300 F/2.8 + 1.4X for Birds?

I have today a 50D + 100-400L (+ EFS17-55 as walk around) and I'm thinking on improving my setup (the 400 5.6 and 600 4 are ruled out...)

I'm tending towards the 300 but I also know that the 500 is considered to be the ultimate birding lense... please guide me a little here

- I'm not a pro but a serious amateur. I do a daily job that has no relation with photography
- Let's assume that money is not a problem ... but value for money is
- I do birds, sometimes more birds ... 99% of the time I have a camera in my hands is going after birds
- I enjoy hiking and walking (rough terrain mostly)... I'm not the tripod+hide type, so weight/portability is an issue
- I'm a FANATIC of IQ and even though not a pro, My life becomes brighter with a sharp and plenty of details picture of a little bird

I've been looking in the forum for this comparisson and found several threads... the more interesting being the following
https://photography-on-the.net …ght=300+f2.8+vs​+500+f%2F4

I know that if I go for the 300 the converter will be welded to it.

My rational for shoosing the 300 is the following... your comments/corrections/s​uggestions on them are HIGHLY appreciated. As I said, money is not an issue but I don't like wasting it

- Reach: The 500 is a no brainer ... 300+1.4 is a compromise
- IQ: From what I've read both setups (500 vs 300+1.4) are similar ... how they compare with a "normal" copy of a 100-400 (I'm happy with the 1-4 ... after canon calbrated it)
- Weight: The 300 is a no brainer here... looks like very handholdable, though I will try at local shop before pulling the triiger
- cost: ~4k against ~6k .... Value seems to favor the 300 if I through in a little more versatility

I make a particular commnet on IQ: I know that the 500 without converter will be better but please frame the comment in the fact that I'm coming from a 100-400 ...

Thanks for any advice and your unvaluable experience
cheers
Alex

500 and/or 300/2.8 with a 1.4x TC should have better IQ than the 100-400.

Depends how big the birds you're shooting I used this combo a few times for birds but most of the time without the TC.

Once in a while I didn't have room to backup.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

Go for the 300 2.8 IS + convertors
with 1.4 almost no IQ loss
with 2.0 very good from F8 onwards

Thanks gasrocks
Great picture 4x4rock!, I shoot mostly small birds (and the big ones are far way )
romulus_be: Do you have any sample using the 3x wide open?

General rule - do not buy a lens that you only plan on using with TCs. 400mm is barely a start for birding. Nothing is ever long enough. Unless you also do sports or have some other need for a fast 300, I'd not get the 300/2.8 for birding.

You will want the 500 after you buy the 300 if you are primarily shooting birds. I'm saving for the 500 and will keep the 300 for sports and traveling. (With extenders)

Having had the 300 (twice), having owned three 100-400s and now having the 500, I feel qualified to address this.
First of all, either the 300+1.4X TC or the 500 both beat the 100-400 for IQ, hands down.
Second, the 500 with a 1.4X TC beats the 300 with a 2X TC hands down for IQ and AF speed. My 1.4 practically lives on my 500.
As for portability...well, I was never much for handholding the 300, so I can't comment on that, but I can tell you that having carried the 300 and the 500 mounted on a monopod over my shoulder for several miles, I really didn't notice the difference.
My opinion...go for the 500. You rarely want less reach when it comes to birds. Hell, I wish I had the 600 most of the time, if not the 800.

RikWriter wrote in post #7427372
Having had the 300 (twice), having owned three 100-400s and now having the 500, I feel qualified to address this.
First of all, either the 300+1.4X TC or the 500 both beat the 100-400 for IQ, hands down.
Second, the 500 with a 1.4X TC beats the 300 with a 2X TC hands down for IQ and AF speed. My 1.4 practically lives on my 500.
As for portability...well, I was never much for handholding the 300, so I can't comment on that, but I can tell you that having carried the 300 and the 500 mounted on a monopod over my shoulder for several miles, I really didn't notice the difference.
My opinion...go for the 500. You rarely want less reach when it comes to birds. Hell, I wish I had the 600 most of the time, if not the 800.

Another question on portability then: I many times bring my 100-400 along for "just in case" ... Would you do that with the 300? the sort of: through it in the bag and hike a few km without pulling it out (Pretty sure that you would NOT do that with the 500 though unless your in the commandos or something )

Alex,

My friend and I are keen photographers of birds. We both started out with the 100-400 and decided that an upgrade would help.

My friend went with the 500 f4. This, of course, requires a decent tripod and a gimbal head - making for a very heavy ensemble. When we're having to walk a long way the weight of this setup is just too much, so she often borrows my 100-400 (having sold hers) or I end up carrying the tripod and head.

Having felt the weight of the 500 I knew there was no way I could carry that thing around for a full day's birding. So I opted for the 300 2.8. I can carry this with the shoulder strap all day with no problem.

If a bird appears suddenly it takes me just a couple of seconds to get it in my sights. My friend had to spend a lot longer getting the tripod setup before being able to shoot it.

The 500 is used on a MkIII, the 300 (with 1.4) on a 50D. So image size is about the same for both. Not surprisingly, the MkIII / 500 combination does give better IQ. But there are many situations where the 50D / 300 combination wins - because the birds has flown before the static setup can get on it.

Here's a sample of the 300 + 1.4 from last weekend...

I have both the 300 and 500, the 300 and 1.4 is a superb combo and use it when I visit the USA, if one had to go I would keep the 300.

100-400 3lbs
300L f/2.9 IS 5.6lbs
500L 8.5lbs

the 300L being smaller than 500L.

How do you plan to drag the 300L in rough terrain?

Why not a 400L 5.6 ? Now you like to pixel peep for sharp shots. How do plan to get SHARP shots after walking in rough terrain and then handholding a 5.6lbs lens? I just don't get it....I mean do you expect the birds will NOT heard wlaking and not hear you getting ready ? Most of the times birding is waiting and waiting AND waiting...it is not chasing...chasing and chasing. YOu will never get good shots...most of the times birds hang around the same place.

hollis_f wrote in post #7429504
Alex,

Here's a sample of the 300 + 1.4 from last weekend...

Frank, this is what I call a "sharp and plenty of details picture" !!! How far was the waxwing from you? what PP does it have?

The image of carrying and setting up the whole set-up is what makes the 500mm option not very appealing for me even if it's considered the ultimate birding glass.

it´s also good with the 2,0TC.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

mandozilla wrote in post #7429462
Another question on portability then: I many times bring my 100-400 along for "just in case" ... Would you do that with the 300? the sort of: through it in the bag and hike a few km without pulling it out (Pretty sure that you would NOT do that with the 500 though unless your in the commandos or something )

No. But then, I hardly ever bring my 100-400 along when I take my 500. Times when it would be useful, it would be impossible to get it out of the bag fast enough.