Real World 300mm Use

I am beginning my (always extremely limited) research on long lenses.

I can get up to 200mm with my current lineup, I will definitely be purchasing the 2xIII regardless.

What I am trying to decide is:

1) Whether the 500L2 is worth 3200 over the 300L2

2) Whether the 300L F/4 is a huge value over the above two

Practical, real world differences and experiences you can share between the three....

1500 for the 300 F4 is really attractive vs 7300 for the 2.8....unless they are night and day different.

You are comparing a lot of different lenses. What you need to consider are maximum reach, cost, weight and how low of a light you want to shoot in.

So to dispense with the low light first, if you are going to be shooting low light then you probably need to make the faster f/2.8 lenses a priority. Then it comes (as always) to weight, reach and cost.

Look at the 300/4 to start. This is a very, very capable prime that is nice and light, affordable and very sharp. This lens gives you a 300/4 and a 420/5.6.

Move up to the 300/2.8 and you have a lens that is a hair better native and with the 1.4TC and which is probably acceptable with the 2X. That gives you 300/2.8, 420/4 and 600/5.6.

And then there is the 500/4. I'd get this if you are really looking for maximum reach (birds and wildlife more than sports for example) and if you can tolerate the size. This lens gives you 500/4 and 700/5.6. I guess this lens would allow 1000/8 on a 1D if you can find anything to shoot that works with something so long and slow.

Boyond that are the real monsters.....400/2.8 and 600/4.

I guess what I see are that budget insensitive sports shooters go for 300/2.8 and 400/2.8. Budget insensitive wildlife shooters go for 500/4 and 600/4.

If you really need 2.8, that's the price you pay. If f4 is good enough, the 300mm f4 is a great lens for the price. How important is 2.8?

It sounds like you were in the same boat I was. I had a hard time deciding what I wanted. I even found a great deal on a 400 2.8 is, but in the end I bought another 300 2.8 is mki. the reason for this is that with the 400,500 or 600 you need a tripod so think about that too. The 300 is hand holdable, it is very sharp and takes tc's well. The other thing I did that you may want to think about is buying a mki. I really wanted the mkii because of this or that, but in he end I think it was mainly me being a gear head. There isn't a whole lot of difference from what I have seen in the reviews to justify the additional 3-3.5k price tag. This isn't a lens I am going to be using everyday so in he end the mki made more sense.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

I don't know if I need 2.8 with this FL (300-500). Yes, what I will be shooting will be mostly lower light wildlife from a blind that is 20 ft in the air and subjects from 100 to 400 yards away. My 200 looks like a wide angle from the blind....

Is the one stop going to make a difference with ISO abilities today? I dont know. Is the 300/600 combo going to look just as distant as my 200? Better, but long enough? I don't know.

I don't need 2.8 on this lens to satisfy my personal gear lust issues, but I don't want to shell out good money for blurry pictures either.

I think my 7-200 with and without a 2x is totally sufficient for the sports/racing photos I take but I'd like something longer for hunting season (since I only pull shutters and no triggers).

I would not say I am budget insensitive, but it is worth it to me to not compromise on what is the right tool for the job.

Being able to afford a 911 is not the same thing as affording a GT2!

300mm f2.8 IS is LOT better than f4. For birds etc even from a blind, 500mm f4 or even 600mm f4 is much much better option. f2.8 is good if shooting sports. You got good stuff in your signature now time to get some nice glass with longer focal lengths.

bobbyz wrote in post #14219699
now time to get some nice glass with longer focal lengths.

doh!!

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14219634
I don't know if I need 2.8 with this FL (300-500). Yes, what I will be shooting will be mostly lower light wildlife from a blind that is 20 ft in the air and subjects from 100 to 400 yards away. My 200 looks like a wide angle from the blind....

Is the one stop going to make a difference with ISO abilities today? I dont know. Is the 300/600 combo going to look just as distant as my 200? Better, but long enough? I don't know.

I don't need 2.8 on this lens to satisfy my personal gear lust issues, but I don't want to shell out good money for blurry pictures either.

I think my 7-200 with and without a 2x is totally sufficient for the sports/racing photos I take but I'd like something longer for hunting season (since I only pull shutters and no triggers).

I would not say I am budget insensitive, but it is worth it to me to not compromise on what is the right tool for the job.

Being able to afford a 911 is not the same thing as affording a GT2!

Off topic, but why did you get the mkiii? I bought you were waiting for the 1dx? Are you keeping he mkiii and mkiv to complement each other?

skater911 wrote in post #14219751
Off topic, but why did you get the mkiii? I bought you were waiting for the 1dx? Are you keeping he mkiii and mkiv to complement each other?

I don't know yet. I still want the 1Dx but who knows when it's coming out? I got a shelf to fill, man! Can't have spaces on the shelf!

I will revisit the 1Dx when it actually exists, keep the MkIV for now, sell it if I decide to go with the 1Dx and keep the 5Diii either way. I just like having two bodies.

if you need/want the reach of the 500 with fantastic IQ it brings to the table then it's worth $3200. 300 f/4 is a very sharp lens, I rarely use mine but when I do it doesn't disappoint. I've seen a review of the new 400 2.8 that wasn't good, don't know if they got a bad copy or if the IQ problems they noted is a general problem. If it were me, I'd go with the 500, many people here consider it one of Canon's best lens, I think you'd be unhappy with the 300 2.8 with a 2X TC on it.

