300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4

twhite87

twhite87

Messages
1,829
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks.

I'm looking to buy a new lens for wildlife at around the 600mm mark, but I'm stuck in two minds. I already have a Canon 2x mk III, and a 60D. I'm wondering whether a 300mm f2.8 would be good when used with the converter, or should I bite the bullet and just buy the 600mm f4?

Can anyone give some advice on this, and/or experience with either set-ups?
 
Can't advise on that set up but I believe the 500 f/4 should be regarded as an option. By all accounts it's considered a better more manageable lens than the 600.

You've also got the option of sticking the converter on it too.
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Can't advise on that set up but I believe the 500 f/4 should be regarded as an option. By all accounts it's considered a better more manageable lens than the 600.

You've also got the option of sticking the converter on it too.
Click to expand...

Thanks Brash, I'll take a look.
 
I recently tested my 70-200 F4 L IS against my 400 5.6L prime using a 2x converter on the zoom and tbh I was amazed at how little difference there was (fortunately the 5D I have focuses at F8, centre spot only though). Given you would have 2 lenses using the 300/converter it may suit you better than a 600 prime. I'd be very tempted to rent both (in your case) and see what I preferred. I hired a 400 2.8 a while back, it was a monster, far too big for me to use. I prefer IS even when shooting fast shutter speeds and moving action, just seems to freeze the image better for me.
 
Nae worries. I have the 500mm f/4 MK I, which is by far the best lens I've had. You'll pick up a second hand one for little more than £4000 or the new Mark II for near double that.

If you wanna go really long there's the Sigma 800mm. I have one of those also and it is a beast of a thing (I've been considering selling it too).
 
A canon x focul length lens with a x2 converet to reach y fucul lenght will never ever be as good quality as a canon prime of y focul length

however the difference can by nominal depending on what your shooting and of course the converter method is more versatile :)
 
I was considering a similar option last year. A MkII 300 f2.8. And a pair of MKIII converters in place of my 500 f4. I had noticed a few photographers using this combo. After some good advice on here I decided to stick with my 500. I mainly use it for wildlife and I asked myself this question. How often have I wished that it was a 300 and how often have I wished it was a 600. Very rarely have I wished that it was a 300 but I've often wished it was a 600.

Yes it's a heavy lens but its not unmanageable. I've rigged up a waist belt that holds a monopod that has given me a bit more freedom with it when I don't want to take a tripod with me.
 
Well I have a 300mm 2.8 mk2 and, my old favourite, a 400 DO and I use them both with mk 3 1.4 and 2x extenders with a 1Dx....of course I can af with the 1 series at f8 and the mk3 adaptor on the DO is excellent.....but unless you are going to have the ability to use f8 ie get a 1 series or a 5D3 then I'd go for the 300 and extenders.....I also mainly shoot wildlife.

As you already have a 1.6 crop, you'll get excellent reach with this and quite a bit lighter (although the new 600 is a lot better than the old one).

I know what Kipax is trying to say....and you'll never get everyone to agree, but the new mk 2 300 plus extenders is a great combo.

George.
 
George said:
I know what Kipax is trying to say....and you'll never get everyone to agree, but the new mk 2 300 plus extenders is a great combo..
Click to expand...

I ahve a 1dx.. i have a 70-200 mkII 2.8 and I have a 400 2.8 is .... i ahve the mkIII extenders.. yes they are a great combo.. never said or even hinted otherwise... I am not "trying" to say anything.. Its a simple FACT that a prime at y focul will be better than a prime plus extender at same y focul.. if all things are even such as all canon... ask canon if you want.. see that they are "trying" to say? I also said the difference maybe nominal..as in you may not even notice..

my spelling might not be up to much.. but i genrally dont have trouble saying what I want thanks :)
 
Sorry, was just pulling your leg gently........:exit:
 
Last edited:
Had the 500f4 Nikon and sold it thinking it would only need a 300 and convertor--I was so wrong. For birds and wildlife you need the longest you can get. I bought the 600 f4 with a 1.4 convertor( still have 300 and convertor) and glad I did. Its a big commitment as its heavy to carry but I have carried it for miles and used it at the end of it and carried it back--then had to go for a lie down afterwards..lol My advice is to consider where you would use it--do you walk long distances, do you use hides, do you shoot small birds etc etc and then decide.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Had the 500f4 Nikon and sold it thinking it would only need a 300 and convertor--I was so wrong. For birds and wildlife you need the longest you can get. I bought the 600 f4 with a 1.4 convertor( still have 300 and convertor) and glad I did. Its a big commitment as its heavy to carry but I have carried it for miles and used it at the end of it and carried it back--then had to go for a lie down afterwards..lol My advice is to consider where you would use it--do you walk long distances, do you use hides, do you shoot small birds etc etc and then decide.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with Mark here...
I have the same set up, but in the canon flavour.. :)
 
Birding specialist lens? 500mm minimum, and if you can afford; 600mm f4 or 800mm f5.6 ... I will not go into this route "300mm + 2x converter" ...

