400mm 5.6 prime vs 300mm 2.8 + 2x extender for distant birds

[gordholio]

I have the 400 5.6 prime and the 7D. Nice combo for BIF, but I do "long for longer."

I don't think I'll ever be able to justify a 500 or 600. But the 300 2.8 might be within my grasp. I know from researching that the 300 with a 1.4x extender (either II or III) delivers great shots. But there seems to be varying opinions on the 300 plus the 2x extender.

So...just wondering if anyone has compared results from the 400 prime vs the 300 2.8 IS plus 2X extender and has any examples? I'm thinking the 400 prime will be sharper and will have faster AF, but when you're shooting far-away birds, maybe the extra 200mm of the 300mm combo makes up for it?

Thanks in advance!

[Billginthekeys]

Originally Posted by gordholio

I have the 400 5.6 prime and the 7D. Nice combo for BIF, but I do "long for longer."

I don't think I'll ever be able to justify a 500 or 600. But the 300 2.8 might be within my grasp. I know from researching that the 300 with a 1.4x extender (either II or III) delivers great shots. But there seems to be varying opinions on the 300 plus the 2x extender.

So...just wondering if anyone has compared results from the 400 prime vs the 300 2.8 IS plus 2X extender and has any examples? I'm thinking the 400 prime will be sharper and will have faster AF, but when you're shooting far-away birds, maybe the extra 200mm of the 300mm combo makes up for it?

Thanks in advance!

I used both of those setups side by side for quite some time until I sold my 300mm to get a 500mm. The 300 2.8 does just fabulously with the 1.4x, and with the 2x the AF does suffer, certainly nothing even close to the bare 400 5.6, and I needed to stop down to F8 to get what I deemed acceptable IQ, still not as sharp as the 400 5.6 on its own, but certainly sharper than shooting at 400mm and cropping (it did okay at 5.6, but I am pretty picky).

about 90% of the bird pictures on my site currenlty were taken with one of those two lenses with or without TC's, so feel free to just poke around but...

This day I shot with the 300 with and withou the 2x:
http://www.pbase.com/billygilbertpho..._2010&page=all

This day I shot with the 400 5.6:
http://www.pbase.com/billygilbertpho...arch_27th_2010

Me personally I would keep both lenses (and I did), the bigger prime is nice to have on a mono or tripod, and then have the 400 on a second body ready to "quick draw" when needed, and the 400 is still way better than even the naked 300 2.8 for BIF.

I think the 300 2.8 w/ TC's is just splendid for birds, but I was almost always using it with a 2X, so I sold it and got an "old" 500mm f4.5 L for almost the same money. I think it is a great lens, but then I use it on a tripod all the time, so I don't miss not having the IS.

[artyman]

I switched from a Sigma 150-500 to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which I use with both 1.4 and 2X, it works superbly. This is a crop from a 2X shot. It is a bit heavy though

[hollis_f]

Well, I am the person that's always asking for BiF shots to show that AF works with a 400+TC. So here's an example of a BiF taken with the 300 + 2xTC. I don't have many because AF does take a hit with the 2x, so I'll normally try to get closer and use a 1.4x

[Art Vandelay]

Very nice shots Ken & Frank.

I'm a fan of the 300f/2.8 & converters as an all round combo.

Flight shots are usually naked or with the 1.4x. As said above, flight shots are do able with the 2x but the AF takes a speed hit. Also, to keep good image quality you need to be aoround f/8, which in all but good light will usually see you at some high ISO levels to get a good shutter speed.

IQ between the 400 f/5.6 & the 300 with a 1.4 would be comparable. Although you have f/4 available with the 300 & 1.4x if needed, f5.6 gives a better image. So really much of a muchness.

Weight wise the 400 f/5.6 wins easily.

So the only real benefit you'll get is the ability to go out to 600 for static shots & the occasional flight shot in good conditions.

That's not including the benefit of having a bare 300 f/2.8 whenever you need it... a superb lens for many uses. Realistically, if you plan of using it at 600 a lot, you maybe better off keeping the 400 and looking at a dedicated longer lens instead.

I'm happy with the 300 combo as it fills a variety of uses, sports, widlife & a bit of birding. If I was more heavily into birding, my choices may be different.

These are with the version II extenders. The 2x in the version III is a touch better from a few comparisons I've seen whilst the 1.4x version II & III are much the same IQ. I may go get a version III one day.


7D, 300 f/2.8 & 1.4x



7D 300 f/2.8 & 2x



5D mkiii 300 f/2.8 & 2x

[Larry Weinman]

I got very good results with the 300mm f 2.8 and 2X. The AF did slow down somewhat and that was sometimes frustrating especially with flying birds but it was handholdable which helped allot. Since that time I got a 500mm f4 so I don't use the 300 that way anymore

[Muteki]

On my 7D, I've been using 400/5.6L for about a year now (after the 150-500 died). Recently, I acquired a mint copy of 300/2.8L IS Ver1 after hearing some great results when it's used with stacked Canon 1.4x + Kenko 1.4x with decent AF speed instead of just the Canon 2x. The setup is meant for shooting the far-away birds with a reasonable budget (i.e., used copy of 500/4 costs as much as or even more than the retail, and the new 500/4 ver2 costs just as much as a car).

With the 300 + 1.4x + 1.4x setup, I don't have to crop as much even on birds that are skittish. The AF speed felt just as fast as having a single 1.4x TC, and I recommend setting it to 6m to infinity if you're shooting something far anyway. The only problem with that setup, but very minor, is that you may lose focus lock while tracking BIF. That could be the operator as the field of view is narrower and the birds are moving faster in the viewfinder. As for the resulting image, the contrast is a bit lower, which can be corrected during PP. The sharpness for that setup is comparable to Canon 2x I've seen from some of the skilled photographers out there. Overall very usable. The example photos below can attest that:















IMHO, for the reach and getting more fuller frame captures, I think the setup is worth it. If you can fill most of the frame with just the 400/5.6L, it's still a better choice as you don't have to deal with TC slower down the lens and/or possibly degrading the image.

Hope the above info helps!

[gordholio]

I want to thank everyone who's contributed. Very thoughtful replies and lots of great samples. Thanks again.

Muteki says "If you can fill the frame," and I guess that's my issue. I can so rarely come even close to that with "meaningful" birds. 600mm would get me there.

Aargh. Must think. I suppose I'll end up renting the 300 2.8 along with a 2X extender and seeing if I can get images that please me personally. You can ask advice all you want, but sometimes you just have out get out there and try it.

[acajun]

Originally Posted by Muteki

.... Recently, I acquired a mint copy of 300/2.8L IS Ver1 after hearing some great results when it's used with stacked Canon 1.4x + Kenko 1.4x ]

IMHO, for the reach and getting more fuller frame captures, I think the setup is worth it. If you can fill most of the frame with just the 400/5.6L, it's still a better choice as you don't have to deal with TC slower down the lens and/or possibly degrading the image.

Hope the above info helps!

Which version of the Kenko 1.4x did you use?

[Muteki]

Originally Posted by acajun

Which version of the Kenko 1.4x did you use?

I'm using the Kenko Pro 300 DGX.

[acajun]

Thanks a lot. I might just try this.