300/2.8 at 600mm (1 Viewer)

How good is the 300.2.8 + 2x tc for every day use. I have seen odd shots that are good and I know you will get good IQ with the combo when you are close to the bird but how about when the bird is further away and you have to crop heavily - anyone got any example of heavy crops with this combo.
I keep reading about how good this lens is with a 2x tc but is seems that most users do not use it with a 2x tc for everyday use.

I know most birders would prefer the 500/4 but for me that is absolutely out of the question due to the weight.

I've had a few really sharp results with the MkII 2x extender using my 1D MkIII (and other lesser bodies). Which proves to me that optically the combo works, but in practice I'm happier not using the extender. Focusing can then use the precision sensors which need f2.8 for best performance, and shutter speeds are higher etc. I also have the EF 400 f5.6L and whilst this is easier to carry (and probably gets out more as a result), again I get a higher proportion of bif keepers from the EF300 f2.8L IS. However, I tend not to stray that far from my car!

Roy

When you make big crops with a 600 prime you are going to be disappointed at times because of the effects of atmospheric conditions i.e. wobbly air caused by heat haze, pollen and other pollutants etc. I know that because I get it with 500 and 400 lenses. Factor in hand shake that you can expect with 600mm focal power and I think you will probably be disappointed with many shots you take. I think if you are going to work with a 300f2.8 plus a 2X converter your crops need to be modest. Now I have to make an admission....Whilst I have used a canon 300f2.8 I have not used it with a 2X converter but I have used the Sigma equivelant. Some shots are ropey but others are superb and easily fall into the publishable quality category. With the 300f 2.8 bare lens and with the 1.4X you can produce amazing quality pics and with the 2X converter the success ratio goes down but you can still get stuff that you can easily stick on a wall. I think the last 'British Birds' photographic competion featured one or more images taken with the Canon 300f2.8 plus 2x Converter .

On a similar thread I once commented that If I was told that the only lens I would ever be allowed to use was the 300 f2.8 with options for using 1.4 X and 2X converters then I would not lose sleep over it, in fact, I'd probably have a good night!

Every lens no matter how good has limitations for use and those limitations will vary from folk to folk. The secret is knowing those limitations. If weight is the factor then I would seriously consider the 400DO with a 1.4X converter, if you can afford it.

Thanks for the comments Malcolm and Adrian. I should just say that If I got a 300/2.8 I would almost certainty use it with a tripod if I had a 2xtc attached.
Your responses are confirming my fears that while the 300/2.8 takes a 2x tc probably better than most lenses it is not a combo that should be used on a regular basis.

At the moment I am using a 400/5.6 and very often use heavy crops for web images (even 100% crops) which I am very happy with IQ wise. I also use the 400 with a taped 1.4tc, always on a good quality tripod. What I was hoping was that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc would give me at least as good and hopefully better IQ than the 560 f8 that I have at the moment - I know the AF would be a lot better with the 600/5.6.

Most of my shooting is done on an Estuary where there is little chance of getting much closer to the birds so longer focal length is the number one aim. But I sometimes have to walk a fair bit to find the birds which is why the really big lenses is a no go for me. Thanks again for your help.

Roy, I can hear that money rattling in your pocket, and the big 50's burning right through it, wont be long now. :-O

Roy, why not go to the Bird Fair in August, Canon have a stand very year with all there lenses TC etc etc
for you to try out on birds in the lake, and all the advise you need, you could nail all this in one day.

Nikon Kid said:

Roy, I can hear that money rattling in your pocket, and the big 50's burning right through it, wont be long now. :-O

Roy, why not go to the Bird Fair in August, Canon have a stand very year with all there lenses TC etc etc
for you to try out on birds in the lake, and all the advise you need, you could nail all this in one day.

Click to expand...

It is frustrating when you have a few bob to spare and nothing to spend it on I must admit - I most certainly will not be getting a 50D, if I thought that had anything to offer me over the 40D I would get it tomorrow .
As for the bird fair, good idea but living where I do in deepest Devon, Rutland is a world away for me (about 500 mile round trip).

Roy.
If you PM me with your email address, I will send you a resized raw image of a
Red Throated Diver taken from about 250 metres with this combo (1.3 crop though) and you can get the feel for it yourself.
Mike.

mike nesbitt said:

Roy.
If you PM me with your email address, I will send you a resized raw image of a
Red Throated Diver taken from about 250 metres with this combo (1.3 crop though) and you can get the feel for it yourself.
Mike.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer Mike, PM sent.

Roy C said:

It is frustrating when you have a few bob to spare and nothing to spend it on I must admit - I most certainly will not be getting a 50D, if I thought that had anything to offer me over the 40D I would get it tomorrow .

Click to expand...

Roy, I have expressed some of my thoughts about IQ and cropping, especially regarding the 50D, on another birding forum. It may be worth a look....

