300/2.8 IS MkII v MkI question

When I had the 300/2.8 IS MkI I always felt that with a 2x tc MkII it was fine if used on a tripod and stopped down one but not so good if trying to hand hold. For anyone who has upgraded to the MkII lens how good is it with a 2x tc MkIII and hand held? (I would have thought that the 4 stop IS must help a lot when at 600mm). I am not so worried about the price difference but just the hand holdability at 600mm. BTW my main interest is birds and wildlife.

Here is a review by famed bird photographer, Arthur Morris (Birds as Art), on the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L I.S. II lens, and both 1.4x, and 2x series III converters. Art has been a Canon shooter for years.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com …-canon-300mm-f2-8l-is-ii/

Hope it helps.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #14536102
Here is a review by famed bird photographer, Arthur Morris (Birds as Art), on the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L I.S. II lens, and both 1.4x, and 2x series III converters. Art has been a Canon shooter for years.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com …-canon-300mm-f2-8l-is-ii/

Hope it helps.

Thanks for That - I have read Art's review before but he only used the lens at 600mm on a tripod. I was looking for someone that uses it hand held at 600mm for the likes of birds.

Ahh my bad. Sorry.

Before I got my 500mm, I used to shoot the 300 MkI + 2X TC MkII with regularity. I routinely shoot hand held at shutter speeds well below the 1/focal length directive (often down to 1/30 for Helicopters in flight.)

Can't say I've ever had either an operational or handling issue but I did reach the conclusion that there was a noticeable hit to the IQ (which prompted me to go get a 500 f/4)

I understand the MkII Primes + MkIII TCs are a better marriage but I'm afraid I have no hard evidence of how much better.

I shot alot of handheld with the 300 and TCs, I found focussing lagged somewhere for in flights but shots were always sharp when nailed, user error, slow shutter etc were usally to blame for the soft ones.

The Canon 300 f2.8 IS AF is better with the 2 x III then the 2x II. For in flight shots the AF is slower with the 2x but BIF shots in good light are not a problem. However I am sure a 500 f4 or 600 f4 would be better when used bare or with a 1.4 x . I think the perfect combo would be a 300mm and a 500mm or 600mm. Then you are covered for just about anything and any travel scenario! I did talk to a friend of mine who has the 300mm f2.8 II and his conclusion was the AF speed with the 2 x III was not really any faster than the version I combo.

Thank you for all the feedback guys. I guess I did not really explain myself to begin with, as far as the focus speed with a 2x tc is concerned I accept that it is never going to be blistery fast no matter which tc version you use and given this limitation capturing fast BIF is always going to be a bit more limiting, not to bothered about this (BTW I always used a focus limiter when using the 2x which obviously helped). My main use is for perched bird.

My main point was that I always found that it paid to stop down one to get the best IQ when using a 2x tc MkII (subjective I know but that was my feeling) and given the often gloomy weather in the UK winters, getting the shutter speed I wanted to hand hold the MkI IS lens at 600mm and f8 was more often than not very difficult (without using very high ISO's) - I was hoping that the new four stop IS would help a lot in elevating the problem, especially if the 2x MkIII tc was better when you were shooting wide open at f5.6.

I should also add that I am not interested in one of the bigger super teles due the weight/size - I am a weakling pensioner who gets all my shots by going walkabout along the estuary, ten years ago I would not have hesitated to get something like a 500/4 but age is against me now I am afraid.

I Roy i have a new 300 f2.8 is II and an old 300 f2.8 non is, with the old one i needed a tripod to get good sharp photos with the 2x II with UK weather. Since i got the new lens i have sold the tripod and Gimbal head 4 stops no problem. The new one seems alot lighter and with the 4 stops IS i no longer worry about shutter speed even down to 1/8sec. I also find without the need of a tripod i get more shots i would have not got simply because but the time a moved the tripod into position the bird of animal was away. !!!

sample taken with 1dmk2 with New 300mm f2.8 IS MkII and a 2xmkII handheld

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​196071708/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​196072136/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​198123846/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​198124448/

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

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

industryimage wrote in post #14543767
I Roy i have a new 300 f2.8 is II and an old 300 f2.8 non is, with the old one i needed a tripod to get good sharp photos with the 2x II with UK weather. Since i got the new lens i have sold the tripod and Gimbal head 4 stops no problem. The new one seems alot lighter and with the 4 stops IS i no longer worry about shutter speed even down to 1/8sec. I also find without the need of a tripod i get more shots i would have not got simply because but the time a moved the tripod into position the bird of animal was away. !!!

Thanks for that Warren, just what I hoped to hear. Agree about the tripod slowing things down for birds, especially as I never shoot from hides or managed reserves but like to go walkabout. Could even recoup a nice wad if I sold my CF tripod and gimbal.
The samples are very impressive at those shutter speeds.

Roy

I use my 300mm f2.8 IS v1 with a 1.4 x and Canon 2x III handheld all the time. No problems shooting birds or wildlife at all. Lots of examples on my Flickr page as well as posted in this forum.

I currently have both versions of this lens only because I have not gotten around to selling my ver I yet. I am by no means an expert on either lens so my opinion may not count for much. By having both versions I have been able to compare them side by side and found the ver II noticably lighter and better balanced. My conclusion may be attributed to the more forward foot design of the ver II and the way that I hold the lens but it just seems much easier to hand hold than the ver I. I did not have much luck with the ver I and the 2X III TC which is why I bought the version II lens. The 2X III TC and ver II play very nicely together and the paint matches to boot. The 4 stop IS is definitely a nice feature as I handhold 98% of the time and I shoot mostly in the diminishing light of the evening as that is the only time I can get away to shoot. As long as the critter is not moving I have had really good luck at 1/125 and above with the 2X combo.

Thank you for all the feedback folks. I guess the trouble with all this photography lark is that IQ is subjective - 'one man's meat is another man's poison'. I see many example's of peoples shots where they claim they have no problem shooting with various gear and if they are happy with what they get then that is fine but it is not always to my taste or expectations. I suspect a lot of folks would look at my Photostream and think the same about my shots, like I say its all subjective.

I have a flickr set with just pics taken with the 300/2.8 IS MkI and a 2x tc HERE but most of these were taken on a tripod. They do attract loads of positive comments on Flickr but as far as I am concerned most are not really up to much in terms of IQ.I have therefore decided that if I do go for another 300/2.8 it will definitely be the MKII version of the lens and the 2x tc MkIII , not only easier to hand hold but also better IQ at 600mm hopefully.

Thank you all again for taking the time to comment and happy snapping

Content warning: script