Canon 300mm f/2.8 VS 500mm f/4.0 (1 Viewer)

chrisli · Feb 29, 2008

I have been shooting birds for sometime now and has been using the Canon 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4xTC, and is looking at purchasing the 500mm f/4.0 however I have some reservation. The lens is huge and heavy and is not that portable. Therefore I was thinking maybe to go for the 300mm f/2.8 instead with a 2xTC, the question is: -

Focal Lenght: -
300mm + 2xTC = 600mm with 1.6 crop factor gives you 960mm
500mm + 1.4xTC = 700mm with 1.3 crop factor gives you 910mm
500mm + 1.4xTC = 700mm with 1.6 crop factor gives you 1120mm
400mm + 1.4xTC = 560mm with 1.3 crop factor gives you 728mm

Obviously the 500mm + 1.4TC with a 1.6 crop factor has the longest focal length.

Question would be for IQ and image size how much of a difference is it between the 300mm + 2xTC and the 500mm + 1.4xTC. Or what would be the best option. I would like to have a lens that is portable and can be easily carried around but have no intention to sacrifice IQ and image size.

Have anyone any experience with the above combine and shed some light.

Cheers

graham catley · Feb 29, 2008

as a basic starter there are some pics on my blog at http://pewit.blogspot.com/
with the 300 2.8 and various converter combos mostly with a 1DIIN but some with a 40D
Kingfishers 40D 300 2.8 and 2x
some of the others including the foxes with 1.4 and 2x converters stacked
the flying Smew with 300 2.8 and 2x converter
owls mainly with 300 2.8 and 1.4x

chrisli · Mar 1, 2008

Graham, Those are really nice bird photography, especially those flight shots, like them all. Just a question, from what I observe, the 300mm f/2.8 seem to be a more practical solution even when stacked with TCs the sharpness and details are still very acceptable, and still very mobile, an apparently I presume most of the flight shots are handheld or on tripod. My main aim is to have mobility and still maintain IQ at a very acceptable level. I mostly take forest birds which is small and skittish, and hyperactive.
Therefore your recommendation would be a 300mm rather than the 500mm and if need to have additional focal length, the stacked TC works. Right.. Thanks/Cheers

Peter Ericsson · Mar 1, 2008

mobility

You want mobility? The 300 is so much easier . Have a look at this

http://www.pbase.com/ingotkfr

Unless you do some heavy gym work outs and get those muscles in shape I'd say you'd do a lot better with the 300 F2.8 . Plus you;ll save a lot of $$$$$

Peter

chrisli · Mar 1, 2008

Peter Ericsson said:
You want mobility? The 300 is so much easier . Have a look at this

http://www.pbase.com/ingotkfr

Unless you do some heavy gym work outs and get those muscles in shape I'd say you'd do a lot better with the 300 F2.8 . Plus you;ll save a lot of $$$$$

Peter

Peter, Those are awesome bird photography, how close were you to them to get such high magnification rate and are those cropped. Are those birds taken in Singapore at the Chinese Garden. Thanks for sharing and the advise.

willforrest · Mar 3, 2008

Consider the 400 f4 with 1.4x for portability. I love this combination as my local patch is mostly woodland so the available light isn't always so good (a slower lens wouldn't be much use). Admittedly not as sharp a lens as 300 2.8 but it depends what you do with the results. Mine just get blogged so producing big prints isn't an issue.
www.bluebirder.blogspot.com

ferco · Mar 3, 2008

willforrest said:
Consider the 400 f4 with 1.4x for portability. I love this combination as my local patch is mostly woodland so the available light isn't always so good (a slower lens wouldn't be much use). Admittedly not as sharp a lens as 300 2.8 but it depends what you do with the results. Mine just get blogged so producing big prints isn't an issue.
www.bluebirder.blogspot.com

400mm f/4? not seen this lens? do you mean the 300 or the 500?
I would go for the 300 2.8 if I were you; so much more diversity with this lens
Haven't had any experience with either lenses but have seen many photos with both and the 300 2.8 seems to get the best results...

Corax67 · Mar 3, 2008

300 f2.8 is the better choice - the 500 is a weightlifters lens, just look at the sports photographers that use them - you can stack teleconverters or just use a 2x with the 300mm.

GYRob · Mar 3, 2008

ferco said:
400mm f/4? not seen this lens? do you mean the 300 or the 500?
I would go for the 300 2.8 if I were you; so much more diversity with this lens
Haven't had any experience with either lenses but have seen many photos with both and the 300 2.8 seems to get the best results...

its the 400f4 DO lens .
Rob.

Markus Jais · Mar 3, 2008

I also was thinking about 2.8/300 + extenders or 4/500 or 4/600. I went with the 4/500L IS and don't regret it for one minute. It's an amazing lens and the image quality with the Canon 1.4x is perfect.

500+1.4x gives you a 1.36x bigger image of the bird in the frame than a 2.8/300 + 2.x. (700/600 * 700/600). That's quite a lot. The 2.8/300 is lighter and cheaper but the extra reach of the 500 is (at least for me) a clear advantage.
If you later own a EOS 1D(s) Mark III (or IIn) you can also use the 2x with AF on the 500 with would give you 8/1000 or 8/1300 (depending on camera).

I use the EOS 40D + 4/500 + 1.4x for almost all my bird photography and I am very happy with it. (at least until
Canon will release a 4/200-500L IS).

Markus

willforrest · Mar 3, 2008

ferco said:
400mm f/4? not seen this lens? do you mean the 300 or the 500?
I would go for the 300 2.8 if I were you; so much more diversity with this lens
Haven't had any experience with either lenses but have seen many photos with both and the 300 2.8 seems to get the best results...

Really?! It's only been around for NINE YEARS!! Seriously though it's worth taking a look at and is much lighter than the 300 f2.8 - second hand examples can be acquired for half the cost of a new 300.

chrisli · Mar 4, 2008

Thanks guys for all your comments and advise, have decided to go for the kill and take the 500mm f/4.0, for the reach, since I already have both the 400mm f/5.6 and the 300mm f/4.0, after lots of consideration, reach is more important to me when you are going for forest birds which small and far.

Canon 300mm f/2.8 VS 500mm f/4.0 (1 Viewer)

More options

chrisli

Well-known member

graham catley

Well-known member

chrisli

Well-known member

Peter Ericsson

Well-known member

chrisli

Well-known member

willforrest

bluebirder

ferco

To error is human

Corax67

Well-known member

GYRob

Well-known member

Markus Jais

Well-known member

willforrest

bluebirder

chrisli

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread