Canon 100-400 with Canon 1.4 vs Canon 300 f2.8 with Canon x 2?

The 100-400 with a 1.4 is going to be f8 at the long end and whilst that will work with AF on your 1D, its not going to be ideal.

The 300 2.8 will be f5.6 with a 2x but the 2x really kicks the hell out of any lens - even the stunning 300 2.8 and IQ really does suffer. I am never too sure whether the shots with that combo are really truly bad or whether or not it just plays on your mind that normally without the TC the 300 2.8 delivers amazing stuff.

So basically, neither is ideal and really is the territory of the last gasp saloon.

The only thing I will say is that the 300 2.8 without a TC is stunning and with a 1.4x is also still far superior to the 100-400.
 
300L 2.8 with 2x extender is quite popular with birders, especially on a 7D for mega reach. The 300L being so good, it holds on with a 2x better than just about anything else. Take a look for yourself here at the two compared side by side - I trust their long lens tests ;) http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

Basically, there looks to be very little in it for central sharpness, but the 300 x2 combo nails it for edge sharpness. That's on a 1Ds3 though, so need not bother a crop camera. Also that combination is not only a whole stop brighter but also a little longer. I would guess it would also have the edge on AF also, and obviously will retain AF on non-1D series cameras.

My view is that the 300 x2 combo is the clear winner overall, mainly because f/5.6 is just a heck of a lot more usable for most people (ie me!) than f/8. But in terms of sharpness alone the 3x price hike is hard to see.
 
You're not really comparing like for like surely?

I mean, 100-400 is what, just over a grand.
The 300 2.8 is around four times more than that.

Shouldn't you be comparing the 100-400 to the 300 F4
 
Nope, my experience of shots from a MkIIN and a 300 2.8 and 2x is that its just about acceptable for newspaper print use.

I have seen what happens with the 600 f4 and the 2x and that seems to loose little.

I do think though that everytime I talk about this subject on here perhaps you all don't get it, but I am not birding with this stuff - I am not trying to take a photo of some tiny robin 10m away, my "prey" is much larger and consequently much further away, so probably the grotty effect of any TC is magnified by air distortion/haze at the distances it takes my shots to.
 
desantnik said:
Nope, my experience of shots from a MkIIN and a 300 2.8 and 2x is that its just about acceptable for newspaper print use.

I have seen what happens with the 600 f4 and the 2x and that seems to loose little.

I do think though that everytime I talk about this subject on here perhaps you all don't get it, but I am not birding with this stuff - I am not trying to take a photo of some tiny robin 10m away, my "prey" is much larger and consequently much further away, so probably the grotty effect of any TC is magnified by air distortion/haze at the distances it takes my shots to.
Click to expand...

Hi,

might be true in your experience, but the 300 F2.8 was supposedly used in the design of the 1.4 and 2x TC's and as far as a I have read on t'internet over the last few years they match the 300mm lens superbly and they are regarded as a great way of getting 600mm with IS a little easier than buying the 600mm lens.

The 100-400 works fine with the 1.4x TC but comparing it to the 300mm F2.8 is just plain daft as the 300mm with both TC's stacked could probably still outresolve the 100-400 with a TC fitted :D

Mike.
 
mikeyb said:
might be true in your experience, but the 300 F2.8 was supposedly used in the design of the 1.4 and 2x TC's and as far as a I have read on t'internet over the last few years they match the 300mm lens superbly and they are regarded as a great way of getting 600mm with IS a little easier than buying the 600mm lens.
Click to expand...

Well, reading stuff on t'internet and seeing it with your own eyes is a little different :thumbs:

To try and put it another way to try to give you a mental picture some of you can relate to, it turns a £3.5k monster of a lens into something you'd expect to pay about 500 quid for. If you can bear that because you need 600mm, go for it. If not, creep a little closer, or in my case wait another second before pressing the button.
 
I haven't got experience with either combo, but I am well aware what a dramatic effect even the tinniest AF error can have. That is particularly obvious with long lenses, and more pronounced with AI-Servo. Extender can mess things up with AF accuracy and particularly speed, so it really helps to have a body with AF-microadjustment.

My advice would be to test both really well with a recent body.
 
When you have a body that can do micro adjustments I know it can detect the lens attached and select the adjustment you've defined for that lens, but does it see a TC attached and pick that up as a seperate set of adjustments? I've never tried it to see...
 
That's a really interesting thought. Might have to try that.

100-400 with a 1.4tc takes you to F8 and gives you an effective 560mm and works well. On my 50D I have used liveview plus zoom to assist focus, but this shot was focussed manually.

110242884.jpg
 
desantnik said:
The 100-400 with a 1.4 is going to be f8 at the long end and whilst that will work with AF on your 1D, its not going to be ideal.

The 300 2.8 will be f5.6 with a 2x but the 2x really kicks the hell out of any lens - even the stunning 300 2.8 and IQ really does suffer. I am never too sure whether the shots with that combo are really truly bad or whether or not it just plays on your mind that normally without the TC the 300 2.8 delivers amazing stuff.

