Canon 2x Converter for 300mm f2.8

pete.rush

pete.rush

Messages
3,321
Name
Peter Rushworth
Edit My Images
No
I recently acquired a canon 300mm f2.8 and have had some great success with and without the 1.4x TC I own for motorsport, I accept the drawbacks with the 1.4x TC, but I'm thinking I would like to try the 2x TC with this lens. Has anyone had any experience of using the 300mm f2.8 with a 2x TC for motorsports, I accept, loss of 2 f-stops, autofocus speed significantly reduced, possible hunting if autofocus lost and loss of images quality, but is 600mm f5.6 still worth all that pain, or is this combo more suited for other types of photography.....I'm also using a 1D MKIIn
 
is it an IS 300 ?

The 300 2.8 IS is one of the few lenses that deals well with the 2x converter, i suspect the 400 2.8 IS would be the same. Not sure about the NON IS versions but would assume they are equally well suited to the 2x converter.

Barn_Owl28%7E0.jpg
 
Thanks Ian, yes its the 300mm f2.8 IS version
 
Have never used a 2x with the 300mm f2.8L IS, but well known wildlife tog Andy Rouse says he never used one as it degraded pure IQ too much..

A real shame he doesn't post on Warehouse Express forum anymore :(
 
They are supposd to take both TCs well, they were designed with that in mind apparently.
 
Kieron Nevison said:
I have not used the 300mm but I have used my 2x converter on the 500mm 2.8 is on my 1ds mk III. The image quality was much better than I was expecting, it was great. But could only auto fucus with the centre spot. As it was acting as a f5.6 lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments.

Don't you mean 500mm f4? as that would only autofocus centre point with a 2x converter on a 1D because it would make the lens combo f8. You still have all the focus points available on the 300mm f2.8 + 2x TC because its only f5.6 if I've understood the manual right.
 
Like Ian says, you need a very sharp mother lens for a 2x extender to be any good. Fortunately, the 300 2.8 is very sharp. I think quite a few folks see 600 5.6 as quite an appealing plan, myself included.

I would hire a 2x extender from StewartR ( www.lensesforhire.co.uk ) and give it a whirl :thumbs:

You can check out side by side comparisons at TheDigitalPicture. If this link works, you can compare it against a 600 4, at f/8 on a 1Ds3. It hangs on pretty well in the centre. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
 
I rarely take the 2XTC off the 300mm 2.8L IS - wonderful combination.

3422131030_69d20e6d8a_o.jpg


With the 2X converter right into the light...

4336_6540370874ac3bd16dfb85.jpg


I think to maximise the flexibility of this lens you just gotta get both converters.
 
CT said:
I rarely take the 2XTC off the 300mm 2.8L IS - wonderful combination.

<snip>

I think to maximise the flexibility of this lens you just gotta get both converters.
Click to expand...

Well that's something to take note of. Two of TP's best birders say 300 2.8 with 2x TC is a good combo, in the same thread :thumbs:

Good comment about using both 1.4x and 2x converters, kind of a 300-600 2.8-5.6 zoom. Now imagine if Canon launched that as a standalone lens!! No wonder they seem to have thrown everything they've got at the 300 2.8 to make it so stunningly sharp (Canon's sharpest lens, bar none?) and no wonder it's so popular.

The other thing I especially like about the 300 2.8 is that it is almost affordable, compared to other super-primes at least, and they hold they value extremely well.
 
Thanks for the comments, the flexibility of having a 300/420/600mm f2.8/4/5.6 lens does appeal with the addition of a 2x TC, will have to see if there room on santa's list for this year :D
 
HoppyUK said:
No wonder they seem to have thrown everything they've got at the 300 2.8 to make it so stunningly sharp (Canon's sharpest lens, bar none?) and no wonder it's so popular.
Click to expand...

I think it was undisputedly the sharpest Hoppy, but I think it might be just pipped now by the 200mm f2 L IS. Not sure, but that's I seem to recall reading somewhere?

 
Thanks for starting this thread Pete. as i am looking at the 300 f/2.8 for my wildlife stuff and have the convertors this thread makes for interesting reading.

It sounds like it performs similar to the 400mm f/2.8 in that it can take either of the TC'S with no trouble.

