeds. I did consider the 150mm and 180mm macros but if your main target is butterflies I wouldn't consider bigger than this as a main lens.

Steve

[postcardcv]

I'm assuming from your post that you want this as a main telephoto lens with use for macro work being a 'bonus'. If so, then of the two lenses you're considering I'd definitely go for the 300 f2.8, it's an excellent lens and works very well with both 1.4x anc 2x tcs. The f2.8 makes it an excellent low light lens with super fast AF, and with the 2x tc you've got a 600 f5.6 IS lens. I agree with Tannin that the MFD of the lens will limit it's use for macro work, but with extension tubes I'm sure it will work very well.

I recently got a 100-400 IS and find it is good as a walkabout lens (it's not that heavy) and I'm very happy with it. That said if I had the chance to swap for a 300 f2.8 I'd go for it in an instance (alas my bank balance won't allow me to upgrade).

[mothman]

Use the 300 but for Lepidoptera don't waste your money on teleconverters or the canon extension tube,go instead for the jessops extension tubes,you get three rings for your seventy odd quid and they have the same quality fresh air inside them as the Canon one!

If you are doing Butterflies exclusively then 200mm fits the bill better

[Tannin]

Hmmmm .... actually the Jessops ones are probably better quality, assuming they are made in the UK. Japanese fresh air is rather polluted, after all. I'll have to see if I can get you some Australian ones: excellent fresh air here!

[ChrisSearle]

Hey, thanks loads for the inputs. I want the lens principally for birds with butterflies as a bonus. Certainly for the easier to approach species - A Silver Washed Fritillery on a bramble flower say, I can usually get close enough to almost fill the frame with a standard zoom.
Here in India, where I spend half of my time, the butterflies are generally much more difficult to approach ( something to do with ambient temperatures perhaps) and I thought that a 300 might be worthwhile but was unsure just how much of the frame I could fill with an averaged sized butterfly at the lenses quoted minimum focusing distance of 8.2 ft - which is about as close as some species will allow anyway. One further question occurs to me: What is the ideal lens for butterflies then?

[Steve Babbs]

Depends on personal choice either an approx. 100 mm macro or a 150/180mm macro, presumming you have a camera with a 1.5 multiplication factor. You'll find people fairly equally split between the two.

[deshojo]

The 300mm f2.8 is possibly Canon's finest lens, the image quality is absolutely superb. My 600mm f4 is pretty amazing, but the 300mm f2.8 is even sharper.

I do use it ocassionally for butterflies, though an extender or extension tube is needed to get frame fillers. There is no distinguishable quality difference with the 1.4x and only a tiny drop in sharpness wide open with the 2x if you're very fussy.

After lugging the 600mm f4 around I find the 300mm f2.8 to be a featherweight, and it is my "walkabout" lens. With the extenders it is very versatile, superb quality, and I'm sure you'd be delighted with it.

[Malcolm Stewart]

I'm just deciding re the 100-400 or 300 f2.8 route. I can't afford both unfortunately and am leaning very much towards the 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters, particularly after trying a friends newly acquired 100-400 at the weekend and being amazed at the weight! I know that the 300 is even heavier but for me the 100-400 is not a 'walkabout' lens either so that is not a factor for me to consider. However, the 100-400 did seem pretty good for 'semi-macro', butterflies for example and I wondered if anybody had any experience of the 300 f2.8 for insects? Is an extension tube nessesary?

Here's a shot I took yesterday lunchtime with my newly acquired EF 300 f2.8L IS on a 5D.
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/142372/cat/500/ppuser/6851

It was the next to the last of a short series as I approached closer, one more, and the butterfly flew away. No extension tubes, or extenders.

Hope this gives some idea. (Exposure 1/1250 f6.3 ISO 400; and IS mode 1 used.)