300 F4L IS +1.4 TC II-

Read a lot of accolades re this combination but not sure which TC(s) are in the equation. Thinking about this lens-currently own the TC II version-and like the advantage of the IS plus the extra stop when used alone. Anyone have thoughts on this? Thank you.

I have personally used this combo many times.
it works very well.
the pics are sharp.
the AF is a bit slower than without TC.
if you dont want to get a 400 5.6
this would be a great alternative.

I've only used my 300 once, and that one time I put the 1.4x TCII on it. Results were very good.

Tried the 300 mil with a 2x. No go, atleast hand held. Too much time for MF, blur, significant loss in IQ. I think a 1.4x should be manageable and am looking to buy a 1.4x for this purpose.
A 400/5.6 without IS leaves you rooted to a tripod which limits opportunities. The 400/4IS is a good but pricey option.

High time Canon came out with a quality 500mm mirror IS. That should do the trick! Maybe Sigma/Tamron/Tokina will....?

I use the 300 with kenko 1.4x all the time, IQ and focussing isnt as good as bare lens but still acceptable, canon one should be as good or better.

khukri wrote in post #14750937
A 400/5.6 without IS leaves you rooted to a tripod which limits opportunities.

No it doesn't. I'm sure most shots from the 400 would be handheld. But I can certainly understand the usefulness of IS in many situations.

I bought the Sigma 150-500 OS, and was somewhat unimpressed... so i moved up (price-wise) to the 300 f/4L IS. I already owned the Sigma 1.4x and 2x TCs. They work great on my 70-200 f/4L IS, and the 1.4x works great on my EF 100 2.8 Macro USM, but i'm not real happy with them on the 300. AF hunts a lot, is slowish, and some softening..and hefty PF (which is there in smaller amounts, with the bare lens anyways).

If i could afford it, i would grab a 1.4x TC II. Otherwise, i got what i wanted.. 400mm, f/5.6 with AF.. and IS, light and compact, and not too expensive. It's a great insect and flower lens as well, and being able to take shots at 1/125 and 1/100 handheld is sweet. For BIF, i would think the 400 5.6L would be the ticket.

Thank you, folks, for your comments. Think that is probably the way I'm going to go-now just have to start saving my nickels! And Kel, I'm reasonably pleased w/ my Sigma-covers my long lens needs for now.

I looked through the images which I shot with my 300mm f/4L IS lens and was surprised that I have saved no images with that lens + the 1.4x TC. I know that I occasionally shot the combination and I don't remember the results being bad. I shot mostly sports with this lens combination and often don't save my sports images because I don't catch the right positions and combinations of players rather than the IQ being bad.

Thank you for your efforts, Richard. I appreciate your looking. Maybe your curiosity was piqued and you went and took an award-winning image w/ that very combination!?! Then again, maybe not. Thanks again.

I've used the combo on both my 40D and 7D with good results. No concerns with sharpness or autofocus performance, at least for the stuff I shoot.

40D:

I have the 300F4 with the Mk2 1.4x and its pretty amazing. I can only assume that the Mk3 is even better. Highly recommended!
Here is a shot I took with this combo:-

Nice shots Will, but you have to admit, that's some pretty hefty PF in the Heron/fish shot.. where the water meets the mud.

Those all look good, Will-I got to save my nickels faster!!

1Tanker wrote in post #14754025
Nice shots Will, but you have to admit, that's some pretty hefty PF in the Heron/fish shot.. where the water meets the mud.

OK-what's PF stand for??