300 F4L IS +1.4 TC II-

ardeekay wrote in post #14754035
OK-what's PF stand for??

Purple fringing.

ardeekay wrote in post #14754035
OK-what's PF stand for??

Purple fringing, and yes, it's definitely there.

My 1.4x is the original MKI, and I'd think that the newer ones would probably be better.

Edit: I am t3h sl0w.

phreeky wrote in post #14751691
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.

Correct. I never used a monopod or tripod with my 400/5.6. I always use one now with my 300/2.8.


I will go a different route. I started with exactly what you want to do OP. Seemed good. I borrowed a 400/5.6 and it was night and day. It's faster AF and sharper. It is practically the same size. Sure the IS is useful but you end up having both cameras at f/5.6 so you will mostly be using it during the day to begin with.

The 400/5.6 is just better than the 300 with a TC. It is extremely sharp and it works great. Would highly recommend going that route if you know that is the reach you want. You end up with more reach and no extra pieces between the lens and the sensor. And size wise it's very close.

I actually am going to be sad when mine sells. I used my 300mm + 1.4X at the beach yesterday. Required lugging my monopod down to the beach to photograph the birds. That was fun.

OK-now you're messing w/ me-lol! Yeah, it's kinda between the two-300 and 400. I'm a birder and you see the 400 in the gear list more often w/ birders. It'll be awhile before I do anything so ponder, debate and rationalize. Thanks everyone. As for "PF", I would miss that every time, I think.

Right. You see it because I personally think it is a better option. I shoot motorsports and the extra reach with no TC is just better. I would assume on a bird it would be the same.

ardeekay wrote in post #14754200
OK-now you're messing w/ me-lol! Yeah, it's kinda between the two-300 and 400. I'm a birder and you see the 400 in the gear list more often w/ birders. It'll be awhile before I do anything so ponder, debate and rationalize. Thanks everyone. As for "PF", I would miss that every time, I think.

While it and the CA's can be fixed in PP, it can be annoying when the birds' eye is always purple/pink..on sunny days. Around the edges of the eye, and in the catch-light. Also, with water fowl, you can get a lot of pink reflections/highlights in the water. It's definitely much less of an issue with the 400/5.6.

Here is another example - I was about 20 feet away using the 300 with the canon 1.4 II. I really love the results of this combo, and am now wondering which to keep - this or my 100-400. This combo is sharper...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kasrielle/71680​01629/

Well you are comparing a prime versus a zoom(a zoom with a big range). That is something that will happen.

dinanm3atl wrote in post #14754400
Well you are comparing a prime versus a zoom(a zoom with a big range). That is something that will happen.

I know... And the 100-400 is sharp - especially on a tripod!

Here's a few with the 300 and my Sigma 1.4x. Keep in mind, i suck at PP.

Not a bird..but: (the wakeboarder isn't very sharp, but ok for me, from this distance..~400')

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/1tanker/7506077​146/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/1tanker/7493338​074/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/1tanker/7477515​862/

Here's some with the 300mm F/4 L and the Canon 1.4x extender II.