Anyone own the 300mm/2.8 AND the 500mm or 600mm?

[LazyPhotographer]

If you own a combination of the 300 and 500 or 600 can you offer an opinion? How much truth is there to these statements?

"The 300 f/2.8L IS is widely known as the sharpest lens in the current Canon lens lineup. It performs extremely well even with a 2x converter rivaling the 600 f/4L in image quality."

"....the 300F/2.8IS is sharper with converters than the 600IS straight. The lens quality is mind boggling and the standard from which to judge all others."

I'm toying with the idea of another lens. I want the extra reach soooo badly and I want it before the next round of raptor chicks hatch. ;-) If this is true, I like the option of the 300mm because it's still hand-holdable and I don't have to move to a wimberly set-up (I think).

[KennyG]

I own a 300 2.8IS and a 500 4.0IS. The 300, 400, 500 and 600 were all designed from the ground up to be used with a TC. Not just phyisical, but also optically.

The 300 with a 1.4 is simply amazing and produces as good results as a colleagues 400 2.8IS. Neither of us can really tell the difference in the images, but we certainly can in the realtive weights of the lenses.

The 300 with a 2.0 is very good. I reckon it is about the same as my 500 with a 1.4, but having played around for a couple of weeks with a 600 (colleague on holiday's lens), I really feel the 600 is the better lens with more resolution, but oh boy is it heavy, certainly a Wimberley job.

The 300 2.8IS is the best lens in the current Canon lineup, no argument there. At 420mm using a 1.4 TC it is better than a 400 DO and very, very close to the 400 2.8IS. With a 2.0 TC it is not quite as good as a 600 or 500 without TC's, but about the same as a 500 with a 1.4.

By the way, I have found that hand holding any of these lenses for more than a couple of shots isn't practical, and you need to have the physique of the hulk for the 600. Even the 300 will wear you down very quickly.

[cc10d]

I do not have the 500 or 600. I do have the older Canon 300mm f2.8L and have found it impecable. I have used it with either the 1.4 and the 2.0 with very good results. I have even used the small extension tube to combine both on at the same time. It still wasn't bad. All these combinations were using the A2 - A2E bodies and slide film. I havn't tried combinations yet on the digitals. I have been using the 100-400 L IS Canon zoom. being able to crop in on it or the 300 w 1.4 has met my needs so far. The zoom is easier to walk about withfor handheld stuff, Its lighter to carry. I have been pleased with the added range digital allows with croping up to 100%. without much grain, er noise. Cameras are 10d, and 20D. I like the 20D a lot. Very acurate focus with the 2.8 and faster lenses.

I recall one afternoon while at a National Bird Refuge a photographer came up to me as I was finishinng with a Great Horned Owl - Nest, eggs, owlets, near fledgling series(over time), and wanted to know what I was using and showed me his 500 f4L. He said he wished he had went with the 300 set up instead. Mentioned flexibility and field usability. (He got some nice fledgling pics that afternoon also, we had done our conversing well away from the nest!) FWIW

[pierrot]

LazyPhotographer: One who uses a telephoto lens to shoot pictures out the car window or from a balcony.
Lazyness has its cost, dear! :shock: :mrgreen:

[phili1]

I do not own any but have 1 friend who got a bad one so I can not comment on the 300 F2.8. I hear and have seen shaots that are awsome. I know someone who has the 600 F4.

Its hard to compare but think of this. with the 300 f 2.8 with a 2x you have a 600mm lens, with the 500 F4 with a 1.4 you have a 700mm lens and the 600 with the 1.4 you have an 840mm lens, so the 500 with the 1.4 has to be sharper and so does the 600 F4 and greater reach. So if you can afford it that is the way to go.

[LazyPhotographer]

Thank you!

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you own a combination of the 300 and 500 or 600 can you offer an opinion? How much truth is there to these statements?

"The 300 f/2.8L IS is widely known as the sharpest lens in the current Canon lens lineup.
I'd agree



"....the 300F/2.8IS is sharper with converters than the 600IS straight. The lens quality is mind boggling and the standard from which to judge all others."

This is just somone who owns the 300mm and is blowing hot air :)



The 600mm is also one of Canon's sharpest lenses ever made... the 2X simply is not that sharp and not that transperent on ANY lens..

I've put the 2X on my 200mm f/1.8 which is arguably close to the 300mm for sharpness on it's own (some say sharper, I'd say closer to even)

On the 200mm f/1.8 the 2X looks really freaking good,. but I don't think it's as sharp as ANY of Canon's top end primes on there own.. it simply does not work that way. (Maybe better than the 400mm DO? I doubt it but don't have the DO to compare ...certainly faster :mrgreen: )

May we ask,. what is your longest lens currently?

For birds,. you really want the 500mm or 600mm...
When birders choose the 500mm, they do so primarily for weight reasons.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... one other thing to consider if weight remains a large part of your decision is one of the f/4.5 500mm lenses,. I realize at this price point you are not likely to consider the Sigma,. but it is a stellar performer and very very much more portable,. also the discontinued Canon 500mm f/4.5 can often be had for about $3000.00 or less used. With a "1" body you can still get AF with a 1.4X T-con on these lenses...

