600L f4 or 300L f2.8 Extended.

Dale.

Dale.

Bo Derek
Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,716
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
I know the answer (the 600 is the way) but considering the costs involved, I'm interested in opinions.

I'm trying to figure out a better way to 600mm than my Sigma. Don't get me wrong, I love the Sigma, especially on the little M5 but I don't think it's getting the best out of the 5D sensor. The 600 f4 would be a dream lens for me but it's too expensive for me to justify, even second hand. That said, there are early versions around for sub £2k but parts might be an issue. The 300 f2.8 is a lovely lens and I already have the Canon 2xTC mk3, so the latest version. The 600f4 would be f8 extended (but would I need to?) and the 300f2.8 would be f5.6, so the 300 would be slightly better aperture wise than the 600 f4 (extended) and the Sigma, which is f 6.3. Is it worth the expense though, just for a little wider aperture? That's not considering the L's image quality versus the Sigma, which should be better of course, if indeed it makes better use of the sensor.

Or do I extend my 300f4, as I already own both the lens and TC? AF works through the viewfinder with the 300 f4 extended, albeit it with limited focus points.

Too many chocies.
 
You can also add the 1.4 onto the 2xtc onto the canon 300 for even longer reach :)
 
KIPAX said:
You can also add the 1.4 onto the 2xtc onto the canon 300 for even longer reach :)
Click to expand...


I hadn't considered that, I'm not even going to attempt the math. :LOL:

Could I still expect the L lenses to make better use of the sensor, extended?
 
personally I’d go for a 500mm F4, not a massively heavy lens. If weight isn’t a consideration the 400mm F2.8 IMO is the best lens on the market.
 
Personally I'd suggest 400mm f2.8 with TCs if you can afford it. On a budget I'd look at used 400 f4 DO or 500mm f4 with TCs.

More manageable than 600mm f4 IMO.
 
400mm DO is a good shout from the above, cracking compact lens. Personally I'm a 300mm f/2.8 all day long far more versilte than the 600mm and I have always found personally with the right setup 300/400mm is enough for wildlife photography but I guess it all depends on subject and shyness, I mean I can shoot Jays in the back garden at 150mm on my 70-200mm which are normally buggers!

If I was you I would go 300mm f/2.8 and buy some Extenders, or get the 500mm f/4, I feel the 600mm can be a little tight and less practicial in some situation the other two lenses are more versilte in what you can shoot and if you really dont want the weight I would go 400mm f/4 DO I had one for many years and IQ was really nice, not as good as the other two but handy when shooting abroad when weight and size was key to traveling to get the shot.
 
500, or 600 f4 all day long! You will always want more reach, whatever lens you have, but the quality of a prime lens is simply so much better.

Converters are fine as long as you don't go bigger than 1.4 and personally, I would not even use one on a non-prime lens.

Of course, if you buy ANYTHING less, you will always wish you had bought the best! :banghead:

Go on........you're worth it!
 
Last edited:
Vintage Racer said:
600 f4 all day long! You will always want more reach, whatever lens you have, but the quality of a prime lens is simply so much better.

Converters are fine as long as you don't go bigger than 1.4 and personally, I would not even use one on a non-prime lens.

Of course, if you buy ANYTHING less, you will always wish you had bought the best! :banghead:
Click to expand...


I agree. TCs increase the mag but increase the problems and decrease the max aperture. IMHO a better bet is to go with a lower power lens but with a big sensor on the camera so you can zoom in giving you an effective focal length increase without the loss of aperture.
 
You'll get differing replies all day long, sometimes based on real life, sometimes based on reading from the 'internet experts' - who are often incorrect.

What is your budget?

I had a mk1 500mm f4 for years - quality lens - but you have to know that if it breaks, you'll potentially have a tough time getting it repaired

Mike
 
I have owned the 300 f2.8 IS L MKII, 400 f2.8 IS L MKII and the 500 f4 IS L MKII.

I still have the 300 f2.8 IS L MKII and extenders and don't miss either of the others.

Know you will get different answers all day long dependent on your chosen subjects you photograph but you really cant go wrong with the 300.
 
Thanks for the replies, as always.

I do love my Sigma and it was the cheapest way( new) to 600mm for me at the time but I think I'm seeing it's limits now as discussed in my other thread.

