Canon 300 2.8 +2x vs 600 f4

<p>Has anyone compared the image quality between these 2 combinations? Any comments? Thanks, Peter</p>

<p>I have a 300 2.8 and use it alone, with a 1.4X and a 2X. I have not used a 600 f4. Having looked at many images with a 600 f4 I would say there is a very noticeable difference. Hands down the 600 f4 wins except in the cost department (and it won't shoot at 300mm :) ) In the "Good Better Best" the 600 is the best while the 300 + 2X is Good. </p>

<p>Richard</p>

 

<p>I don't have either, but the statement that a single prime focal length lens is likely to be better than a lens not specifically designed for that focal length alone (including adding on more optics in the form of the extender or a zoom lens) holds as a general principle.<br>

It is not impossible for a 'doubled' 300mm lens to be better than some particular 600mm lens, especially if the 600mm is a "Girlwatcher" 2-element Galilean special from the early Renaissance.<br>

I would think that the likelihood that the extended lens would be would better for two given Canon L lenses is astonishingly small.</p>

<p>The best review I personally have ever seen of any "telXtender" type product (especially one that is not designed as a part of the original design of a lens combo) was that the extended lens was "almost as good as" the longer lens.</p>

<p>I've not used the current 300/2.8 and 600/4L but I have shot with earlier versions and with a 2x on the 300. While the 300+3x images can be pretty decent, they are no match for the 600/4 prime images. The 300+2x is smaller lighter and cheaper, but as far as image quality goes, the 600/4 wins every time.</p>

<p>I've used the 2X mark II with the 200mm f/2. It works quite well. Not as sharp as the 200/2 alone, but still sufficient for many purposes.</p>

<p>So I have no doubt that the 600/4 will beat the 300/2.8 + 2X, but the 300 might still be good enough for whatever use you have in mind. And it weighs and costs significantly less.</p>

<p>Rent them or borrow them if you need to be sure...</p>

<p>If you need a 600 then get a 600, the 300 + 2xTC (though it is superb alone or with the 1.4) is absolutely no match for the 600. Focus speed is the biggest functional issue, the 300 + 2xTC is much slower than the 600, but <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=336&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">image quality also suffers</a>, with corner sharpness being particularly badly hit, and you lose one f stop.</p>

<p>I've used the 300/2.8 IS with both the 2x I and 2x III. Wide open, that's f/5.6. I've found the best performance at about f/9 (i.e. closed down slightly more than a stop).</p>

<p>While I haven't used a 600/4, I have seen the resulting files. I've seen and used files from a 500/4.</p>

<p>If you want absolute image quality, the prime by itself is the way to go.</p>

<p>If, like me, you wanted to get to 600mm without the cost of the 600/4, then the 300 + 2x will yield good images.</p>

<p>Here are some examples:</p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/nature/prairie_chicken_displaying.html">http://canid.com/nature/prairie_chicken_displaying.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/nature/prairie_chicken_in_flight.html">http://canid.com/nature/prairie_chicken_in_flight.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/nature/ring_necked_pheasant.html">http://canid.com/nature/ring_necked_pheasant.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://canid.com/west_river/mount_rushmore_cyark_laser_mapping_003.html">http://canid.com/west_river/mount_rushmore_cyark_laser_mapping_003.html</a></p>

<p>With Canon FD lenses I found that a 400/2.8 with 1.4x was significantly sharper than a 300/2.8 with 2x, and similarly a 400/2.8 was significantly sharper than a 300/2.8 with 1.4x.</p>

<p>I would thus also imagine that the EF 600/4 would be more than significantly sharper than the EF 300/2.8 with 2x.</p>

<p>Over the years I have not been impressed with 2x converters, while I have found that 1.4x converters have had little effect on resolution. The other drawback to 2x converters is additional CA, which may or may not be a problem.</p>

<p>I would not hesitate to use any of the EF 300/2.8 L lenses with a 1.4x, in fact I just used my Canon EF 300/4 L with EF 1.4x on my 5D II and got very good results, though still not as good as my 25 year old Nikon 400/2.8 with 1.4x. Mind you the 300/4 L and 1.4x had no CA, but I had to correct the CA of the 400/2.8 in Photoshop.</p>

 

<p>First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for their responses. The info has been helpful. I am currently using a 300 2.8 with an EF2x (1) I guess since there is no number. I'm almost pleased with the combo, but not quite as I used to be, shooting with an FD 500 4.5. Although I only do this as a hobby, I'm kind of anal about quality, but find it hard to justify the cost and weight of either a 500 or 600. As I suspected, and all have confirmed, from a quality perspective the longer prime is the way to go. Now it's just my head vs my wallet. Thanks, Peter</p>

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>Have you thought about the Mika FD to EOS convertor for the FD 600?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/fd-fl-lenses-on-your-ef-body/">http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/fd-fl-lenses-on-your-ef-body/</a></p>

<p>Thanks Scott. I was not aware of this and took a quick look at it. It'll take some more time and reading to understand it completely, but I'll check it out.</p>

<p>Do you still have the FD 500/4.5 L? If so, the EdMika conversion is ideal. The FD 600/4.5 is not an L lens, and I do not know how well it compares to the FD 500/4.5 L and FD 400/2.8 L. The FD 400/2.8 L with 1.4x is an exceptional combination. </p>

<p>I used the Canon FD 400/2.8 L and Canon FD-EOS 1.26x adapter on Canon film and digital SLRs before switching to Nikon glass, and the combo was superb. The 1.26x had no effect on resolution and only took 2/3 stop of light. They are extremely rare and now extremely expensive. EdMika adaptations or Nikon glass are much more economical routes. </p>

<p>Depending on your subject/needs/skills you can use Nikon lenses, as I do, on your Canon EOS cameras with a cheap mechanical adapter. You get metering, manual aperture and manual focus, using stopped-down metering techniques. </p>

<p>As a general rule: Any Canon Extender would be a poor man's telephoto additive. You will not get image quality equal to a similar prime that you are trying to reach.</p>