They are not "The BIG Guns" .. but as such they are surprisingly a lot more portable.

[IanD]

I own all three .................................................. ....in my dreams every night:):):):):):):)
If I had to choose just one of the above lenses, considering the photography that most appeals to me, I'd have to go with the 500 prime. also take into consideration that more than likely a new tripod is needed and most certainly a
Wimberley style head. Adds a few dollars to the equation.

[Scottes]

Lazy with the MkII the 400mm prime is an option, too. It seems like you want to spend some serious cash though, so I won't try to talk you into it... :wink:

I lust heavily for either the 500 f/4 or the 600 f/4. Both scare me when I think about lugging either around. The $600ish for the Wimberley setup has to be considered I think. I've lightly played with two 500mm lenses (Canon & Sigma) on Sidekicks and I know I won't get a Sidekick. So I automatically factor in the $600 when thinking about either of these lenses.

You're *always* going after birds.
You never have enough reach for birds.

My vote is for the 500mm f/4. Very good reach. With the 1.4 more reach and the pics will still blow things away. Not so ridiculously heavy as the 600mm.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh,..

I guess I'll second Scottes' recomendation re: Gimble mounts,. the Sidekick is a poor option,.. I'm guessing one of Scottes' recollections of playing with a 500mm on a Sidekick was mine,. I seem to recall being in a parking lot and all four of our hands fumbling around with the set up in an attempt to make it "solid" without dumping anything important on the asphalt,. as I recall we were barely succesfull! In reality,. if Scott was not (patiently) assisting, I may have trashed a 500mm lens.

Having tried both "side- mount" gimble solutions and "bottom mount" I can STRONGLY insist that any serious lens NEEDS a "bottom mount" gimble,. of which there are only two available, The full Wimberly and the cheap Manfrotto. The Manfrotto does not have the finesse of the Full Wimberly,. but it is a MUCH more sensible solution than any of the side mount options.

This discounts the "Kirk King Cobra" and (some other manufacturers') "Mongoose" .. all of which are sidemount and incorporate the same inherent defincincies as the the "Wimberly SideKick"

[phili1]

I have used a Wimberly and considered buying it but it was out of my cost structure. So on a recomendation I bought the Bogen 3421 Gimbel head and use it for the first time to shoot Eagles in Pa. My pictures were as sharp as a tack with it and it didn't even know it had a 100-400 on it. the guys that were with me had a 600 and the other had an 800 and my Gimbel could have handled them with ease. I am not saying that the Wimberly isn't better but for $400 less you can not go wrong with the Bogen if your on a budget.

Here is a pic and I know it happened because of the Bogen.

[Pyromaniac]

How good is the 300mm f/4.0? I know it's not going to be as good as the f/2.8 but I don't have $3900 to spend on it. Don't have the $1100 or so for the f/4.0 at the moment either. But other that the one stop is there much of a difference in optical quality?

[cc10d]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How good is the 300mm f/4.0? I know it's not going to be as good as the f/2.8 but I don't have $3900 to spend on it. Don't have the $1100 or so for the f/4.0 at the moment either. But other that the one stop is there much of a difference in optical quality?

Believe that
Its noticable!!!

[Adam Hicks]

I love this.. http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F300 the 300 f2.8 IS USM is the sharpest lens out of EVERY lens on that page. I *will* have one within the year. I'll take it and a 1.4x and 2x TC any day over the 400 and larger lenses (especially for the money)

[Anders Östberg]

Second CDS' post... I own the 300/2.8 and the 500/4, and believe I can say adding a 2x teleconverter degrades the quality significantly. The 300 on its own, or with a 1.4x is astounding. The 500/4 is great too but not quite as good with tcs, though still very good with the 1.4x. The 2x to me is best used with larger subjects, maybe cars or people - details like bird feathers are not shown quite as well. Having said that, the trick is to get close, see some pictures with the 300 and 2x below.
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/Flugsnappare_5761.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/Trollsl%E4nda_5760.jpg
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/N%E4ckros_6096.jpg

Another thing that people maybe confuse with poor image quality is that adding tcs for long reach bring a lot of other problems like camera shake from mirror slap and wind, and haze from the atmosphere over longer distances. 500, 700 or 1000 mm is *much* more difficult than 300mm. At 1000mm there simply is no stable tripod unless you bolt the lens to the ground...

EDIT: On "useability"... I didn't consider either the 400 or 600 as I'm sure they would be too heavy for me in the long run. I can hand hold both the 300 and 500 for short periods, something I couldn't do with the bigger lenses. Same goes for lugging them around in the wild, the 600 needs a mobile platform like a Jeep with a gun mount. :)

[LazyPhotographer]

Thanks for the input everyone!

I guess I'll stick with what I already have; the 100-400mm and 400mm. As for getting the extra reach for the hawk babies, well, I'll just rent a cherry-picker and ride up to the tree top. ;-)