• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

300 4L + 2x TC vs 400/5.6L + 1.4x TC? (1 Viewer)

JCL

Well-known member
I am looking to get a decent long prime to go with my 20D to snap some birdies. I'm after 500-600 reach (+ 1.6 x). I want the option of handholdability & transportability, as much of my work will be in rainforest (coupled with a 580 Speedlite).

I can't justify the big bucks lenses, and am currently oscillating between (a) 300/4L coupled with 2x TC and (b) 400/5.6L coupled with 1.4x TC.

Can anyone advise which to go for? Does the quality drop off more with the 2x, even if on a 300mm lens?

I'd like to still be able to use AF, and whereas the TC on both options takes this above the Canon official AF/f stop compatibility (f5.6, I think), I've heard rumours that AF can actually work at f8. Is this true?

Thanks.
 
The pin taping trick may work to get AF at f8. Even so, it will be so slow as to be almost useless in a rainforest. For handholding in a RF I would go with the 300 + 1.4x.
 
I'm using the 400mm f5,6 sometimes together with the Canon 1.4x. It does autofocus but very very very slowly and to be honest I have yet to take a sharp photo hand held witht he teleconverter fitted. It's fine if braced on branch, bean bag, tripod etc. - very sharp infact - but the autofocus is too slow to be of much use except on the most stationary of birds. Anything in shadow and the autofocus just stops working. However switching to manual focus is real easy.

The Tamron 1.5x converter which some members use, still allows fast autofocus with the 400mm f5,6 but as to whether it's as sharp as the Canon 1.4x I don't know.

Considering you'll be in the Rain Forest, I'd take it will be mainly in shadow? - in which case I'd say the 300mm would be better - preferably with IS! You''d still need a decent amount of light for the AF to work properly. I've seen the 300mm used with the 1.4x which gives superb results but I can't recall examples using the 2x.
 
I have the 300mm, 1.4x Canon and 2x Tokina teleconverters. No 400mm but I also have a 100-400mm. I've used all of these in various combinations and the only one I can really recommend is the 300mm with the 1.4x teleconverter.

300mm f/4 IS with 1.4x you still have autofocus that works well
300mm f/4 IS with 2x you lose autofocus and are about too long to handhold without great light

400mm f/5.6 with 1.4x will not have autofocus (except with taped contacts in very bright light) and without the IS you are talking very hard to handhold.
400mm f/5.6 with 2x - out of the question - about too dark to manual focus

When using a teleconverter you lose 1 to 2 stops and then on top of that you need to give up an additional stop for sharpness due to losses caused by the teleconverter. Light is precious!

I also use a 580 flash with a Better-beamer - it helps but it doesn't make up for a proper lens.

There is a reason the f/4 400, 500 & 600 lenses cost so much ... there simply isn't a good substitute. If you want reach in less than perfect light you need to spend the money.
 
As Ian points out, the Tamron 1.4X TC will allow the 400 F5.6 to retain AF capability. It works good enough in decent light to capture fliers. Whether you'd have enough light under a canopy, is debatable (even using a 580+BB). You could always use a monopod to help stabilize the 400.

As Jim points out, there's not much choice here if your budget is limited. A 300mm F2.8 with a 1.4X would be nice. But, if you are going to spend almost $4000usd, you might as well get the 500mm F4.

Steve
 
Jim

Do you have any example shots with the 300 f4 and x2 ? I currently have the Canon x1.4 with does give excellent results on the 300 f4. I am toying with getting the x2 for fair weather use on the odd occassion when I could do with the extra reach. If it gave acceptable results I'd pay the £200 but I am not prepared to splash out on another lens because the 300 + 1.4 combo won't get it.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
JCL if you get the 300f4 the 1.4 converter will be on your lens 95% of the time. you could use the 400 plus 1.4x will give 560 you could use a monopod with this combo,the only draw back with the 400 is the minimum focus is about 11feet the 300 is about 5feet.Ian Kerso has several 400 5.6L lens for sale(see the post about no 400 anywhere) i got one of him a couple of months ago so can recommend him.
 
robski said:
Jim

Do you have any example shots with the 300 f4 and x2 ? I currently have the Canon x1.4 with does give excellent results on the 300 f4. I am toying with getting the x2 for fair weather use on the odd occassion when I could do with the extra reach. If it gave acceptable results I'd pay the £200 but I am not prepared to splash out on another lens because the 300 + 1.4 combo won't get it.