If cost is big issue, why not consider Tamron 150-600mm... most affordable telephoto lens at 600mm. If not comfortable with BIF and AF at 600mm end, splash out cash for the big white primes :)

GL with your research and purchase..
 
..but are we talking birding or wildlife?.....could be important, OP said "wildlife"?
 
I reviewed the 2.0MKIII TC here:-

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii.421246/

In my experience, the IQ is excellent (tested on a 200mm F2.8L and 300mm F2.8L), however the focus speed & focus tracking take a hit, and Canon acknowledge that there is a reduction of 75% in AF drive speed when using the 2.0TC MKIII.

Therefore I avoid using the 2.0TC when shooting fast moving subjects , and use a 1.4TC with either 200/300 F2.8L. instead.

No experience of the 600mm F4.
 
Last edited:
Longest and fastest you can afford. If you travel abroad regularly, a 500 f4 is a sight easier to fly with than a 600. A 300mm and tc's will always be a compromise.
 
If your near me some time I have both 300 f 2.8 is and 600 f4 is mk11 you could try.
 
George said:
..but are we talking birding or wildlife?.....could be important, OP said "wildlife"?
Click to expand...

I'm talking wildlife, not just birding. I'm a keen mammalogist as well as ornithologist. I've looking at a trip soon to photograph wildlife (game and birds) in the masai mara. But obviously would like to buy a lens to get used to it, rather than rent.
 
sureshot said:
If your near me some time I have both 300 f 2.8 is and 600 f4 is mk11 you could try.
Click to expand...

I may just take you up on that offer sometime!
 
I had a mk1 300 with a mk3 2x extender which I then replaced with a mk2 300 - there was marginal improvement in image quality but instead, there was a more noticeable improvement in AF speed and accuracy. This setup along with a 1.4x extender has served me really well and is surprisingly diverse in its application, however I still have a need for 'more' focal length and the mk2 600 is on my radar - the mk1 600 is just far too heavy for the way I like to work. I'm then in the dilemma that I love my mk2 300 so much, that selling it to fund the upgrade is not an option.

Anyway, to add further content to your pontificating I have added a picture below of a Gold Finch. This I took about a month or so ago hand holding at 600mm, F/5.6, 1/250 and ISO 640 using the mk2 300 and an mk3 2x extender.

***if you click on it, you should be taken to the larger resolution one on Flickr***

 
Last edited:
twhite87 said:
I'm talking wildlife, not just birding. I'm a keen mammalogist as well as ornithologist. I've looking at a trip soon to photograph wildlife (game and birds) in the masai mara. But obviously would like to buy a lens to get used to it, rather than rent.
Click to expand...

Well I'm going to the Mara and Serengeti in March for a few weeks, been there before, and the thing about being there is you'll probably be in a vehicle most of the time, so weight isn't a problem. In fact I'm hoping to borrow a 200-400 plus extender for that trip, but I certainly wouldn't consider buying that lens as it's too big and heavy for the great majority of my photography as it involves carrying stuff, some people I know swear by a 600 but most of the people tend to have something a bit shorter, particularly if you are using a crop frame.
Chances are you'll get quite close as well, so something like a 70-200 on FF is very useful.

There is no doubt that for birding then the 600 would be the first choice, and you still have the option of a 1.4 extender on that, however it is a big lens and of limited use for mammals of the size you'll come across...except of course for closeups of eyes etc.

At the end of the day, trying both out would be ideal, and if you could take up Nick's kind offer that would be ideal, worth a bit of a drive for!!
 
George, how would/do you take big lenses on your trip(s)?

In a few weeks time I'm going to Oz and NZ and am currently looking at leaving my 300mm f/2.8 Siggy at home as it's too heavy to go on the plane as hand luggage.with the other stuff I need to take. I guess it could go in the hold, but I'm a bit reluctant to do that. So right now, I'm taking my 50D, 10-20mm, 15-85mm, 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x 2.0x TCs..
 
I use both the 2x and 1.4x converters with my 300 f2.8 IS and love the combination. I have used the 600 before but found it too big to manoeuvre around, all my gear fits into a Think Tank Airport Ultralight and something to think about if you planning a trip.The 600 might not get on as hand luggage.. I posted the "Head Over Heels" shot of the Puffins on the Birds Thread using the 300 plus the 2x III converter
 
GeeJay57 said:
George, how would/do you take big lenses on your trip(s)?

