300mm 2.8 for birding?

I shot some night moon recently with the 1.4 on it. Fuzzy. Took it off and it looks sweet. With the 1.4 the 300 seemed "telescope" quality.

You don't see this with regular daytime subjects.

Still, the birds need a crop body and a long lens. Or use a 1Ds Mk.II and crop it to 1D size.

Or do this:

Canon Bob wrote in post #3656474
Just popped out into the gloom and took a shot with the 300 and 2X and 1.4X stacked....the 1.4 isn't reported in the EXIF.
Subject (a fucshia) was about 20m away, IS was on and a monopod used.
It may give you some idea what to expect...
Let me know if you want it sent and what file size you can handle

Bob

While it's true you can stack TC's it isn't a workable solution day to day IMHO

I shoot this combo as my workhourse lens.. I do want to get a longer lens but heh these things cost money. The 300 was all I could bite off at the time so That is my lens of choice. If money were not the issue I would go with the 500 in a heart beat and I might just do that in the next year of so because reach is king. I have to get closer then others with longer lenses. Sometimes this mean I loose the shot... sometimes I do not....

The 300, 500, and 600 are all heavy so keep that in mind.. tl

Walkaround and birds makes me think of the 400/5.6 or the Bigma perhaps (with a monopod.) Rule of thumb for deciding between two lenses for birds is to get the longer one even if it is slower. Yes, I use my 300/2.8 with a 2x often and even stacked TCs but I also have longer lenses to choose from. Especially BIF, birds in flight, moving action - the 400/5.6 is a winner.

cosworth wrote in post #3656518
I shot some night moon recently with the 1.4 on it. Fuzzy. Took it off and it looks sweet. With the 1.4 the 300 seemed "telescope" quality.

You don't see this with regular daytime subjects.

Still, the birds need a crop body and a long lens. Or use a 1Ds Mk.II and crop it to 1D size.

Or do this:

Holy crap that is awesome. Don't sneeze.

Haven't used it for birding very much yet but i took this with a Sigma 2xtc attached and hand held. Only about 15-20 ft away, but I'm well impressed with the IQ with the tc attached.

As a birder, the 500mm f/4 is my walk around lens.
Seriously, the idea of portable and birding don;t often go hand in hand.

That awesome shot above shows that the lucj lighter 300mm @ 600mm is a good option, and is a breeze to walk around with IMHO

As you seem to be a peripatetic wildlife/bird photographer , meaning lottsa hiking and hand-holding of your photo rig, and assuming you are of average physical strength and endurance, then I think your mobility kit should include 400 f/5.6, or 100-400 or 300 f/4+1.4TC or something else 3rd party in the same weight bracket.

However, if you are a sturdy type or willing to suffer a bit and hopefully beef up, then the 300 f/2.8 +1 Series camera becomes tractable for extended periods of time (i.e., 2-3 hours).

I have gone thru a similar process with the 300 f/2.8L (non-IS) and the 200 f/1.8 both of which are about 300g heavier than the 300 f/2.8L IS. A heavier rig than that I have not tried hand-holding , nor would I really want/need to.

When it comes to IQ, I think the 300 f/2.8L +1.4xTC is practically as good as the naked lens. However, I have not used the 2xTC on the lens much because of the AF becoming sluggish.....and to me the AF speed (and IQ) is at least as important as the focal length (reach).

The weight difference between the 500mm f4 and the 300mm f2.8 is not that significant. I would not want to hand hold either of them for a long time. Just IMHO.

Oh yes, 1.3 Kg must make one hell of a difference when trying to swing that lens in your hands for 1 hour.

By golly, I can feel the difference of .350 kg (weight differential between 200 f/1.8 - 300 f/2.8 IS).

I started with the 500 f/4 and I am glad I did. I still have it and will never get rid of it. But I wanted something lighter for walk around. I did get the 400 f/5.6 which is an excellent lens but not wide enough for low light situations. I found an excellent 10+ quality used 300 f/2.8 and love it. I have compared the 300 with a 2X TC on it to my 500 with the 2X and if I really pixel peep down too 200%, the 300 f/2.8 is better. In fact I will state that overall the 300 f/2.8 produces a better image then the 500 f/4 with or without tc's. HOWEVER, for shooting small birds the 300 cannot touch the 500! And this goes for any distant bird, animal, person whatever. You do the math of a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body with a 300mm lens and a 500mm lens and a 1.4 or 2X tc. There IS QUITE a difference.
I am glad I have all three of those white beauties. I also have the 100-400 to round it all out. But the 300 f/2.8 is my flagship lens-go for it!
GG

markol wrote in post #3658830
The weight difference between the 500mm f4 and the 300mm f2.8 is not that significant. I would not want to hand hold either of them for a long time. Just IMHO.

I have held both. Over time there is QUITE a bit of weight difference. I now can hold my 300 f/2.8 for several hours of shooting. (It took me a little arm muscle building at first) My 500 f/4 hold shooting time is in minutes.

wanted to read this thread for when I win the lottery. I can't afford even a used beat up one of any of these, but it was still a good read!
I did try to handhold the 300 2.8, but someone started yelling 'SECURITY!!'...I didn't think I was that close to the door!
Also I love the blind! though, I don't think I'd use one in water- fear of drowning lenses and camera and a fear of snakes...

Mr. E wrote in post #3658999
wanted to read this thread for when I win the lottery. I can't afford even a used beat up one of any of these, but it was still a good read!
I did try to handhold the 300 2.8, but someone started yelling 'SECURITY!!'...I didn't think I was that close to the door!
Also I love the blind! though, I don't think I'd use one in water- fear of drowning lenses and camera and a fear of snakes...

That's why I own super telles, don't have to go into the water!

If you look at the lenses used by serious professional birders you will find that many of them use a 600 f/4, often with a 1.4x teleconverter. A smaller number use the 500 f/4, mainly because it weighs less to carry around.