Canon 500 f4 or 300 f2.8 plus convertors

Gaz J

Gaz J

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,294
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
I have met a few wildlife photographers lately that have gone from a long prime to the new 300 f2.8 plus a 1.4 and 2 converters.

I can see the versatility of the 300 regarding weight and hand holdability but am having great difficulty in deciding whether the extra weight of the 500 is worth it over the smaller lens not to have to use converters.

Has anyone actually gone from a long prime to the 300 and do you regret it.

Thanks in advance

Gaz.
 
I had a day out with a mate who has a 300/2.8 and we did a bit of swapping around with the extenders and my 500.
We ended up agreeing the 300 wins for close range but from then on the 500 was noticeable better than putting extenders on the 300.
As expected really but in good light the 300 + 2x worked ok for focus speed but not as good as the 500 + 1.4x.
Putting the 2x on the 300 did put quite a hit on image quality but the straight 300 was better than the 500.
 
I've not actually "gone" from 600 (not 500) to 300 but I do have both options. The 300/2.8 takes both Extenders quite well and I'm happy with what it produces at 600/5.6 given the portability of the setup. The downside comes when you actually realise that 600mm is your limit. Small birds and alike do benefit from a longer lens and Extender in many, but not all, cases.

If you're certain that 600mm is enough then I'd go for the 300/2.8 and Extender. If small birds are on your radar then I'd always choose the maximum length you can afford and handle comfortably.

Bob
 
I've had both and owned both at the same time, I never used the 300mm while I had both I always used to 500mm, the 500 is not really that heavy compared to a 400 or 600.

I never hand held my 500 because I'm a weakling but I know a guy who hand held his 500 for BIF shots a lot. The 500 works well with a 1.4x, I've had some great results with that combo.

The 300 is great with a 1.4x as well but suffers a little with IQ when a 2x is attached.

If you didn't want to hand hold the lens and didn't mind carrying round a big heavy lens I think the 400mm f/2.8 is the all round lens.

Cheers
 
Gaz J said:
Has anyone actually gone from a long prime to the 300 and do you regret it.
Click to expand...

My friend went from a 500 to a 300 when she realised that a 500mm lens that was too heavy to actually get to where the birds were was a bit useless.
 
I have a Nikon 600 f4(had a 500 f4) and a 120-300 Sigma. The Sigma is great focal length for hides etc where you may get close however the 600 is fantastic in most other situations.I use a 1.4tc with each as well.I find that i am drawn to the 600 and 1.4tc more often as it allows me to stay a decent distance from the birds/wildlife but it is bloody heavy.
 
I have used bot (mkI version of both) and personally far prefer the 500 for photographing birds. The 300 is very good and takes tcs very well but for me the extra weight of the 500 is worth it for the extra reach. I do have a couple of friends who have gone from the 500 to the 300 and both are very pleased that they did. I guess it all depends on your shooting style and how prepared you are to carry the weight. For me the 500 really needs a tripod but the 300 is fine handheld, so it's not just the extra weight of the longer lens to consider but also the weight/bulk of a tripod.
 
Good points made already! I could never contemplate walking many miles with a heavy tripod and 500 f4 on my back - a friend regularly does but he is 10 years younger, has no back or knee trouble, is about 5 stone heavier and a good 6 inches taller. Although he has them he rarely uses extenders and then it would typically be 1.4x.
He refers to my 300mm f2.8 as a 'hairdresser's lens! At 5+ lbs it is heavy enough for me and can be used hand held - though better supported obviously. So far there appears to be little between to shots we get and I have no regrets about getting the 300.
 
I use a 300 f2.8 for wildlife and almost always have a 1.4 on it and iq is great. i tried a 2x but was not impressed with the results, not for wildlife anyway.
 
