EF 300mm F2.8 With Extenders ?

<p>Anyone using this lens with the extenders ? EF 300mm F2.8 with 2X or 1.4X.</p>

<p>I was trying to buy a used 500mm F4 (would have been used with a 1.4X), but it seems nobody in Canada has one for sale, and new is out of my budget. Wondering if the 300mm F2.8 would be a good substitute (mainly used for birds/wildlife).</p>

<p>How bad is the 2X extender with this lens ? How about BOTH extenders stacked up, 1.4X + 2X ?</p>

<p>I saw/read all the reviews from the net, I would appreciate any advice from real users with actual experience with this lens.</p>

<p>Thanks very much.</p>

<p>IMO the 300/2.8 L IS is awesome solo, good-to-very good with 1.4x and medicore with 2x. Contrast, resolution and color rendition go to hell in a basket with the 2x TC and CA dramatically increases. IMO it is not a good idea to shoot with 2x on this lens. With stacked TCs no Canon body will autofocus (not even 1D series) and I can imagine that the image quality will further degrade. <br />Even with a 1.6 crop camera, the 300 with 1.4x TC is too short for most birds in most situations ("most", because in Bosque del Apache one can use a wide angle...) and smaller or more skittish wildlife. As for buying superteles second hand, except some beaters from the press, good ones are almost as expensive as the new ones so swallow hard and charge it if you really need one.</p>

<p>I suspect you'd be happier with a 500/4, even if you have to wait to find one.</p>

<p>I used the 300 2.8 with a 1.4X for many years covering major league baseball, it worked fine. The 500 f4 is a great -- and lightweight! -- lens, much kinder to the body than the 600 f/4.</p>

<p>I did this a while ago:</p>

<p>http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/Teletest.jpg</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Mark, that's impressive results even with two 2X stacked. I assume those crops were from the center of the frame? I'd expect the edge to be much worse.</p>

<p>Theres nothing wrong with the 300 and converters. Makes a great portable one-lens outfit, producing first class results. Some sample images here: http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/lenstech.html</p>

<p>If you limit yourself to Canada you could be waiting a very long time. ie. years.</p>

<p>keh.com currently has the previous Canon EF 500/4.5 L (no IS) for a hair under $4000 USD. I know the exchange rate hurts and count on having to pay full Canadian taxes too (although sometimes we get lucky) and of course there is the shipping fee. This is a top price for this lens but they rate it "EX" which in my experience with them means it is not distinguishable from new. I have bought two lenses from them previously and am awaiting a third now.</p>

<p>I have seen the f4.5 L go for as low as $2500 USD on eBay.</p>

<p>I have not used the 500/4, 500/4.5, or 300/2.8 that you are referring to. In my experience with older lenses including a Nikon 400/2.8, Canon 400/2.8, and Canon 300/2.8 I would summarize that putting a 2x onto a 300/2.8 is not the route to go for years of photographic enjoyment. I did it for a year until I could justify a 400/2.8 with a 1.4x instead. You would likely find the same kind of jump in image quality going from a 300/2.8 with 2x to a naked 500/4.5 or even 500/4.5 with a 1.4x.</p>

<p>I used to own 2x converters and sold them to stick with the 1.4x. I rather crop further from a 1.4x photograph than use a 2x.</p>

<p>If you must have a Canadian bought lens and IS then the Canon EF 300/2.8 L IS with Canon EF 1.4x is the most viable option. What camera body are you using? Perhaps an upgrade would also help down the road.</p>

<p>Like almost all the other posts I agree the 2x convertor is a waste of $280 but the 1.4x is pretty good. I found this with my FD lenses. I have never really gone beyond the 300 F2.8s as i rarely have the need. I have both the FD and the EF and they are both awesome. Many years ago I used the 400 F2.8 and 500 F4.5L (FD series) and they were also superb - especially the 400 F2.8. If you are planning to shoot birds a lot then probably the 500 is you best bet. The 300 with the 2x will work and gives you a much more versatile lens but is not really very sharp - but usable at the center. I find that I actually get better quality images using the old Canon 300 F2.8 on a Panasonic G1 with the adaptor (obviously MF) than I do using the 300 F2.8 EF on a 5DII with the 2x TC. Obviously the panasonic is not usable in your application as focusing is challenging with the EVF</p>

<p>I find it interesting that people are dismissing the 2x here.</p>

<p>I'm friendly with two of the best bird photographers in the UK - <a href="http:www.rusticolus.co.uk">Mark Wilson</a> and <a href="http://www.ngbdigital.blogspot.com/">Nigel Blake</a> - both of whom use the 2x as a matter of routine to spectacular effect, with Nigel regularly using the 2x on his 300mm f/2.8 in a professional context.</p>

<p>I'm interested in this combo too, so I asked Nigel to take some shots for me with the 300mm and 2x.</p>