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39814

Here is a 50D example, plus 100% crop, at 400 ISO taken handheld with my rather lowly 100-400 at f/6.3 and 1/250. The lens has an AF microadjustment of +8, which of course I could not adjust on my 40D, if I needed to. I imagine the 300/2.8 prime would yield superior results over my zoom lens, which the 50D could readily capitalise upon....

tdodd said:

Roy, I have expressed some of my thoughts about IQ and cropping, especially regarding the 50D, on another birding forum. It may be worth a look....

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39814

Here is a 50D example at 400 ISO taken handheld with my rather lowly 100-400 at f/6.3 and 1/250. The lens has an AF microadjustment of +8, which of course I could not adjust on my 40D, if I needed to. I imagine the 300/2.8 prime would yield superior results over my zoom lens, which the 50D could readily capitalise upon....

Click to expand...

That was an interesting read so I have gone back to 1stop ISO

tdodd said:

Roy, I have expressed some of my thoughts about IQ and cropping, especially regarding the 50D, on another birding forum. It may be worth a look....

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39814

Here is a 50D example, plus 100% crop, at 400 ISO taken handheld with my rather lowly 100-400 at f/6.3 and 1/250. The lens has an AF microadjustment of +8, which of course I could not adjust on my 40D, if I needed to. I imagine the 300/2.8 prime would yield superior results over my zoom lens, which the 50D could readily capitalise upon....

Click to expand...

Nice shot there Tim, looks a very intelligent dog (we have a Cavalier KC and although he's a cutie he's a bit daft)
Brian:t:

Roy,

I agree with every word that Adrian has already said. As I also carry a scope and tripod as well as my camera gear I, like you, prefer to travel as light as possible. For that reason I chose a Canon 300 2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs. The bare lens is fantastic to use, with a 1.4x attached is still very good, with a 2x attached I consider still good and with both 1.4x and 2x stacked still gives, in my opinion, acceptable results.

Find below some original and cropped versions of the same images. All taken with a 2x TC.

tdodd said:

Roy, I have expressed some of my thoughts about IQ and cropping, especially regarding the 50D, on another birding forum. It may be worth a look....

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39814

Here is a 50D example, plus 100% crop, at 400 ISO taken handheld with my rather lowly 100-400 at f/6.3 and 1/250. The lens has an AF microadjustment of +8, which of course I could not adjust on my 40D, if I needed to. I imagine the 300/2.8 prime would yield superior results over my zoom lens, which the 50D could readily capitalise upon....

Click to expand...

Thanks for that Tim, I had already read that thread on birdphotographers.net. While it is a good read what I am really after is 100% crops of birds that were small in the frame to begin with but where a 100% crop size of say 800 x 533 pixels yields a usable web image. I attached a couple of shots which gives the general idea. Are you saying that I could take a bird that was smaller in the frame still and end up with a 100% crop of this quality with the 50D? I have to say that a few examples from the 50D that I have seen of birds that are small in the frame and then very heavily cropped have been disapointing to say the least.

This is also the sort of thing that I am looking for from a 300/2.8 and 2x tc shot. If I can crop a 600mm shot to something like the attached then I would be really gaining.

BTW this heavy crop was made on the 40D and 400/5.6 (which is cheaper still than the 100-400!).

Most examples of large crops are when the shot has been taken from fairly near to the subject to start with, likewise with examples of shots with a 2x tc. The thing is that if I was fairly near to the bird to begin with then I would not need to crop heavily or use a 2x tc if that makes sense.

Two more examples: Avocet with 2x TC, Green Sandpiper with 1.4x and 2x stacked TCs.

Sandpiper said:

Roy,

I agree with every word that Adrian has already said. As I also carry a scope and tripod as well as my camera gear I, like you, prefer to travel as light as possible. For that reason I chose a Canon 300 2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs. The bare lens is fantastic to use, with a 1.4x attached is still very good, with a 2x attached I consider still good and with both 1.4x and 2x stacked still gives, in my opinion, acceptable results.

Find below some original and cropped versions of the same images. All taken with a 2x TC.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that 'sandpiper' that is impressive and more what I am looking for. I notice the first shot shows 300mm in the EXIF whereas the second shot shows 600mm, was it just the second shot that used a 2x tc. The stacked shot is very impressive.

Roy,

Glad to be of help. In answer to your question the shots of winter-plumaged Black-necked Grebe and Avocet were taken with a non-reporting Jessops 2x TC. A Canon 2x TC was used for the summer-plumaged Black-necked Grebe which the camera does recognize. The Green Sandpiper shot was taken using a Sigma 1.4x and Jessops 2x TCs.

Mike.

Sandpiper said:

Roy,

Glad to be of help. In answer to your question the shots of winter-plumaged Black-necked Grebe and Avocet were taken with a non-reporting Jessops 2x TC. A Canon 2x TC was used for the summer-plumaged Black-necked Grebe which the camera does recognize. The Green Sandpiper shot was taken using a Sigma 1.4x and Jessops 2x TCs.