So basically, neither is ideal and really is the territory of the last gasp saloon.

The only thing I will say is that the 300 2.8 without a TC is stunning and with a 1.4x is also still far superior to the 100-400.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for that desantnik :thumbs:

I already have been using the 1.4TC on my 100-400 on my 1D3 and whilst it does autofocus the result is quite a compromise to say the least.

I have read that the 300 2.8 is very tolerant of the 1.4TC and if this lens is all I can afford to get to 600mm with a 2xTC then I'll have to accept the limitations of my pocket I'm afraid.

I have however read that the 2xTC does suite this lens 'quite well' and seen some very good images from this combo. Also bear in mind as I have to make my bed in 'compromiseland' I will be getting one of the most stonking lenses at 300 that can be bought IMO

Many Thanks

Jamie
 
HoppyUK said:
300L 2.8 with 2x extender is quite popular with birders, especially on a 7D for mega reach. The 300L being so good, it holds on with a 2x better than just about anything else. Take a look for yourself here at the two compared side by side - I trust their long lens tests ;) http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

Basically, there looks to be very little in it for central sharpness, but the 300 x2 combo nails it for edge sharpness. That's on a 1Ds3 though, so need not bother a crop camera. Also that combination is not only a whole stop brighter but also a little longer. I would guess it would also have the edge on AF also, and obviously will retain AF on non-1D series cameras.

My view is that the 300 x2 combo is the clear winner overall, mainly because f/5.6 is just a heck of a lot more usable for most people (ie me!) than f/8. But in terms of sharpness alone the 3x price hike is hard to see.
Click to expand...

HoppyUK, Many thanks for your feedback.

I'm already using what I call my 'compromise' body (and a lovely machine my 1.3 FOVCF - 1D3 is!) My question was answered by your post and the price is 3X (but 3x S/H isn't quite the same as the difference new).

My thoughts went along the lines of sell the 100-400 and don't try to lug around something bigger than the 300 2.8 (apart from the 500 f5.6 I couldn't afford anything bigger anyway) ALSO it's a cracking lens at 300 bare and I won't be stuck with 500mm all the time, so versatility/compromise is writ large in my comparison.

Many Thanks for taking time out to share.

Jamie
 
apkent said:
You're not really comparing like for like surely?

I mean, 100-400 is what, just over a grand.
The 300 2.8 is around four times more than that.

Shouldn't you be comparing the 100-400 to the 300 F4
Click to expand...

apkent, absolutely a very unfair (I hope) comparison but it is the move I have wanted to make for a long time. I've added comments above to previous posters which might shed more light on this.

Many Thanks

Jamie
 
mikeyb said:
Hi,

might be true in your experience, but the 300 F2.8 was supposedly used in the design of the 1.4 and 2x TC's and as far as a I have read on t'internet over the last few years they match the 300mm lens superbly and they are regarded as a great way of getting 600mm with IS a little easier than buying the 600mm lens.

The 100-400 works fine with the 1.4x TC but comparing it to the 300mm F2.8 is just plain daft as the 300mm with both TC's stacked could probably still outresolve the 100-400 with a TC fitted :D

Mike.
Click to expand...

Mike,

You are helping me to make this a no brainer...many thanks

Jamie
 
desantnik said:
When you have a body that can do micro adjustments I know it can detect the lens attached and select the adjustment you've defined for that lens, but does it see a TC attached and pick that up as a seperate set of adjustments? I've never tried it to see...
Click to expand...

Yes, well at least my images with the Canon 1.4TC on multiples the FL by 1.4 in the EXIF.

jamie
 
I hope I haven't bored anyone by replying to each and every helper here on TP not forgetting daugiras and Byker28i and the Kingfisher.

End Result, I bought a 300mm f2.8L and a 2xTC this evening on TP from 'nowler' and am looking forward to its arrival.

Thought: A very very nice 'compromiseland' to be in.

Thanks All once again!

Jamie

ps watch out for the sale of my 100-400 and Canon 100 2.8 to help fund this purchase :)
J
 
And as you've discovered, 300L 3.8 holds its value, as well as being a heck of a lot cheaper than a 500/600L 4! So does 100-400L :)
 
You won't regret it, have fun.

I too had the 100-400 but since getting the 300 2.8 a couple of years ago it was never used so in the end it went to fund the 70-200 2.8 IS

Stu
 
Jamie

I just purchased the 300f/2.8 for exactly the same reasons as you, its relatively lightweight and so so versatile with the TC'S :thumbs:
 
desantnik said:
When you have a body that can do micro adjustments I know it can detect the lens attached and select the adjustment you've defined for that lens, but does it see a TC attached and pick that up as a seperate set of adjustments? I've never tried it to see...
Click to expand...

I can confirm that it definitely does... on my 1D MKIV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top