So I'm thinking of the Canon 300mm F4

str1nger

str1nger

Suspended / Banned
Messages
213
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just acquired the Canon 50D (well I will have tomorrow) and I am thinking of a lens to get. I take mainly wildlife/bird shots

I have about £1000 to spend and this is what i have come up with:

Canon 300mm F4

Then next month get the 2x converter

anyone got any better ideas please I am in a real pickle :)



I had a Sigma 150-500 F5-6.3 for my Nikon D60 but struggled with low light
 
You won't be able to AF with a 2x converter. You are better off with a 1.4 converter or maybe getting a 400mm or 100-400.
 
Liam said:
You won't be able to AF with a 2x converter. You are better off with a 1.4 converter or maybe getting a 400mm or 100-400.
Click to expand...

why wont the auto focus work with the 2x converter?
 
it will make it an f/8 and your 50d wont AF over f/5.6 unfortunately.
 
Balls!

So I have to spend £2500 to get a 300mm F 2.8 to allow the 2x converter ......yeah I don't see that happening for a long time :p

Any other ideas or brands I should look at?
 
I do wish Canon would produce a 500L 5.6 with IS. It could be reasonably compact and almost affordable.

One combo that works is the 300L 2.8 with a 2x telecon. That lens is sharp enough to take it (the 300L and 400L just aren't quite there unfortunately) and at 600 5.6 it retains AF. It still costs £3500 (new) but that's way cheaper than anything else.

Edit: crossed post with Mike above. Sigma 500 4.5 is the only alternative I think. Not the same thing though. Good quality long lenses are just horribly expensive. And big. Canon 100-400L still takes a heck of a lot of beating, plus it's a zoom of course and has IS.
 
Do you really need 600mm x1.6 giving 960mm, thats a lot of reach...
 
A 500mm f5.6 would still be very big and not very affordable if it every came to market..

But I would love one :D
 
The 2x Converters hammer image quality as well, unless you have about £2.5k of glass attached to it.

I'd love an reasonably cheap way to 600mm that delivers good pictures, ive asked about the Sigma 300 2.8, 120-300 2.8 and they are great with the 1.4 but not so good with the 2x.

I think EdBray had a tokina he was quite impressed with when using the 2x on it.
 
Liam said:
Do you really need 600mm x1.6 giving 960mm, thats a lot of reach...
Click to expand...


Gotta agree. The 300 + 1.4TC seems plenty for alot of people and if you buy one second-hand (like I just have :love: ) then it should hold its value well if you do decide it's not for you.

Tom N.
 
Liam said:
Do you really need 600mm x1.6 giving 960mm, thats a lot of reach...
Click to expand...

It's not much if you're looking to photograph birds, I tend to use a 500mm with a 1.4x so that's 700mm (and I'm shooting with a 1.6x cropper).

The 300 f4 IS is a superb lens, bittingly sharp with fast AF - it takes a 1.4x tc very well with only a slight dip in IQ. Other brands to look at - Sigma make a 300 f2.8 and a 120-300 f2.8 zoom they're much cheaper than Canon 300 f2.8 but still not cheap (~£1000-1200 used).
 
Hey Mike

Personally I would go with 2 lenses for the time being.

Canon 30mm f1.8 for walkabout use
Canon 70-200 f2.8 non-is

Both second hand off this forum. You should get some change out of a grand to put towards a 2x teleconvertor.
 
My vote is for the 300mm f4 with 1.4tc. This gives the full frame equivalents of a 480mm f4 and 672mm f5.6. Compare that with Canon's 500mm f4 (£6k) and 600mm f5.6 (£8k). If you buy from Kerso (I've just ordered the 300mm), you should get both for a little over you budget. This lens has a great 1.5m close focus, which with the 1.4txc will give a very respectible magnification, especially for small birds, butterflies and dragonflies. Other big white Canon L lenses focus no closer than 2.5-3.5m.
 
Hi

Can't comment on the Tc etc, but I can say I bought a 300 F4 last year and I'm very pleased with it - would def recommend if you fancy a prime :thumbs:
 
You have 2 options for roughly the same money, as you stated

the canon 300mm f4 +/- 1.4x TC (don't bother with 2x TC on that lens) or the canon 400mm f5.6 both are excellent lenses, fast autofocus and sharp, the 400mm is more primarily a wildlife lens, where as the 300mm f4 because its am f-stop faster has a few extra strings in the bow.

