Canon 300mm 2.8 mk 1 or mk2 (2 Viewers)

[Roy C]

The 'trick' to getting AF with stacked converters ( 1.4x + 2x) in my experience is to roughly focus manually and then let the AF finish the job - if you are are way out of focus to begin with then it can hunt a lot but if you are thereabouts I always found it focused quickly and more importantly accurately. I have used both Canon 1.4x + 2x and also a Kenko 1.4x + Canon 2x and found no difference whatsoever when stacking with regards to AF speed or accuracy. That's not to say other folks have not had problems and it is obvious that you will need reasonably good light.
IQ when stacked is questionable but it helps if reach limited. Attached shots were all all taken at 840mm (on a 7D) with stacked converters and AF. As far as image quality goes it is very subjective, some folks may find the IQ of these acceptable while others most certainly would not (I tend to fall in the latter category although it is interesting to experiment at times if only out of boredom lol).
Re IQ with 'just' a 2x tc again this is very subjective as previously mentioned by others. I have lots of sharp shots taken with a Canon 2x (MkII) wide open at f5.6 but certainly always thought it payed to stop down one to get the very best out of the combo, I suspect I would feel the same if using a MKII lens and MKIII 2x tc but at least a MkII lens should certainly be easier to hand hold at 600mm with the improved IS system.

 

[stevo]

Nothing wrong with those images Roy,I think it pays to start off with a quality lens in the first place though.Otherwise you`ll just magnify the optical faults more.

Cheers.

Steve.

 

[nsclayton]

Apparently the mark I lens stopped down to f8 with the 2x mark III has about the same sharpness as the mark II lens wide open at f5.6 with the 2x mark III.

With both lenses wide open at f5.6 with the 2x mark III fitted the difference is apparently huge with the mark II lens obviously being the better.

 

[Dave Williams]

Apparently the mark I lens stopped down to f8 with the 2x mark III has about the same sharpness as the mark II lens wide open at f5.6 with the 2x mark III.

With both lenses wide open at f5.6 with the 2x mark III fitted the difference is apparently huge with the mark II lens obviously being the better.

I might be wrong but the question I would ask though is how often do you use the lens wide open for photographing birds ?
No matter how sharp the lens you still need depth of field for most shots. I usually aim for a minimum f8 , the attached, a full frame shot taken at f2.8 without a TC demonstrates the lack of DOF .

I am still in no rush to exchange my Mk1 300mm for a Mk11 although I concede the MK111 2.0xTC might perform better with a Mk11 lens

 

[nsclayton]

I might be wrong but the question I would ask though is how often do you use the lens wide open for photographing birds ?
No matter how sharp the lens you still need depth of field for most shots. I usually aim for a minimum f8 , the attached, a full frame shot taken at f2.8 without a TC demonstrates the lack of DOF .

I am still in no rush to exchange my Mk1 300mm for a Mk11 although I concede the MK111 2.0xTC might perform better with a Mk11 lens

I must admit it is pretty occasional that I would use a x2 on my 300mm I would always prefer to use a x1.4. I don't blame you for not wanting to exchange your mark I and pay thousands to own the mark II.

I was fortunate that I had the spare cash at the right time to get the mark II and would always prefer to spend my cash on good glass rather than a body. I'm sure I would have been reasonably happy with a Mark I; the capability of the photographer to make good images would be a bigger factor than the quality differences in these two lenses.

I was just giving the facts Dave. There are occasions though when it is good to have a small DOF to diffuse the background, in fact this is one of the benefits of owning fast glass.

I attach an example of an image taken with the 300mm II with the x2 III attached at widest aperture.

 

[Dave Williams]

I must admit it is pretty occasional that I would use a x2 on my 300mm I would always prefer to use a x1.4. I don't blame you for not wanting to exchange your mark I and pay thousands to own the mark II.

I was fortunate that I had the spare cash at the right time to get the mark II and would always prefer to spend my cash on good glass rather than a body. I'm sure I would have been reasonably happy with a Mark I; the capability of the photographer to make good images would be a bigger factor than the quality differences in these two lenses.

I was just giving the facts Dave. There are occasions though when it is good to have a small DOF to diffuse the background, in fact this is one of the benefits of owning fast glass.

I attach an example of an image taken with the 300mm II with the x2 III attached at widest aperture.

I wasn't criticising your post, merely putting an opposing view point Nick.
You would have been very happy with a Mark 1 but I totally understand why anyone might choose to pay the extra for a Mk11 as well. All we can do is try to lighten the decision making by sharing our own experiences...I certainly empathise ,I have agonised over choices and even having made the purchase, still questioned my decisions.
Love the Lapwing !

 

[nsclayton]

I wasn't criticising your post, merely putting an opposing view point Nick.
You would have been very happy with a Mark 1 but I totally understand why anyone might choose to pay the extra for a Mk11 as well. All we can do is try to lighten the decision making by sharing our own experiences...I certainly empathise ,I have agonised over choices and even having made the purchase, still questioned my decisions.
Love the Lapwing !

No problem Dave and thanks for the compliment. As you say the main thing is to try and lighten the decision by sharing our own experiences, after all they are normally expensive decisions when it comes to wildlife photography.

 

[nsclayton]

the attached, a full frame shot taken at f2.8 without a TC demonstrates the lack of DOF

I hope you don't mind me saying Dave especially since you have been so nice to me but I had another look at your Sparrow photo and noticed that you have focused quite a bit in front of the bird, if you had got the plane of focus correct it could have been possible that most of the bird would have been in focus.

 

[Dave Williams]

I hope you don't mind me saying Dave especially since you have been so nice to me but I had another look at your Sparrow photo and noticed that you have focused quite a bit in front of the bird, if you had got the plane of focus correct it could have been possible that most of the bird would have been in focus.

