Canon 300mm f4 plus 1.4x teleconverter (1 Viewer)

[kerryN]

Hi

At the moment I have the canon 70-300mm IS USM lens but was thinking of buying the 300mm f4 IS along with a 1.4x teleconverter. I wanted to know how much better quality of image I can expect to get both with the converter attached and without. I have attached an image taken with the 70-300mm lens - this has had minimal sharpening and contrast using the software that came with my 400D.

Many thanks
KerryN

 

[OBXGuide]

I have the 300mm f/4 IS with canon 1.4 TC, and the older canon 75-300mm IS in my personal gear, and also use the newer 70-300 IS with my gear where I work. I have been completely unimpressed with the new 70-300 IS version. I couldn't recommend it to anyone. It's visibly softer than my older 75-300 IS lens. I have gotten some good shots with my older 75-300 IS. I used it for 5 years for all my bird photography. Check out thise two links - shots taken with the 75-300:
http://www.ncbirds.com/BirdImages/prints/MourningDove_D146.jpg
http://www.ncbirds.com/BirdImages/prints/Cardinal_D132.jpg

However, once I saw the difference an L lens makes when I got my 500mm IS, I knew i had to go L on the 300mm end too. The color rendition, background softness and overall sharpness of the L's is really no comparison to the non-L lens. If you can afford it you won't be disappointed with the L line of lens. Here is a handheld shot with the 300mm and 1.4 TC:
http://www.ncbirds.com/BirdImages/GalleryImages/Woodduck_DukeGardens_5-24-08_0074.jpg

I got the 70-200mm f/4 IS to give me some zoomable L glass in the lower mm ranges so I wouldn't have to carry the 75-300 lens any longer, but I haven't had a chance to test this new one much yet. I think I'm done spending money on L glass for a while now though. I hope I'm covered cause it's getting expensive.

I suppose your real question is- 300mmL with TC vs. 70-300mm. My answer is- if you got the money, it's a no brainer, go for the L glass. The only drawback is the question of whether you need the zoom ability for shorter ranges. If you need something to fill in that range, try an L lens as well if you have the cash. I was NOT impressed with the 70-300 lens.

 

[woollyback]

We also have the 300f4 and shoot with TC attached on a 20D/400D.

The shots straight from camera are sharp with great contrast and colour. If I've done this right .... straight from camera no PP or adjustments.

Hope this helps

Rob

 

[kerryN]

Many thanks Rob and Fred for your replies. They help greatly.

All the best
KerryN

 

[JohnZ]

Not too sure about this to be honest. I did pm Rob and asked him about over exposure using a 20D. I am sure he will reply. I know nothing about the 400D.
The problem I had was when using my 20D almost all of the shots came out over exposed. I then put it on my 40D and got much better results. But still marginally over exposed. This is easily fixed in Photoshop but I did wonder if I was doing something wrong. Even with my 40D I am not getting anything like Robs shot.

 

[Markulous]

300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x TC vs 70-300mm IS USM = no contest! 300mm by a country mile!

I've used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 non-IS and I think the 300mm outperforms

Taken with 300mm + 1.4x TC on 350D:

 

[eastwood]

No match between the 2! I have the 70-300 IS and 2 300 f4 (one here and one kept in Hong Kong to be used when I go back). the 300f4 +1.4 focuses much faster and the IQ are so much better! Perhaps it is not as fast and as sharp as the 400 f5.6, but I like its closest focusing distance, which is 1.5M. I can use it as a semi-macro for objects like butterflies, some of which I have posted to the gallery.
Having said that, the 70-300 IS is still a good lens for general photography, especially at about half the price of the 300f4/extender combination.

 

[skywatcher]

Agree. No contest. 300 f4 + tc every time.

 

[kerryN]

Many thanks everyone for the extra input and the photo of the dipper.