Mike.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that Mike, I was wondering if you had a non reporting tc.
I also know that if you stack converters then only one will be reported which is why I knew the stacked shot was 840mm even thought the EXIF says 420mm.
Your examples could cost me some big bucks

Roy, what I was really getting at in that thread is that IQ goes up the larger the area of a sensor you use, in physical mm. This is why IQ from all 1.6X crop bodies is broadly similar and the first major leap in IQ does not materialise until you go up a scale to 1.3X croppers and then again to full frame sensors. Of course, you need longer glass too, in order to project a correspondingly larger image.

When you crop a 50D image to 800x533, for example, that represents a smaller part of the total sensor area (2.8%) compared with an 800x533 crop from a 40D (4.2%). There is no good reason to expect a 100% crop from a 50D to look as good as a 100% crop from a 40D : less sensor area = less light captured = lower IQ. Indeed, for any crop based on the same number of pixels the 50D stands no chance of matching the 40D. To make the comparison fair you need 50% more pixels in the 50D crop in order to represent an equivalent surface area of the sensor.

This means you should not automatically assume that you can simply to crop harder/tighter just because you have a 50D. In good conditions, with good light, good glass, good technique, accurate AF, no blur, no shake then you probably can crop that much more and get away with it. If one or more of those conditions is not optimum then you may not be able to crop tighter with the 50D, without seeing IQ fall below an acceptable level. That does not mean the IQ from the 50D will be worse than the 40D, just that in less favourable conditions it will not be better.

Feed the 50D sensor a sharp image with plenty of light and it will do a great job of recording that image in finer detail than the 40D can ever manage. Certainly features like AF microadjustment, higher resolution preview, higher resolution LCD and improved Live View AF should help you get there. But, feed the 50D with a poor image, or insufficient light, and it will record those limitations, more faithfully than the 40D can manage. The only way to conceal those flaws is not to crop harder/tighter than you would have done with the 40D.

EDIT 1 : Here's a recent BIF shot with my 50D and 100-400 at 400mm, 1/1600, f/5.6, 400 ISO. Obviously using the dust pump wide open at 400mm may not be the best recipe for sharpness, and 1/1600 does not make my 1/3200 suggested speed for a handheld shot viewed at 100%. Assuming the bird was 30m away, viewed at 100% the DOF for this image is approx 7cm, which means the whole bird is unlikely to look sharp.

There are four cuts of the same image : 1. Unedited full image; 2. Unedited 100% crop; 3. Sharpened 100% crop (no other edits); 4. Sharpened as in 3 but cropped/resized to a more appropriate level.

EDIT 2 : I've thrown in another shot with the same camera/lens settings, this time edited a little and converted as a 50% crop. That's the fifth image.

Nikon Kid said:

Roy, I can hear that money rattling in your pocket, and the big 50's burning right through it, wont be long now. :-O

Roy, why not go to the Bird Fair in August, Canon have a stand very year with all there lenses TC etc etc
for you to try out on birds in the lake, and all the advise you need, you could nail all this in one day.

Click to expand...

Roy, when I said the big 50's burning right through it, I was referring to £50 notes and not 50d, but anyway I did learn alot from tdodd's Tim post.

tdodd said:

Roy, what I was really getting at in that thread is that IQ goes up the larger the area of a sensor you use, in physical mm. This is why IQ from all 1.6X crop bodies is broadly similar and the first major leap in IQ does not materialise until you go up a scale to 1.3X croppers and then again to full frame sensors. Of course, you need longer glass too, in order to project a correspondingly larger image.

When you crop a 50D image to 800x533, for example, that represents a smaller part of the total sensor area (2.8%) compared with an 800x533 crop from a 40D (4.2%). There is no good reason to expect a 100% crop from a 50D to look as good as a 100% crop from a 40D : less sensor area = less light captured = lower IQ. Indeed, for any crop based on the same number of pixels the 50D stands no chance of matching the 40D. To make the comparison fair you need 50% more pixels in the 50D crop in order to represent an equivalent surface area of the sensor.

This means you should not automatically assume that you can simply to crop harder/tighter just because you have a 50D. In good conditions, with good light, good glass, good technique, accurate AF, no blur, no shake then you probably can crop that much more and get away with it. If one or more of those conditions is not optimum then you may not be able to crop tighter with the 50D, without seeing IQ fall below an acceptable level. That does not mean the IQ from the 50D will be worse than the 40D, just that in less favourable conditions it will not be better.

Feed the 50D sensor a sharp image with plenty of light and it will do a great job of recording that image in finer detail than the 40D can ever manage. Certainly features like AF microadjustment, higher resolution preview, higher resolution LCD and improved Live View AF should help you get there. But, feed the 50D with a poor image, or insufficient light, and it will record those limitations, more faithfully than the 40D can manage. The only way to conceal those flaws is not to crop harder/tighter than you would have done with the 40D.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that Tim, I get your drift. As I generally get more shots wrong than right I guess for me it makes sense for me to stick with the 40D.