Has anyone tried the 300 with the 2x and 1.4x stacked? i found the loss of IQ on the 400 was too much
 
Again thanks for the info, and some cracking images CT

Remember reading that post on digiscoped a few years back, or at least the one about TCs, even bookmarked the website, of course with TCs light conditions play a significant role in getting a good images but I'm very tempted :D
 
It depends what you call acceptable IQ.... I'd file it under "if you really have to" for motorsport, but it does depend on your expectations I guess...

The 1.4x is perfectly acceptable, 2x is pushing it in my book
 
desantnik said:
It depends what you call acceptable IQ.... I'd file it under "if you really have to" for motorsport, but it does depend on your expectations I guess...

The 1.4x is perfectly acceptable, 2x is pushing it in my book
Click to expand...

thats the same conclusion i've come to :)
 
I don't think IQ would be the issue for motorsport. If the combo can resolve fine detail in a small bird it should able cope with a Scooby. The loss of AF speed would rule it out though realistically.
 
I can confirm the 2xmk2 on a 400 2.8 IS is very usable like on the 300 2.8 IS.
 
CT said:
I don't think IQ would be the issue for motorsport. If the combo can resolve fine detail in a small bird it should able cope with a Scooby. The loss of AF speed would rule it out though realistically.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it has more to do with actual subject distance than anything else.... at 600mm a small bird is how far away when it fills the frame?

The air distortion and the subsequent degredation of AF ability I think is what kills it more than anything.

Its a point I've been trying to get people to muse on for some time, but nobody seems to want to bite...
 
desantnik said:
Actually, I think it has more to do with actual subject distance than anything else.... at 600mm a small bird is how far away when it fills the frame?
Click to expand...
Ah right.... air distortion is seldom a problem with small brds as you're always shooting closer than you might think and then probably not filling the frame. I can see how that could be a problem at motorsport distances though.
 
desantnik said:
Actually, I think it has more to do with actual subject distance than anything else.... at 600mm a small bird is how far away when it fills the frame?

The air distortion and the subsequent degredation of AF ability I think is what kills it more than anything.

Its a point I've been trying to get people to muse on for some time, but nobody seems to want to bite...
Click to expand...

A tit/nuthatch type affair might only be about 3m away when literally filling the frame at 600mm. I was giving it a go the other day, decided to swap back to the 300 though!
 
Whereas a typical car shot on a APS-H camera like the 1DMkII at 600m will be more like 150m, maybe more if you are trying for "race action" with multiple cars in the frame.
 
CT said:
I think it was undisputedly the sharpest Hoppy, but I think it might be just pipped now by the 200mm f2 L IS. Not sure, but that's I seem to recall reading somewhere?

Click to expand...

Just checked the Canon MTFs and on that basis the 300 2.8 clearly still has it. I've never seen an MTF graph so incredibly flat as this one http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7317

Here's the 200 2 http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=16357

Nikon has just launched a new version of their 300 2.8 today, and as coincidence would have it, an new aspherical 2x telecon. I bet that's damn good :thumbs: I was surprised to note though that the new Nikon is still 350g heavier than the Canon, and half an inch longer.

Here's a link to the new Nikon 300 2.8 on DPReview http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121003nikkor300vrII.asp
 
Cheers for that tHoppy. Canon certainly threw everything into the 300 2.8, in fact I read that the 300 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4 cost over 10 million in development costs alone.
 
CT said:
Cheers for that tHoppy. Canon certainly threw everything into the 300 2.8, in fact I read that the 300 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4 cost over 10 million in development costs alone.
Click to expand...

Not yen I'm guessing ;) I wonder what they spend the money on? Way back when it used go on a squad of clever mathematicians who would sit for days and weeks doing thousands of formulae, and the most complex lens was a 4-element Tessar :eek: How they must have squabbled over the first pocket calculator. The best guys all worked for Zeiss and Leitz.

I wonder if today it goes on exotic glass recipes. I seem to recall that Canon's 'L' originally stood for Low as in low dispertion glass, soon followed by Nikon's 'ED' meaning Extra-low Dispersion. At first they used fluorite but that is very mildly radio-active, apparently not a danger to users but to factory staff. And mirror lenses were popular, which don't suffer dispersion.

I think a hallmark of a premier lens maker is still one that makes it's own glass, at least the high end sexy stuff. A guy from Leitz once told me that their most exotic glass was worth more than its weight in gold by the time it got into a lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top