which is best 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 extender, or 500mm f4

L

leprechaun67

Messages
107
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
Given that the Canon 300mm f2.8 becomes f4 with the 1.4 extender on, am I right in thinking that the only difference between this combination and the Canon 500mm f4 (without extender) is the difference in focal length (ie. 80mm) or am I right in thinking the 300mm lens is still a better lens?

I would be keen to use one for safari.

Any thoughts you have would be really appreciated, especially if you've had personal experience of both.

many thanks,
Dom:)
 
Well I have both these lenses and I use both with the 1.4X TC and the 300mm also with the the 2XTC (as it still retains AF)

I can tell you that both lenses are exemplary performers with the 1.4X TC with no perceptible loss in IQ at all.

I think to claim that the 300mm 2.8 with a 1.4X TC was a better lens than the 500mm f4 without converter is a bit of a stretch - ultimately whether it's noticeable or not, we know that a converter must impact image quality. These are both top end lenses. I'd give the nod to the 300mm for the faster max aperture, but you'll struggle to separate them on image quality.

The 300mm has to be a good option for a safari as it gives you 300mm, 420mm and 600mm options, (with converters) retaining AF with all options, and vastly reducing weight and bulk compared to the 500mm f4L.

With the same converters though, the 500mm has 500mm, 700mm and (with a 1 Series body) 1000mm options which is a lot of reach.

If I had to choose between the two it would be the 300mm 2.8 which would have to go. The 500mm is big, unwieldy, needs a tripod and is a pain to lug around, but it has the edge on reach all the way. That's me looking at it from primarliy a birder's point of view though, and thankfully I don't have to part with either.

I think the short answer is you wont separate the two lenses on IQ it's very much a personal choice which you go for.

Or just get both! ;)
 
Thanks for your excellent response Cedric, very much appreciated and pretty close to what I was expecting, I think. Especially useful that you can talk from experience too :)
 
I haven't been on a safari but the 100-400 lens is commonly recommended as an ideal safari lens. This is because you can often get really quite close to the animals, and some of them are pretty large. I can imagine that trying to frame an elephant with a 500mm lens might be quite a challenge, from 20-30m away. I'm not trying to sway you to the zoom but I think you might very well appreciate the flexibility offered by the shorter lens.

Try this search - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ideal+canon+safari+lens
 
tdodd said:
I haven't been on a safari but the 100-400 lens is commonly recommended as an ideal safari lens. This is because you can often get really quite close to the animals, and some of them are pretty large. I can imagine that trying to frame an elephant with a 500mm lens might be quite a challenge, from 20-30m away. I'm not trying to sway you to the zoom but I think you might very well appreciate the flexibility offered by the shorter lens.

Try this search - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ideal+canon+safari+lens
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that Tim. Andy Rouse used to swear by the 100-400L for shooting tigers off the back of a landrover. Nowadays he rarely has a good word to say for it for some reason. ;)
 
tdodd said:
I haven't been on a safari but the 100-400 lens is commonly recommended as an ideal safari lens. This is because you normally get really quite close to the animals, and some of them are pretty large. I can imagine that trying to frame an elephant with a 500mm lens might be quite a challenge, from 20-30m away. I'm not trying to sway you to the zoom but I think you might very well appreciate the flexibility offered by the shorter lens.

Try this search - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ideal+canon+safari+lens
Click to expand...

That depends on the type of safari. Personally I would take 2 bodies and at least 2 lenses. 70-200mm for the close up shots, but with the longer prime/zoom on the other body. As for the long lens, depends on the vehicle your in, the 500mm would cause you problems, the 300mm would give you that flexibility with TC's (will slow autofocus down and 2x effect IQs), but the 500mm would give you the range, tough call.
 
Thanks Tim for your comment and I can fully understand what you're saying, as I went to the Kruger last year with a 500mm prime and the 100-400mm zoom and used both and perhaps the zoom more often (the prime did have its place too, at times when we were sat in hides and for the beautifully-coloured birds). I might just stick with the 100-400 zoom and the 500mm prime, even though it can be more unwieldy, compared with the 300mm f2.8 + extender.

Pete, thanks too for your comment. The safari would be from an open top truck, but with windows, so like you say, the 500mm might cause problems, but also, like you say, it's got that advantage of the extra reach, which I've benefitted from before, even as compared with the 300mm prime. Whatever I do, I'll take two bodies, one with zoom, one with prime. The reason for asking this question guys was to see if I'd miss a prime if I had to sell it to put towards the safari. I'm reluctant to let anything go..
 
CT said:
I think the short answer is you wont separate the two lenses on IQ it's very much a personal choice which you go for.
Click to expand...
Hard to argue with that!

One other aspect that would enter into my calculations, though, is that (for me at least) the 300/2.8 is hand-holdable and the 500/4 isn't. Of course you might be stonger than me, or the circumstances in which you're shooting might make it a non-issue, but I mention it just in case it's helpful.

Also ... exactly where you're going on safari can make a big difference. Botswana seems to require bigger lenses than Kenya, for example. Your experience of the Kruger may or may not translate to other locations. (But I'm out of my depth now. I'm sure there are experts here who can advise if it's needed)
 
I'd go with the 300 as it gives you the flexibility with extenders, whereas the 500 is going to be a bit more restrictive (though you could always stick a 1.4x on it as well if the beasties are too far away for you).

Nice choice to have.
 
StewartR said:
One other aspect that would enter into my calculations, though, is that (for me at least) the 300/2.8 is hand-holdable and the 500/4 isn't. Of course you might be stonger than me, or the circumstances in which you're shooting might make it a non-issue, but I mention it just in case it's helpful.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! I consider the 500mm f4 is a tripod/beanbag lens -period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top