Canon 300 f2.8 on a 40D. (1 Viewer)

[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]

sample shots

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]

300mm f2.8 + 2x tc

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.