A question for anyone with a 300mm f/2.8 lens (Canon or Nikon) ...

Wail

Wail

Messages
6,671
Name
Wail
Edit My Images
No
What made you decide on the 300mm f/2.8 vs. going for the 200mm f/2 with & 1.7 (or 1.4) tele-converter?

From what I read about the Nikon 200mm f/2 it is a fantastic lens, even with the 2x TC? So, wouldn't that be a better option?

I know the "logical" answer is that I am wrong in my assumption .. otherwise Canon and Nikon wouldn't be making the 300 f/2.8 ... but I would like to hear "real" user's experiences.

Thanks for any feedback.
 
Really depends what you want to use it for...

I would (personally) only use any extender on a select group of primes as long as it doesn't degrade IQ too much.

Now I definitely don't mean to encourage pixel peeping but consider the intended use of your images and then test the suitability of your lens, camera and extender combo.

Practical shooting conditions (not too long or short) + acceptible IQ for intended use = your answer.

P.S.

Always try to avoid the extender if possible...IMHO
 
Thank you for the feedback.

I whole heartedly agree, with regards to the extender / converter. However, everything I've read about the 200/2 tells me it's one fantastic lens even with a 2x extender / converter.

Hence why I'm curious.
 
For Canon users, price is a real consideration. The 300/2.8 is £3500ish, but the 200/2 is £4000+. Plus the 200/2 wasn't even an option until about a year ago.

But I don't think Nikon users have either of those excuses.
 
StewartR,

Thanks for the feedback ...

I've just checked the prices for the four lenses in question; and you're absolutely right! It didn't cross my mind that the Canon 200/2 would be that expensive. It was always my thought that the two manufacturers would price similar items close to one another.

So, are you saying for Nikon users it's better to go with the 200/2 & TCs?
 
Well I went for the 200m and TC's rather than the 300mm route. Two reasons really, I got a very good deal on the 200mm and at the time it was a far more useful focal range for me than 300mm would have been.

Aside from cost, I think the answer to your question lies in the following, if you were shooting at 300mm would you be more likely to want a longer or shorter focal length? If longer then 300mm + TC's might be the answer, if it's shorter, then a 200mm + TC's will probably suit better.
 
I got mine to have an excellent 300mm, a very capable 420mm and an acceptable, portable and handholdable 600mm.

Bob
 
The MTF charts show what happens when you fit an extender. Canon publishes them for all their lenses on the US site, but I think charts for lenses plus extenders may only be avilable in book form, 'EF Lens Work III'? Maybe they're on the Japan site.

The charts only give a brief snapshot of sharpness impact, but in all cases there is a reduction in contrast, especially towards the edges and corners. And where it is possible to make some rough comparisons of lens plus extender vs a similar spec longer lens, the latter always wins. Nikon will be affected just the same.



PS Wouldn't it be nice is someone made an extender with IS/VR :)
 
As some one who owned the 300mm IS and a 200mm f1.8 with TC (Which Stewart R now owns), I definitely would recommend the 200mm route even though It does not have IS. It just gave me more flexibility and options.

But if you are mainly shooting at 300mm plus then the 300mm 2.8 would be better.

You pays your money..........
 
NorthernNikon said:
....

Aside from cost, I think the answer to your question lies in the following, if you were shooting at 300mm would you be more likely to want a longer or shorter focal length? If longer then 300mm + TC's might be the answer, if it's shorter, then a 200mm + TC's will probably suit better.
Click to expand...

That's a very good argument .. and regretably, right now I am not too sure what range would be suitable for what I have in mind (shooting in the desert of Saudi Arabia).


Canon Bob said:
I got mine to have an excellent 300mm, a very capable 420mm and an acceptable, portable and handholdable 600mm.

Bob
Click to expand...

How good are the 300/2.8 with a 2x TC? All my understanding is that they get a bit too soft with that much of an Extender?


corny said:
As some one who owned the 300mm IS and a 200mm f1.8 with TC (Which Stewart R now owns), I definitely would recommend the 200mm route even though It does not have IS. It just gave me more flexibility and options.

But if you are mainly shooting at 300mm plus then the 300mm 2.8 would be better.

You pays your money..........
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, then why did you sell the 200/1.8 ?
 
Canon Bob said:
I got mine to have an excellent 300mm, a very capable 420mm and an acceptable, portable and handholdable 600mm.

Bob
Click to expand...

Wail said:
How good are the 300/2.8 with a 2x TC? All my understanding is that they get a bit too soft with that much of an Extender?
Click to expand...

Got mine for very much the same reasons as Canon Bob. An example of that lens with the Canon 2x TC is here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=95537

IanC_UK posted some shots of Dippers in the Bird section within the last few days for some other examples.
 
We bought the Canon 300mm 2.8L IS primarily for a second birding lens, and so far we couldn't be more pleased with it. The 2X TC is living on the lens and producing some great images from a lens much lighter and more portable than the 500mm f4L.
 
:thumbs: thank you for the feedback and link.

I recall that shot and thought of how fantastic the DoF was :)
 
CT said:
We bought the Canon 300mm 2.8L IS primarily for a second birding lens, and so far we couldn't be more pleased with it. The 2X TC is living on the lens and producing some great images from a lens much lighter and more portable than the 500mm f4L.
Click to expand...

CT said:
Read this review.

Andy isn't gilding the lily - the lens really is that good with a 2XTC.
Click to expand...

Thank you .. that's a really good review. I didn't think the 300/2.8 would be that great with the 2x TC, glad to see I was wrong :)
 
If you don't mind me asking, then why did you sell the 200/1.8 ?[/QUOTE]

Financial issues at the time.
 
:) sorry to intrude into personal issues, and thank you for the explanation.
 
One of Jan's with the 300mm 2.8 and 2XTC and it's a crop!

3422131030_69d20e6d8a_o.jpg
 
One word ...

fantastic
 
Urban Myth - Canon developed TC's specifically for the 300mm lens

How true is anyones guess but I bought both TC's with this lens!

Carl.
 
CarlOgden said:
Urban Myth - Canon developed TC's specifically for the 300mm lens

How true is anyones guess but I bought both TC's with this lens!

Carl.
Click to expand...

You could make a good case for it. The 300/2.8 probably outsells all of Canon's L primes put together. The MTFs prove it is outstandingly sharp, even amongst its peers, and any extender optimised for this lens will surely work very well with most other lenses either side.

With a couple of TCs you get a wonderful array of amazing fire power: 300/2.8, 420/4 and 600/5.6 all with IS. 600/5.6 is very useable, still with AF on crop cameras which gives an equiv of 960mm on a 1.6x. The whole combo is far more wieldy than the 600/4 anti-tank bazooka - half the weight, barely more than half the length, and half the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top