Don't mind at all Nick. According to my view in "Aperture" the focus points are on the birds collar. I'm sure I can find a few more that back my theory up !

In fact, having looked again, I think your Lapwing demonstrates the very shallow DOF perfectly.
My own reason for loving fast glass is more for AF speed , especially for flight shots.

 

[barnstormer]

Thanks guys you are giving me plenty to think about but someone threw a spanner in the works by suggesting a 400mm 2.8 but even second hand they are in the region of
5k and getting a mk ii would be well over 6k unless someone knows different. Has anyone had the pleasure of this lens and what was it like. this would give me the extra length and also the speed I want.

 

[Dave Williams]

The 400 Mk1 is too heavy to hand hold for all but the keenest of body builders on steroids.Even the 400 Mk11 is too heavy to hold for very long in my opinion, it weighs the same as the 500mm Mk1 which I have experience of. A couple of shots and you'd need to put it down.You'd get the extra reach over the 300mm but you loose portability . If you you really want to push the boat out and get the best of both worlds save up for a 500mm Mk11. It's unbelievably light, hand holding is pretty easy and despite the fact it weighs 640gms more than the 300mm f2.8MK I it seems so well balanced you don't notice. I have hardly touched my 300mm since I bought it. You get the benefit of up to 1000mm with the 2.0TC and to be honest, if in the future you get an FX body, 500mm is the minimum you need.Unfortunately, the 500mm is now around £7750. That's a lot of dosh unless you are going to get full use out of it.

 

[barnstormer]

Yeah I knew about the weight but I won't be hand holding much anyway and only have a £5000 budget or there about. That would enable me to get a new 300 or a good 500 f4 mk I. Not sure which way to go I seem to keep changing my mind, I think I would probably go for the model I got my hands on first. The only problem is there doesn't seem to be too many up for grabs in the north east or near here, they all seem to be London area.
Confused.com

 

[Tim Taylor]

There's a 600mm f4 for sale on this forum for less than your budget - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=270522 A fab lens for birding if you're prepared to lug around tirpod and gimbal mount.

 

[Dave Williams]

There's a 600mm f4 for sale on this forum for less than your budget - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=270522 A fab lens for birding if you're prepared to lug around tirpod and gimbal mount.

I still miss mine. It's a big bulky lens, weighs too much to hand hold , is awkward in confined spaces but produces superb images and the reach is as good as it gets as you can stick a 2.0TC and still AF with it if you have a 1D or 5D111.
You might need to spend £1k on a replacement tripod and head though.

 

[johnf3f]

Having owned the Canon 600 F4 IS Mk1 I would echo Dave's comments - it is a lovely lens but it is big and HEAVY! If that is not a problem then you won't be disappointed with a 600.
I went the opposite direction to Dave and went for a Canon 800 F5.6 IS and even this is easier to handle that the 600 F4 - also it was only 500 pounds over your budget!
I have also played with both the Canon 500 and 600 Mk2 lenses and I would love to have one but they are just too expensive for me.

 

[Dave Williams]

Yeah I knew about the weight but I won't be hand holding much anyway and only have a £5000 budget or there about. That would enable me to get a new 300 or a good 500 f4 mk I. Not sure which way to go I seem to keep changing my mind, I think I would probably go for the model I got my hands on first. The only problem is there doesn't seem to be too many up for grabs in the north east or near here, they all seem to be London area.
Confused.com

You still need to get to where you are going even if you don't hand hold the lens !
You can pick up an excellent example of the 500mm Mk1 for £4k if you are patient. Sell your 40D and 100-400 and you should have enough budget to buy a used 1DMk1V and then you are laughing.
The 500 is light enough to get away with something like a Manfrotto 055 tripod which you must be able to buy for next to nothing used as no one wants mine !

 

[barnstormer]

I must admit I am seriously considering selling my 100-400 and 40d with canon battery grip. especially as have a 7d now. I have the same tripod which I find ok to use but I might buy a lens master bracket if I do manage to pick up a great white of some description.

 

[postcardcv]

I would not want to use a 500 f4 on a Manfrotto 055... It really isn't strong or stable enough. I used one for a number of years and really liked it but compared to a Gitzo it is extremely wobbly. If you are going to spend the money on a big prime then budget for a good tripod and head it really does make a huge difference. If you can afford to keep the 100-400 then I would recommend doing so as it is a great lens to use alongside a big prime. If you are happy to accept the weight and bulk then a 500 or 600 is the way to go for bird photography.

If I could only use one lens to shot birds I would choose the 500. There is no denying that the 300 f2.8 is a superb lens but for me the 500 wins out as reach is so often king. One of the most amazing features of the 500 is just how good it is as a 700 f5.6, the fall off in image quality is virtually none.

 

[Tim Taylor]

Just as a poor illustration of the 600mm f4 + 1.4x mkIII with the 1DIV body, I was out in appalling light today and took a quick shot of a stonechat. The settings were ISO 1600, 1/320th, shot wide open at f5.6 and it was on a Gitzo tripod with Wimberley head. I have resized the pics but applied no processing. The first is full frame and the second is a 100% crop. It's a rubbish pic but I think it illustrates that even at too slow a shutter speed and a high ISO , you can still see a lot of detail on the 100% crop.

Plenty of much better shots on my website and some action shots of osprey vs pike here.

 

[johnf3f]

Just thinking of Dave Williams and Postcardcv' comments. I used to use the original Canon 400mm F2.8 (6.1 kilos + camera) on a Manfrotto 055 with a Manfrotto 393 head and it does work. These days I am using a Gitzo 3530LS and a Wimberlrey 2 and it also works - but it is sooooooo much better!
Allow some funds for a decent new tripod (or a better used one) and a gimbal head - you will not regret the investment!