This was shot with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS with a Canon 2X III and may be worth considering.

artyman wrote in post #14220476
This was shot with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS with a Canon 2X III and may be worth considering.

nice, from what distance though?

First question... do you want to shoot handheld much of the time, or are you prepared to use a tripod or at least a monopod most of the time.

If you want to shoot handheld, and want to stick with a prime lens rather than a zoom, then the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6 (non-IS) are your two main choices. Maybe the 400/4 DO. There really aren't many other options.

300/2.8 IS II or 500/4 II are a bit smaller and lighter than the Mark I versions of each that I'm using, but still are largely tripod-only lenses. Sure, they both can be handheld briefly, but you won't want to do that for very long. Especially the 500mm. Figure a sturdy tripod... and if you want to shoot sports or nature, probably a gimbal mount. Now, both of those lenses are light enough that you can use a gimbal adapter such as the Wimbeley Sidekick with a standard, heavy duty ballhead. That might be preferable to a fully dedicated gimbal head on a tripod (which means switching heads if you ever want to use the tripod for anything else... and is pretty much necessary for 400/2.8 and 600/4).

I'd try to stick with 1.4X teleconverter, at least to start with. A 2X costs more image quality than a 1.4X. And a 1.4X costs one stop of light, while a 2X loses two stops of light. You'll be able to autofocus - center point only - at effective f8 with your 1D series camera, but not with your 5DIII (you can "fool the camera" into trying to focus at f8 or smaller, but should expect it to be slower and hunt more). An f4 lens with a 1.4X TC is an effective f5.6 and an f5.6 lens with the same TC is an effective f8. An f4 lens with a 2X TC is an effective f8.

The longer your telephoto and the more distant subject you are trying to capture an image of, the more atmosphere you are shooting through and that can cost some image quality too. Plus, even with IS, the longer the lens, the more you are dealing with keeping things stable.

It's like a tug of war.... you want the most reach, longest lens you can get... especially shooting birds. But the closer you can capture the shot, the better the quality will be.

So, in general, try to use the least strong TC you can.

You also might consider a 1.6X camera such as the 7D. That will put "more pixels on target" with long lenses, than your 5DIII.

It's sort of unfair to compare the 300/4 with the 300/2.8. The latter is one of Canon's very best lenses... might be one of the best lenses from any manufacturer. The 300/4 is merely "very good".

The 300/2.8 is designed for wide open use and sharp enough to make your eyes bleed at any f-stop. It's also got wonderful bokeh. The 300/4 is sharp, but not as sharp. It benefits from stopping down a little. And, it doesn't render as smooth bokeh (except when used wide open where the aperture is truly round). Still, the 300/4 is a super lens.

What you might consider, get the 300/4 IS and shoot with it for a while. Try it with 1.4X, which is a good solid combo. I'd recommend the Canon 1.4X Mark II or Mark III TC, or the Kenko 1.4X Pro 300 DG or DGX. Those are all quite good. I don't think the Kenko "reports" to the camera (so will still try to focus at effective f8 and f11 on most/all Canon), but since the combo is f5.6 effective, that isn't a factor in this case.

You can always add a 2X later, but probalby will find you use it less than the 1.4X, on fewer lenses.

If you find you want f2.8 lens, it's wouldn't be a big deal to sell the 300/4 for most of what you paid for it, to upgrade. Think of the purchase of the 300/4 as a long term, low cost rental! You might end up getting the f2.8 too (I did). And you might end up with 500/4 as well... not instead.

Other thought....

The 400/4 DO is an interesting lens... more handholdable. It's not so great with TCs, though, from what I hear.

The 400/2.8 IS II might be a single lens solution, instead of getting 300mm and 500mm (which I would predict you might want). Sure, it's more expensive than the 500mm... and bigger/heavier... But if you might end up with a single lens and that might be the more cost effective and practical solution in the long run.

There are other possibilities...

The Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS that Ken mentions seems a fine lens... perhaps the highest quality zoom option until Canon gets around to actually offering their 200-400/4L Externder 1.4X. The Sigma zoom is going to be a tripod lens most of the time, I'm sure. It takes teleconverters pretty well, too, from what I've seen.

It's going to cost a small fortune, I'm sure... Canon hasn't told us how much yet,. or even when it will be available... but they have given us a preliminary peek at the upcoming 200-400/4L zoom.... It will have a built in 1.4X teleconverter, so can serve as a 280-560/5.6 as well.

I use 500/4 IS, 300/2.8 IS and 300/4 IS... the 500mm and f2.8 lenses on a tripod or monopod mostly, the f4 lens handheld much of the time. It's hard to show the differences at Internet resolutions...

At this juncture, given the prices involved with the MkII large primes, I wouldn't make a move until the EF 200-400mm 1.4X hits the market and there is some real-world feedback.

With the improvements in higher ISOs in general (not tied to any one specific camera .. although I see the OP has the two best right now), having a range of 200-560mm could be extremely useful to many shooters.

Personally, if the 200-400 shines, I can see it replacing both my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8...

Food for Thought!

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14219811
I don't know yet. I still want the 1Dx but who knows when it's coming out? I got a shelf to fill, man! Can't have spaces on the shelf!

I will revisit the 1Dx when it actually exists, keep the MkIV for now, sell it if I decide to go with the 1Dx and keep the 5Diii either way. I just like having two bodies.

Guess I have to revise this statement..... 1div sold about 30 minutes ago so now im waiting on the 1dx again......