300mm prime lens

Just been looking at a used Canon 300mm prime lens on display in my local shop. Its enormous! completely dwarfs my own 100-400L zoom.

I assume its due to the maximum aperture differences between the two products?

Shame its not longer, because I'm in the market for something in the 500 or 600mm area for birding.

300 f2.8 IS is my favourite birding lens, mainly because it's not too big. Add a 1.4x TC and you have a 420mm f4 lens with superb AF that's light enough to carry around and shoot handheld. If 600mm is required then the 2x TC will still give usable IQ and AF.

When I've tried using a 500mm f4 I've not been able to use it handheld for more than a minute or so. That means I need to carry a huge, heavy, lens plus a gimbal head plus a tripod sturdy enough to keep that lot steady. Much larger and heavier than a simple 300 f2.8

hollis_f wrote in post #17253303
300 f2.8 IS is my favourite birding lens, mainly because it's not too big. Add a 1.4x TC and you have a 420mm f4 lens with superb AF that's light enough to carry around and shoot handheld. If 600mm is required then the 2x TC will still give usable IQ and AF.

When I've tried using a 500mm f4 I've not been able to use it handheld for more than a minute or so. That means I need to carry a huge, heavy, lens plus a gimbal head plus a tripod sturdy enough to keep that lot steady. Much larger and heavier than a simple 300 f2.8

I regularly use a monopod for birding. A gimbal head on a tripod would be better but I'm happy with the compromise.

I assume the results from the prime, with or without TC, would be much better than my 100-400L, with or without TC?

Is it an IS or non IS version ? ? The latter isn't supported by Canon anymore if I remember right. They are heavy coming from a 100-400, but a monopod makes up for that. It's one of Canons sharpest lens though, and TC's make very little difference to it.............

Might look into the 400 4.0 DO

The 300's take TC's extremely well... With the 1.4x I don't see any optical difference and the 2x III is very good as well. As mentioned above, it is easily handheld (relatively speaking). I have lugged my 300 around an amusement park for 6hrs without a problem on a gripped 5D Mark III. I have never used it "in the field" with any mono or tripod.

I would just suggest a nice comfy op-tech strap Really helps with larger setups on the shoulder.

The 400mm DO could be another smaller, great option. Not sure on your budget, but the new 400mm DO Mark II is about to come out and looks incredible.

Lowner wrote in post #17253297
Just been looking at a used Canon 300mm prime lens on display in my local shop. Its enormous! completely dwarfs my own 100-400L zoom.

I assume its due to the maximum aperture differences between the two products?

Shame its not longer, because I'm in the market for something in the 500 or 600mm area for birding.

Heya,

Take a look at the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 as an alternative. Takes TC's well.

Alternatively, the DO lenses by Canon are smaller and lighter, which makes them very attractive for hand holding.

Very best,

Personally I would say save more and see if you can get 500mm f4 IS ver I. I had both 30mm f2.8 IS ver I and 500mm f4 IS ver I and for birding I always used 500mm f4 and 90% of the time with 1.4xTC.

I really want a 400 F2.8, any version. That focal length and that aperture does it for me. I find that 600mm is my sweet spot. I've tried other focal lengths and this one just seems to nail it for me. I don't feel reach limited as often, without it being unrealistic. Longer would be nice, but then again, too much reach and too much atmosphere between the element and the target makes for problems sometimes depending on environmental conditions. I shoot over a lot of water, for reference why I say that. 400 F2.8 is the lens one day for me though. 400 F2.8 in it's own right is solid. And throw on any flavor TC and it just gets silly. 800 F5.6 for that cost is tremendous. 560 F4 is also very respectable. I could live with those options.

Can't afford it for now, so I sit with my cheaper 600mm.

Very best,

Lowner wrote in post #17253297
Just been looking at a used Canon 300mm prime lens on display in my local shop. Its enormous! completely dwarfs my own 100-400L zoom.

I assume its due to the maximum aperture differences between the two products?

Shame its not longer, because I'm in the market for something in the 500 or 600mm area for birding.

If you feel that the 300 F2.8 dwarfs your 100-400 then you will have a bit of a shock if you try lugging around a 500/600 F4!
My current wildlife setup is the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. I mostly use the 800 mm but it does restrict my mobility as I need my big backpack, tripod, gimbal head, etc etc = quite a heavy load!
The great advantage of the 300 F2.8 to me is that I can attach it to my lightweight mono pod (Gitzo GM2541) and sling it over my shoulder (with a couple of extenders in my pocket. Additionally the 300 F2.8 works well with extenders. The Canon 1.4 Mk2 or 3 are great but the Canon 2 x Mk3 is much better than the Mk2. In decent light the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 + the Canon 2 x Mk3 (stopped down a little) does not give up much to a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk1 (I had both for a while). You will loose some AF speed with the 2 x extender but not accuracy in my experience.
Attached is one of the very first shots I took with my 300 F2.8. Note this is with the 2 x Mk3 extender and is a RAW file straight from the camera just downsized for web use, no sharpening, no editing/cropping etc. Also no experience with this combination I think it was my 3rd or 4th frame!

I'm in the same dilemma:

I own the Tamron 150-600, and it's just uncooperative for quickly moving birds in flight unless you want extremely boring images of birds+blue sky backgrounds... sure they "document" what you saw, but not exactly compelling/thought provoking images I'm after. The tamron does fine for non moving objects however.

So, looking at the cost part of the equation, if I go with the 300 F2.8L II, it runs:

$6599 at B&H. Then, I'm easily looking to get the 1.4x for BIF images, and the 2x for landscape duty/compression scenes. Thats another $900, so $7500 total.

OR, I can just get the Canon 500 f4 ii for $9500.

$2k more dollars gets me better AF for moving objects, and lets be honest, for bird images, I'm probably going to crop that 420mm image if I go with the 300mm+1.4x.

Comparing weight, the 300 f2.8L II weighs: 5.17lbs, add the extender(s) and the gap closes even further. The 500 F4L II weighs: 7.03lbs.

So we're talking 1.5 lbs difference and $2k here?

For birds in flight, and for birds that are most active around dusk, then I'm worried the 300+1.4x or 300+2x scenario will lead to missed focused shots, and then kicking myself for not spending the extra $2k?

Most of the harrier hawks, eagles, etc I've easily been cropping from 600mm tamron images on the 5dmkiii. It gives me nothing but garbage using the 70d, however the 70d is awesome with a solid lens such as the 75-300F4-5.6L, so I don't think it's the camera. My mind goes in circles thinking that 300+1.4x+70d/7dmkii may actually be perfect given it would yield 672mm assuming ones happy going the crop sensor route...

Open to further thoughts, but I'm on the fence between the two...

Markesc,

Then again, if you're willing to go to $9500, why not just pony up and go 600 F4 and call it a day? Especially if you go 2nd hand.

Very best,

Isn't the 600 a much greater weight penalty?