Cheers

I went ahead a took a few shots just to see how the teleconverters compared. I had never done it to compare between converters. So ... here is what I did:

using the Canon 300mm f/4 IS L lens on a Canon 20D camera - all of this mounted on a tripod in my living room - I pointed it outside (through a closed double-pane window) and took a few photos using a remote shutter release. The subject is a tree that was about 25 feet away.

Camera settings were: ISO 800 - aperture f/8 - Aperture priority mode - spot metering - RAW mode

Lens settings were: Image Stabilization off - AutoFocus on (except with 2x where it would not work)

Post processing was restricted to just adjusting brightness levels so they were about equal. No sharpening or noise reduction was applied. The shots were output as high quality JPEGs and uploaded to my website. They are rather large (around 1.5 meg each)

First photo: No teleconverter

Second photo: 1.4x Canon teleconverter

Third photo: Kenko 2x TelePlus Pro 300 teleconverter

These shots show sharpness issues but don't show address contrast issues or color rendition very well. I'll try to put together a better test on my website a bit later for anyone interested.

BTW ... for anyone wondering, the 2nd photo is reporting a focal length of 300mm because I left the tape over the contacts on the teleconverter. I have the tape there because I use 1.4x with my 100-400mm lens at times and it looses autofocus with the teleconverter unless taped.

Can't see the EXIF info? Get this little gem of program: Opanda IExif - it's freeware!
 
Thanks for that Jim.

A more useful test maybe to take 3 shots and increase the lens to subject distance accordingly to keep the subject the same size in the frame. i.e 10 yards, 14yards and 20yards. Other tests I've seen they have resampled to compare which can also be misleading.

cheers
 
Thanks All for comments.

I am wondering whether ther 400mm f4 DO IS USM may not be a better bet. There's a separate thread on that one - but anyone have a feel for using it without mono- or tripod?
 
JCL said:
Thanks All for comments.

I am wondering whether ther 400mm f4 DO IS USM may not be a better bet. There's a separate thread on that one - but anyone have a feel for using it without mono- or tripod?

The 400mm f/4 would be a much better choice! At over 4x the price it certainly should be.

And yes, the 400mm can be hand held. That is due to the Image Stabilization that it has. That, along with the faster f/4 glass, makes it hand holdable. But if you go throwing a 1.4x teleconverter on it then it will no longer be very hand holdable. Remember, it is a lot heavier than a 300 f/4 or a 400 f/5.6.
 
I agree with Jim. I have the 400/4 and it makes a nice travel telephoto.

BUT... I'm not sure its better for use inside a rainforest. Animal photography in a forest is tough. Even w/o a pod, the 400/4 is a bit bulky to carry around, moreso if you have a flash attached.
 
JCL said:
I am looking to get a decent long prime to go with my 20D to snap some birdies. I'm after 500-600 reach (+ 1.6 x). I want the option of handholdability & transportability, as much of my work will be in rainforest (coupled with a 580 Speedlite).

I can't justify the big bucks lenses, and am currently oscillating between (a) 300/4L coupled with 2x TC and (b) 400/5.6L coupled with 1.4x TC.

Can anyone advise which to go for? Does the quality drop off more with the 2x, even if on a 300mm lens?

I'd like to still be able to use AF, and whereas the TC on both options takes this above the Canon official AF/f stop compatibility (f5.6, I think), I've heard rumours that AF can actually work at f8. Is this true?

Thanks.

I did a shoot-out recently between the 400 5.6L and 300 f4 L IS, with and without TCs.

Here are the crops:
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/55931527/original

Good luck on your final choice,

Romy
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top