300mm f2.8 Mk II + 1.4x or 2x tc

I am considering a 500mm f4 or 300mm f2.8 MKII primarily for bird photography. Both are around £5k new.
I have a 7D and 100-400mm at the moment. I will keep the 7D to use with either of my new choices. Has anyone any experience/comment with regard to IQ when using a 1.4 or 2x tc with the 300mm? I have done some research on the web and the new 300mm + MkIII tc stills autofocuses fast. I prefer not to use a tripod and the new 300mm seems quite hand holdable, and the addition of a TC might suit my needs?

Any comments welcome, many thanks

The 1.4X has virtually no impact on IQ.

To my eyes, the 2X had enough of an impact on IQ that I went and bought a 500mm instead of trying to "invent" a 600mm.

This is with the MkII versions of TCs. I ave not tried the new MkIII versions.

Thanks.

I believe the MkIII tc's were designed specifically for the new 300 and 400, to improve AF and some improvement on IQ.

If you don't want to use a tripod definitely the 300, on the other hand for birds you almost allways wish for more reach and the 500 + 1.4 is an excellent combo as well.

reviews suggest the 1.4x is very good, you won't need the mkIII, the mkII is very good with the new lenses. the 2x is another story and if you're going with it you're better off with the mkIII version.

Not sure what the problem is with existing 300mm f2.8 IS, it is quite hand holdable but then I used to shoot HH sometimes with my 500mm f4 IS also. 300mm is too small focal length wise. I know with 2xTC you at 600mm and that is 200mm more than your 100-400L but still with 500mm f4 you can easily be at 700mm and picture quality is superb. But of course most would use tripod and nice head with that lens.

Many thanks for all your replies guys, I am going for the 300mm.

Have used both 2x TC II and III with 70-200 2.8 L IS II. The IQ and AF performance with the III is head and shoulders above that of the II. In other words, do get the 2x TC II. You'll regret it.

One taken with my new 300mm f2.8 IS USM II, Photo was taken with the 300 and the old 1.4xII handheld shutter speed 1/80sec f4 at 640 ISO on a 1dmkII

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​370581573/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​370580793/

Thanks for the photos

industryimage wrote in post #13457828
One taken with my new 300mm f2.8 IS USM II, Photo was taken with the 300 and the old 1.4xII handheld shutter speed 1/80sec f4 at 640 ISO on a 1dmkII

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​370581573/

Original photo

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​370580793/

Warren

Very nice. This is why 500mm f4 is most used lens for these subects as at 700mm you will be filling lot more of the frame.

The 300mm 2.8 mkII + 2X tc mkIII (600mm) does seem to compare well with the 500mm f4 +1.4tc (700mm) both at 6.3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

Canon-Chas wrote in post #13468094
The 300mm 2.8 mkII + 2X tc mkIII (600mm) does seem to compare well with the 500mm f4 +1.4tc (700mm) both at 6.3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

Picture quality is one thing but none of these sitest test AF. 2XTC does slow down AF a lot compared to 1.4xTC. Now newere 2xTCs are supposed to be better but can't be better than 1.4xTC.

Canon-Chas wrote in post #13468094
The 300mm 2.8 mkII + 2X tc mkIII (600mm) does seem to compare well with the 500mm f4 +1.4tc (700mm) both at 6.3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

This is a really interesting comparison, I expected the 500mm to appear sharper.

I think what's more interesting is virtually "removing" the TC from the 500 and comparing it naked vs the 300 with the 2X TC. According to Digital Picture's results, there *still* isn't a ton of difference.

Unfortunately, the new 300mm 2.8 is crazy expensive.