In a few weeks time I'm going to Oz and NZ and am currently looking at leaving my 300mm f/2.8 Siggy at home as it's too heavy to go on the plane as hand luggage.with the other stuff I need to take. I guess it could go in the hold, but I'm a bit reluctant to do that. So right now, I'm taking my 50D, 10-20mm, 15-85mm, 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x 2.0x TCs..
Click to expand...

I have a number of different options depending on which airline, which class etc.

Fortunately not many of my trips are on charter/budget airlines, but these are the most difficult..I use a Lowepro rucksack loaded to the max allowable weight for carry on, then wear a Gitzo jacket with HUGE pockets which will take anything up to a 70-200 2.8 and a 1 Dx body, they can weigh the rucksack (charters are the worst for that IMO) but they won't weigh your jacket...and when you are through security just put the items in your pocket back in the rucksack. I'm still well below the weight of some of the other passengers...!!

If it's a scheduled carrier, and I suspect you will be, check the weight allowances prior to travel..and also if you can carry on more than 1 item, which most allow. I tend to put all my bodies and lenses in my rucksack, it will take 2 pro bodies, a 16-35, a 24-70, a 70-200 and a 300 2.8...but it's heavy!! As I usually travel in the sharp end on long haul, they are pretty unlikely to bother, but in economy in the past I've left the 300 out and just carried the 500 f4 in my hand as a separate item...this worked when I was using SAS to get up to Spitzbergen...only problem I had was when I was asked if I had fluid in my thermos!!!

I think you are wise not to take a super tele prime, what you have will cover the majority of situations and be relatively portable, as of course you won't want to put anything valuable in the hold.....I'd consider borrowing or renting a second body however, if you have a body problem with only one you are finished!!

Also you'll want storage backup, I use a Nexto but there are many options on that.

Hope you have a great trip!!

George.
 
Thanks for the info..

The biggest problem is weight. I'm only allowed 7kg for hand luggage (Cathay Pacific, economy).

The kit I've mentioned plus my Swarovski bins will fit in a Lowepro Hatchback 22 and weighs just under the limit. Same kit minus the Swaro's in a Peli 1500 is over 7kg..

I'm considering putting my 20D in a hard case inside my suitcase, which is a hard sided Samsonite. I think this should be OK. If it gets broken, it really doesn't owe me much and isn't worth a huge amount now. I will take the battery and memory card out. That said, maybe I can just put the body in my jacket pocket instead..

The airline do allow a small personal item in addition to hand luggage, so the Mrs can take her handbag for example. She is also taking her camera kit (450D, 18-135, 70-300 and G12) plus her Swaro bins in her Lowepro Hatchback..

Not sure if I could include my 300 f/2.8 as my handbag.. :)

We are taking in the Melbourne GP and going out and about too. So lots of different subject matter... Should be a lot of fun..
 
Sounds a good trip, Glenn...Yes it would be nice to have the 300 for that, but it's a lot to lug around for the rest of the trip...I'd enjoy the GP for the sound and spectacle, difficult to get great shots unless you're trackside, I think the 2x converter on the 70-200 (Hope that's correct) should be fine, the 20D in the suitcase is a good idea as a backup...and you don't have to worry about expensive kit left in the hotel too much!!
 
To the OP..

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread..

I haven't used a 600mm f/4 and would struggle at the moment to justify the cost of one too, but I've seen more than a few being used for birding.

So far, I've found that 300mm is usually too short for birds, but very good for other things I take pictures of (Motorsport, wildlife). It's not too big to carry in the field and not too long for a lot of trackside situations. With a 1.4x it gives extra reach with very little penalty. A 2.0x gives 600 f/5.6, but slows focusing and reduces IQ a little. I've still manage to get some decent shots with a 2.0x. My lens is a Sigma btw..

A Getty tog let me play with a Canon 300mm f/2.8 at Le Mans a few years ago. I thought that it was a superb lens and is on my wish list. I'm sure the 600mm f/4 is superb too, but it's not (currently) on my wish list.
 
GeeJay57 said:
To the OP..

My lens is a Sigma btw..
Click to expand...

This was my next question. I've been looking at the Sigma version of the 300 f2.8, and wondered whether it would be compatible with my Canon 2x mk 3?
 
I know that the sigma works with the MkIII 1.4 Tim so there should be no reason why it wouldn't work with the x2.
 
Gaz J said:
I know that the sigma works with the MkIII 1.4 Tim so there should be no reason why it wouldn't work with the x2.
Click to expand...

Thankd Gaz. I'm going to do some investigating. Will report back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top