I go with what Bob said above, I've used the 300 and 500 mk1 and currently have a 300 mk2 with 1.4 and 2x mk3 extenders.
Gave up the 500 as too heavy, although the new one is much better.
The IQ with the 300 mk2 with extenders is extremely good, and I have been very surprised at the af speed particularly with the 1.4 extender- I know the theory about extenders slowing down the af speed, but with mk 2 lenses I think this has been improved a lot to the extent I don't notice it.
Can I throw another lens into the equation?...400 DO with a 1.4 extender is excellent, and gives the option of 800mm at f8 with the 1 DX......the last is fine for static subjects but not really suitable for BIF as the af is noticeably slower with this combo. A much underrated lens IMHO, lighter than even the new 300 which for me is a huge advantage.

George.
 
Like many here I have tried all the options and currently use a (Nikon) 500f4 for wildlife.

That said, if I were to migrate back to Canon I would definitely go for the 300f2.8 mkII with x2 mkIII TC combo.

A few months ago I spent half a day shooting my Canon 500f4ISL mkI plus x1.4 mkIII TC against a mate with the 300 plus x2 combo above and the images were insignificantly different and I would go with the lightweight option plus all the versatility of using the 300 bare plus with the x1.4TC for sports etc...
 
Thanks for all your replies. Im very much in 2 minds on this so will stick with my 500 for the moment. The weight is an issue when handholding but im not sure that id be doing the right thing by selling it.

Thanks again

Gaz
 
Gaz J said:
Thanks for all your replies. Im very much in 2 minds on this so will stick with my 500 for the moment. The weight is an issue when handholding but im not sure that id be doing the right thing by selling it.

Thanks again

Gaz
Click to expand...
Well Gaz, if you do decide to sell, you'll get a good price, as the new ones are so much more!
 
When using my 7D I find the 300mm and converters a great combination and fairly lightweight as well. I have a Pentax 250-600mm f5.6 for my K-5II but at 6kg it's so heavy it never gets taken anywhere (I detest tripods).

Bit pointless having decent kit if you never use it. :shake:
 
I also have a 300 mk2 utilised with both the mk3 extenders.

The lens takes the 1.4x extremely well with no perceivable IQ and AF speed loss. I'm a bit more selective when using the 2x though, as there's a little loss when that's put on there, I'm still happy to use it and will always carry both extenders with me as the setup is so flexible.

As always, I would like some more reach at times and find myself undecided on whether to aim for the mk2 600 or go for an 800 to compliment my existing 300. Considering the cost I'll have plenty of time to make my mind up though.
 
Surrey Sam said:
I also have a 300 mk2 utilised with both the mk3 extenders.

The lens takes the 1.4x extremely well with no perceivable IQ and AF speed loss. I'm a bit more selective when using the 2x though, as there's a little loss when that's put on there, I'm still happy to use it and will always carry both extenders with me as the setup is so flexible.

As always, I would like some more reach at times and find myself undecided on whether to aim for the mk2 600 or go for an 800 to compliment my existing 300. Considering the cost I'll have plenty of time to make my mind up though.
Click to expand...

That's fair comment, Sam, but I'd try an 800 before you buy, I felt the 600 mk2 to be a superior lens, and I suspect with a 1.4 tc would be a better bet.
 
Thanks for the input George, always good to read other users experience. It's theoretical at this stage, as the piggy bank is some distance from being able to pay for one.

I was leaning towards the 600 as its lighter with a greater aperture and if it took the 1.4x TC as well as 300 mk2 does then I'd be more than happy to use it at 840mm F/5.6.
 
I carry both the (mkII) 500F4 and the 300F2.8 all the time. These days, the 500 has the 2x permanently attached whilst the 300 has the 1.4x. If I had to have just one of these lenses, it would have to be the 500 - every day of the week. The IS mkII 500 doesn't really feel much heavier (or bulkier) than the (mkI) IS 300. However, when it comes to birds, there is simply no substitute for focal length. If I was shooting subjects at less than 10m distance, it would be the 300 every day. However, in the real world, distances to birds are more like 100m than 10m and even with a 1.4x on it, the 300 (420mmF4) is no match for the unconverted prime 500.
 
I have the 300f2.8 and use it for wildlife with a 1.4x MKI and 2X MKIII, happy with both combinations and sharpness from the 2x MKIII. Birds are normally within 30-50ft so I have not tried anything at further distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top