The 300mm f4 was my prime lens until I upgraded to the f2.8 version, but its still in my camera bag and work very well with the 1.4x TC with no loss of image quality, although you do take a hit on autofocus speeds. Used mainly for aviation and motorsport, it went with me to Portimao in Portugal for WSB's and will be again because of luggage restrictions on low cost airlines and I ain't putting the 300mm f2.8 in the hold....

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3850copy1.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_4393copy2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_3794_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg


Great lens, works well with the 1.4x TC but to get the best you need the light conditions.

Peter
 
Peter

Cracking shots mate, think you've convinced me I need to invest in a 1.4 TC, was very intersted and pleased you don't find (and I'd agree on the above photos) any loss of picture quality.

Cheers

Andy :thumbs:
 
andyred said:
Peter

Cracking shots mate, think you've convinced me I need to invest in a 1.4 TC, was very intersted and pleased you don't find (and I'd agree on the above photos) any loss of picture quality.

Cheers

Andy :thumbs:
Click to expand...

100-400L is sharper than the 300 4 + 1.4x TC.

This test is shot on full frame, where the centre section (top) is most relevant http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 You can load up any comparisons you like on that site.
 
I don't own a 100-400mm to comment, but the 100-400mm has been plagued by quality issues, straight out of the box, so it would have to depend on you copy, personally I've had no problems with the prime, attach a 1.4x TC and like the 100-400mm you need the conditions to get the best from it, but I would state, I would rather have 300mm f4, because I can continue taking images when the 100-400mm has given up the ghost due to the conditions.
 
pete.rush said:
I don't own a 100-400mm to comment, but the 100-400mm has been plagued by quality issues, straight out of the box, so it would have to depend on you copy, personally I've had no problems with the prime, attach a 1.4x TC and like the 100-400mm you need the conditions to get the best from it, but I would state, I would rather have 300mm f4, because I can continue taking images when the 100-400mm has given up the ghost due to the conditions.
Click to expand...

I think that there were some quality issues with some of the older copies of the 100-400 but in recent years this really isn't an issue. I have owned two of them and used three other copies for decent periods of time. All five of those copies were spot on. I think a big issue with this lens is that it is very popular and many less experienced users think that the IS will work miracles so when they don't get pin sharp shots at 400mm 1/20th they blame the lens.

I've owned both the 100-400 and the 300 f4 IS and would very happily use either. I've stuck with the 100-400 as it's a great zoo and family lens as well as being good for birds. If it was going to be primarily for wildlife I'd have stuck with the 300 f4 IS (or possibly the 400 f5.6), which also makes a decent lens for candid portraits.
 
I have the 300mm F4 IS and a 1.4x converter.

It is a cracking combo on the 50D and while there are times where reach is king, for 90% of my photography I have been fine with it - in fact I use it a lot without the 1.4.

As soon as you start going out past the 500mm range then you enter a world where you have to spend a lot of money - not just on the lenses but on the support. At 600mm using a 300 F2.8 + 2x you need a really solid tripod setup.

If you want to have a look at a 300mm F4 before you buy I'm local so happy to meet up somewhere.
 
I'd go with the 400mm F5.6 which is super sharp and has great AF. Reach is your friend for BIF, and whilst you might be able to go longer with the use of a 300mm + 1.4x, my experience with teles was that it impacted both AF and IQ.
 
HoppyUK said:
I do wish Canon would produce a 500L 5.6 with IS. It could be reasonably compact and almost affordable.

One combo that works is the 300L 2.8 with a 2x telecon. That lens is sharp enough to take it (the 300L and 400L just aren't quite there unfortunately) and at 600 5.6 it retains AF. It still costs £3500 (new) but that's way cheaper than anything else.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree with the above. When I had a 300/2.8, I was less impressed with it and a 2x than the 400/5.6 and a 2x (yes I know the latter doesn't AF).

Having said that, I've since sold my 2x as I am not keen on it for anything really and would rather use a cropped sensor body to get more implied reach.

For me, the gem of the affordable Canon long primes is the 400/5.6. In good light it is fantastic. It is as sharp as my 500/4.

The 300/4 is great on its own and pretty good with a 1.4x.

I'm not a fan of the 100-400 I have to say. It's a good alrounder but I couldn't "gel" with it.

I agree that a 500/5.6 IS would be great and it has been rumoured before. But, I reckon it would be £3000.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top