300mm or 400mm prime?

Just looked back and saw that I was not that clear in my verbiage to keep the hounds of war at bay, . . my bad ~ sigh

phreeky wrote in post #12976933
OK I just put a full set of Kenko tubes on - 68mm by my calculations - and AF worked fine. Dark indoors too, F/5.6 ISO12800 and shutter speed was 1/15s (i.e. way too dark to take a steady shot), so AF is still more than capable. Range like that is limited though,the chart someone posted above appears more or less correct.

Thanks very much for your test. Sounds very promising and I'll probably get me a set.

As far as the AF with the TC, I see what you mean about your higher-grade camera having more AF options. Guess I'll just have to cool my heels and wait till I get the lens (Wednesday!). Then I'll know. Can't have too much reach!

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #12976354
TwoShadows, here is a link to the blog of one of the World's foremost professional Bird Photographers...Arthur Morris.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/

He uses Canon equipment, and has written many great reviews, and taken many wonderful images with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I.S. II lens combined with either of the new Canon series III 1.4x, or 2x T.C.

A small excerpt of one of his "reviews", or "comments" about the combination(s):

"Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens. Man, I am loving this lens on my shoulder with the 2X III teleconverter. I also use it a lot with the 1.4X III TC which is designed to work best with the new Series II super-telephoto lenses."

So if one of the world's most renowned bird photographers has no hesitation in using either of the new series III tele converters with the 70-200 f/2.8L I.S. II lens to take images which he not only publishes, but also sells, I think that's a pretty good "endorsement".

Of course that is just HIS opinion, and every one is different. Just giving you some food for thought.

Well then, Arthur Morris and I have a lot in common as this year I started using my 70-200II for hummingbirds:

on 1.6x crop:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

[QUOTE=twoshadows;1297​7063]Well then, Arthur Morris and I have a lot in common as this year I started using my 70-200II for hummingbirds:

Woah, . . N-I-C-E

hummm, . . gonna have to slap mine on and get take another look at the combo - I might have pixel-peeped myself out of a good thing

Any insights to your PP?

doc.paradox wrote in post #12976800
300 mm + 1.4 is a 420 lens, we get it JonK, it will always be a 420mm lens. . bolt that 420 on a 1.6 crop and you have an effect due to 1.6 crop of "like having" a 672 5.6 . . there, better for you?

We know, we know: utilizing a smaller amount of the lens image does not make a lens any longer, . . every time some one multiplies by 1.6 around here people freak out . . . sigh

You get it but still mislead people. Having a field of view of a 672mm lens is a whole lot different than having the magnification of a 672mm lens. Please don't confuse it. I'd hate to see someone buy the lens under that impression.

JonK wrote in post #12977837
You get it but still mislead people. Having a field of view of a 672mm lens is a whole lot different than having the magnification of a 672mm lens. Please don't confuse it. I'd hate to see someone buy the lens under that impression.

... which is just as confusing, because one effectively equals the other, comparing crop with FF. Having the angle of view on a crop equivalent to a 672mm lens ON FF is a whole lot different to having a 672mm lens on your crop - now that's true and not confusing. Which is what I think you meant to say.

If someone is miss-led by the phrase xxx equivalent FOV on a FF then they need help in understanding what that crop sensor is capturing with any FL (and these forums and threads are the place to get it) . . . is there a "politically correct" term that has been sanctified and bonified by Board of Regents of the forum to express this phenomena? . . . sigh

OP John in Notts.

I'm having a similar debate with myself and have decided the lens for me is the 70-300mm IS L, which as we all know miraculously transforms itself into a 112-480mm when you mount it on a crop body (no comments please, I know it's BS) and is still f/5.6 at MFL. Gets good reviews, is not a great deal more expensive than the 400mm and has IS. Shoot me down in flames dear gentlefolk of POTN...

doc.paradox wrote in post #12978174
If someone is miss-led by the phrase xxx equivalent FOV on a FF then they need help in understanding what that crop sensor is capturing with any FL (and these forums and threads are the place to get it) . . . is there a "politically correct" term that has been sanctified and bonified by Board of Regents of the forum to express this phenomena? . . . sigh

I think it's that the pedants amongst us seem to require the phrase "equivalent angle of view to FF" inserting ad nauseum to avoid terminally stupid people from going out and spending the money they got donating their frontal lobes to medical science on the wrong piece of kit. I also think it's true that the many novices on here need to learn the facts as that's the main reason they're here. So I can see both sides of the argument and it's probably best to be clear at all times. Are you ok by the way? You seem to be hyper-ventilating...

HA! Great post John , . . "equivalent angle of view to FF" check, . . "ad nauseum" check . . .


"Are you ok by the way? You seem to be hyper-ventilating..."

Thanks man, It's just the coffee - I'll be fine

Hi John,
I currently have the 3002.8 Sigma and the Canon 1-4. I bought the 300 with a mind to compare the prime IQ against my zoom (which is a very sharp copy) and sell the one I felt was not as good.
The first thing what shocked my was the weight. That was put right with a monopod, but the second was the lack of IS. Even with the monopod I still found it hard to keep it steady. I never realised how I depended on my 1-4's IS on my monopod..........
I have a 1.4x TC. The 420 reach is great, but its the lack of IS I have trouble with. I am currently at a stalemate. Shall I get the 400 5.6 and a 70-200 2.8 or shall I splash out on the Canon 300 2.8 to have IS. Or shall I keep the 1-4 and get a 24-105 instead coupled with a 10-22 Canon.
Have you tested your 1-4 to make sure of its IQ ?? If It is soft have it callibrated like I had mine. It came back a much better lens. A sharp 1-4 will live with the 400 5.6 and beat it with IS. Sure the 400 5.6 focuses fast but probably because the IS take a fraction of a second to kick in. Turn it off, keep you SS high, and I imagine the two will be comparable.

Well after reading all that and taking on board some of it, I went with the 400mm in the end, in fact I managed to get a swap done today and should have it tomorrow

Later on I'll get the Tammy 70-300 VC (which I won't be attaching a TC to!), but I have had one and the IQ is up there with the 100-400. or at least that copy was - wish I'd never sold it!

I did consider the 120-300 but in the end as I'm getting the Tammy I wanted a little more reach, better IQ and faster AF - I will give the tubes a shot though, should be interesting to see how that works, oh by the way does introducing tubes reduce the max range or does it just magically reduced the MFD?

Anyway thank you and, now back to your bickering

Hey Notty John!

Please post some comments and pics when you've had chance to play with it. I'm seriously considering the 400mm (my buddy has one for his 5DII) against the 70-300mm L (not the DO version) and your views would be valuable.

'Ave a nice day me duck! (For international viewers, that's what people in Nottinghamshire all say to each other all the time).

Sadly true, thank God I'm from Yorkshire!! They even call sandwiches cobs! Is there no end to their weirdness?

Yep, I'll post up some stuff hopefully tomorrow if I get chance before work.

Cheers John. I worked in Leicester for twenty odd years and not once did I get the sandwich I expected. Cobs, baps, barms, batches? I reckon it's one of the many results of standing on the front at Skeggy watching the sea fall off the edge of the world...

Apologies everyone. Just two Yorkies indulging in some gentle Brit tribalism.