Lens choice dilemma

Hi All,

I currently have a EF100-400 zoom. I find it soft and slow at the long end with a 1.4x. Hence I am considering an addition in the new year.

The 500 f4 is out of the question because of price. But, the 300 f2.8, 300 f4 or 400 f5.6, plus a 2x are feasible.

I've heard that the 300 f2.8 IS, is excellent even with the 1.4, very good with the 2x and good with the 2x + 1.4x. This lens would give me 300mm, 420mm @ f4, 600mm @ f5.6, & at a push 840 @ f8.

Then there is the 300 f4 with IS and the 400 f5.6 without IS. I am aware that both of these are available for less than the f2.8

Have any of you experience with any of the above, or even had the same dilemma? If you did, what was your solution?

Thank you in advance,

Latafat

the 400 f5.6 is a great flight lens and can-at times-be handheld but I would not use it with a 2X

if you do not have a digital camera, I would get a 10D as this gives you a 1.6X multiplication factor.

The only lens of the ones that you list that will give you satisfactory results with a 2x converter is the 300 f/2.8 all the others suffer terribly in image quality, lose AF in most cases and are very dark with a 2x.

If the 300 f/2.8 is in your price range, get it and don't look back. It is the best lens out of Canon's long lens lineup ( IMO ) and by far the most versatile. I have had mine for over 10 years and would never think of giving it up.

Both the 300f4 and the 400f5.6 serve similiar purposes to the 100-400. They are very versatile and excellent for birs in flight, but it sounds like you really want the 300f2.8 if your complaint is speed.

ditto on the 300 f 2.8 IS it does work with the new 2x. personally I don't have much use for the stacked converters. some images from this combination look ok on the web but that is about all.

Like you, I wanted more than I could get from my 100-400L, so I got a 300/2.8 IS and have never looked back. I do recommend that you get an IS version, rather than the non-IS. The one caution I can give you (from experience) is that unless you put a 2x teleconverter on, a 300/2.8 doesn't give much advantage over the 100-400. A small speed advantage and very minor focal length boost with the 1.4x teleconverter, and with no teleconverter you actually lose about 1/2 of your image size, though with a tremendous increase in speed and a signifcant boost in image quality.

Another option you might look at is a Canon (or even Sigma) 500/4.5 lens. I have not used them, but see lots of good reports. If you're shooting with the EOS 3 or one of the newer EOS 1 bodies, you'd still get autofocus with a 1.4x teleconverter, and without a teleconverter, the lens should be long and should have excellent reach. No IS, of course.

Make sure that whatever head and tripod you use is up to the increased weight. Quite a jump from the 100-400 to either of these lenses.

E.J. Peiker wrote:The only lens of the ones that you list that will give you satisfactory results with a 2x converter is the 300 f/2.8 all the others suffer terribly in image quality, lose AF in most cases and are very dark with a 2x.

You can find some bargains on used 300 f/2.8L's these days. Beware of the 2x though. I use it sparingly because the results are nowhere near as sharp as using the 1.4x (which is a killer).

How about hunting for a used 500 f4.5? I got the 3002.8 for the same reasons you mentioned about the 100-400 with both extenders. Found out shortly I should have gone longer in the first place. So now I have the 500f4 which I use mostly with the 1.4x extender and I'm in hog heaven. Lenth does matter

Dick Ginkowski wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:The only lens of the ones that you list that will give you satisfactory results with a 2x converter is the 300 f/2.8 all the others suffer terribly in image quality, lose AF in most cases and are very dark with a 2x.

You can find some bargains on used 300 f/2.8L's these days. Beware of the 2x though. I use it sparingly because the results are nowhere near as sharp as using the 1.4x (which is a killer).

I have not found this to be there case with the IS version at all, so perhaps the IS version also has improved optics as it is sharper than my 600/4 with the 2x which I use all the time. Another vote for the 300/2.8, but realize that the 500/4 IS is not far away in terms of price for a new 300/2.8IS. I think about $1,500 more.

Thanks, all of you for your excellent comments.

Greg, the difference for me in Canada is approximately $2400, even if I purchased from B&H in the US, and that's not including brokerage.

I have looked for a used f2.8, but they are heavily coveted by their current owners, the ones available are in less than good shape.

I feel that the 300 f2.8 will be my choice, and I will just have to wait for another digital body to supplement my 10D. I'll hold off for a new body till late next year, a few months after the new Canon is used & reviewed, (Fly on the wall for next PMA)

Latafat

The old Canon 2x is attrocious with the 300 f/2.8L IS due to severe light falloff in the corners. That was completely solved with the new 2x. If you are having problems with the 300 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) and a new 2x, then its the long lens technique not the lens combination as it can give shots rivaling that of the straight 600 in image quality.

When I received my new style 2x I set up a test with my 300 2.8 IS and my 600 IS photographing newsprint as a test target at a measured distance ( the 600 being twice the distance away as the 300). I shot this in shade, sun and sidelight. Velvia and astia. On the light table I could tell the difference between the 600 images and 300 2x images. The 600 images had a VERY slight edge in sharpness and contrast but it was close enough that I new the 300+2x would deliver better results than I need at 600.
BTW I also tried stacking the converters and they were,,,,, images ;(
hope this help your decision

If you are having problems with the 300 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) and a new 2x, then its the long lens technique not the lens combination as it can give shots rivaling that of the straight 600 in image quality.

E.J, how would either of these (straight 600 or 300 w/ 2x(mkII)) compare with the 500 f4 IS w/ the 1.4x?

Craig Lipski wrote:

If you are having problems with the 300 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) and a new 2x, then its the long lens technique not the lens combination as it can give shots rivaling that of the straight 600 in image quality.

E.J, how would either of these (straight 600 or 300 w/ 2x(mkII)) compare with the 500 f4 IS w/ the 1.4x?

The 500 f4 IS is on par with the 600 in terms of sharpness. Some say it's slightly sharper. Adding the 1.4 converter does little to effect sharpness for the end user (unless you are a resolution chart photographer), though it does have an effect on AF speed and performance. Again, you can expect the same performance across the board for the 500, as you can from the 600.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 300 f/2.8L IS with the EF2X II is very close to the 600 f/4L IS for image quality but you do give up a stop of light. The 500 and 600 are similar in performance although the 500 has a very slight edge but not enough to make a real world difference.