@pooley , I hadn't considered budget really, although I do know the multiple £Ks for a 600 puts it out of reach, even an older , second hand one. This got me thinking of the 300 f2.8 although I already have an f4 version, which makes me think is it worth it for the gain in aperture. I have the 2xTC mk3 too. An older 300 can be had for around £2k, give or take. Older 500s seem to be anywhere between 2.5k and 3k ish, which I could maybe stretch to if I traded or sold some gear. The 400DO, again an older one seems to be sub £1.5k, although they are like hen's teeth and would be f8, extended.

Age of the lens doesn't bother too much and I don't mind a bit of cosmetic wear, as long as the glass is good. (y)
 
I agree, that it will depend upon your individual use and of course budget.

I only shoot wildlife and 90% of my shots are taken with my 500 f4, which I bought second hand on this site last year. I can't remember the last time I used either my 300 or 200-500 lenses (I shoot Nikon). I keep them, 'just in case', but honestly don't know why! My level of 'keepers' is so much higher with the big prime.

I also have a 1.4 teleconverter, which works very well with my 500 prime, but was awful with either my 300, or 200-500.

As I said before, anything less than a 500 prime, will just leave you wondering 'if only' - If you really have that itch.......go and scratch it!
 
as far as I remember the mk 3 TCs were designed to be used with the MK 3 big prime lenses
I use them on my 300 2.8 MK 3 and find it hard to see any difference in IQ with the 1.4 and the 2.0 is excellent
 
A 400mm F2.8 makes the most versatile choice if you have both teleconverters. I've owned Nikon and Sony versions and love that I can shoot sports and wildlife with both knowing when the light drops I have the f2.8 aperture to fall back on. I've owned a Canon 300mm F2.8 and that was a cracking lens but you would be at F5.6 with the extender and would have lost some focus speed and image quality. The 400mm with a 1.4 isn't that far off a 600mm F4. Weight should also be considered as the earlier 400 and 400 big whites are very heavy. The 400mm DO is a decent option and I always fancied one when I shot Canon but the first version is nowhere as good as the second if reviews are to be believed.

If it was me and budget was a big consideration then I would be looking for a bargain. I wouldn't restrict what lens I was after knowing that if I bag a bargain then I can always sell it on at no loss. I am just about to sell my Nikon 400mm F2.8 for £1750. I'm sure I have seen the Mk 1 Canons for similar money and in good shape. They don't come up often but you can get a deal if you look often in all the usual places - ebay, Facebook and Gumtree

There is a MK 1 IS 400mm on Facebook for 2.5K
 
Last edited:
I'd go with the 600mm all day as you cannot beat that extra reach over using the 300mm and convertor. I was at Silverstone for the MotoGP and I was at Stowe using my 300mm VR with 1.4x and I'm not happy with the results from it with both my D850 and D500. The light was pants and very flat, only a few moments dd the sun come out but compared to al my images from say Oulton Park where I don't need that extra reach, the combo was just not good.
 
Before buying an expensive lens perhaps you should try before you buy as you have several options and need to make sure the decision is right for you. I am sure the quality of the Canon big whites is better than the Sigma, they should be given the price difference, but the law of diminishing returns applies. If you get a mark 1 version how soon before you wish you had the mark 2.
 
I went for the 500mm F4 (Nikon) and it's on my camera 90% of the time. I also have the 1.4tciii and it works incredibly well. I struggle to see much image quality difference. I also use that with my 70-200 2,8 FL and on the D850 (46mp) in crop mode (98mm - 456mm f4 with 20mp equivalent ) gives me a great walkabout lens.

For me, the 600mm just added so much weight and size. The 500mm gives me great reach, is not too heavy, and has incredible image quality.

Save up and get the 500mm or sell a kidney/child ;) if you have some it's worth it. :)
 
FWIW, Dale, I shoot with a 300/2.8 (Nikon) and two tcs: 1.4x and 1.7x. For many years I shot with a 500/4 and for a short while, the 600/4. I find the 300 to be very sharp and with the tcs, incredibly versatile. I could also travel with this set up easily, including on very small planes. Everyone's needs are different, only you can decide which will work for you. Big does not necessary means better - at least that's what I keep telling the missus...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top