<p>He sent me the full res version of <a href=" image</a> - and it's <em>staggeringly</em> good (handheld, too). These birds are very like Chickadees in the US, and this shows that the AF isn't exactly sluggish either - not as fast as the bare lens or lens plus 1.4x, but still pretty good nevertheless.</p>

<p>So - with all due respect to the nay-sayers - I think it's pretty obvious that <em>in skilled hands</em> the 300mm f/2.8 and 2x TC is an <em>extremely</em> capable combo.</p>

<p>I'm in no doubt whatsoever that my next large photographic purchase will be the 300mm f/2.8, and I <em>will</em> be using it with the 2x.</p>

<p><strong>A lot.</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>So - with all due respect to the nay-sayers - I think it's pretty obvious that <em>in skilled hands</em> the 300mm f/2.8 and 2x TC is an <em>extremely</em> capable combo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Several comments:<br>

The speed of AF is not <strong>that</strong> critical while photographing birds in flight because the distances are prety constant and hover around infinity. So, once the focus is locked, the servo in the hands of a skilled person should do OK pretty much with any lens. Then there is high-speed shooting for security :-)))<br>

Birds are usually centered in the frame so the lens' performance in the corners is not that important. And with the expanse of sky, you may neither notice nor care about the loss of sharpness and contrast in the corners, CA and other issues.</p>

<p>Try sports or fashion photography, where the speed of AF matters and the focusing distances are much shorter than for birds, with the 300 + 2x TC. Or landscape, where the uniform definition across the frame is desired... Yeah, 300 + 2x TC is usable but if you are consistently using it with the 2x extender, why not get the 500/4 (+ 1.4 TC = better IQ than 300 + 2x TC) or 600/4? I'm not really recommending the 400/2.8 (IMO the best lens of the lot for use with the 1.4x TC) because of its heft, but the 500/4 is lighter than the 400/2.8 and only a bit more cumbersome to use than the 300/2.8. Now, there are many reasons to pick a particular lens and many people pick the 300/2.8 because of its low (comparatively speaking) price and managable size and weight (not to mention its awesome image quality at 300 mm), but unless you have a specific use for that focal length, you might be better off getting a lens with the focal length you are likely to <strong>need</strong> rather than consistently using a 2x TC on the 300/2.8.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>don't waste a second trying to persuade me that fast AF is more important for fashion photography than for birding - and I don't even mean BIF photographs.</p>

<p>That small bird in the link I provided is about three inches long, lives routinely in AF-distracting undergrowth, and is never, ever still - "hyperactive" is a good description: and being three inches long its movements are almost too fast to see, much less photograph.</p>

<p>In addition, it will actively try to avoid being approached and photographed. Just finding enough bird to put an AF point on can be next to impossible.</p>

<p>Seriously Michael, the idea that fashion shooting is somehow more challenging to AF than birding is the funniest thing I've seen on the internet all year. There's no more challenge to the AF of a camera in photographing fashion than there is in photographing furniture.</p>

<p>And as for BIF photography - that's a discipline which is widely accepted as being as the most challenging action genre that exists in photography.</p>

<p>Just have a look at the gallery pages on this site, look at all of the perfectly acceptable fashion photos, then see how many good BIF shots you can find.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to be rude, but <em>please!</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And as for BIF photography - that's a discipline which is widely accepted as being as the most challenging action genre that exists in photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not the point I was making...<br>

AF near infinity performs OK after one acquires the birdie and tracks it properly, hence awesome, tack sharp, bird pictures made with cameras with less than stellar AF performance and configuration. Want challenging? Try shooting action sports when you have to get a tack-sharp picture at the first ond only opportunity (a bird will appear again but THAT touchdown ain't gonna happen ever again...) And with fashion, esp. catalogue type, in most situations you are working a large group of unruly and very highly paid people and with editors who want it tack sharp with finely localized plane of focus no matter what...<br>

Both disciplines preclude the use of rigs like the 300/2.8 + 2x TC... (which was my main point.)</p>

<p>Michael:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>AF near infinity performs OK after one acquires the birdie and tracks it properly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've yet to see awesome shots of birds where the birds are near infinity.</p>

<p>The best pictures I've seen are birds flying somewhat toward the camera. That means the distance is changing. When the birds are close, the effect is magnified. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the help. I will probably be forced to go with the 300mm F2.8 and extenders since the 500mm used and shipped from the States is way off my budget, and as John said, it will probably be years until I find one in Canada.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Anyone using this lens with the extenders ? EF 300mm F2.8 with 2X or 1.4X.</p>

<p>I was trying to buy a used 500mm F4 (would have been used with a 1.4X), but it seems nobody in Canada has one for sale, and new is out of my budget. Wondering if the 300mm F2.8 would be a good substitute (mainly used for birds/wildlife).</p>

<p>How bad is the 2X extender with this lens ? How about BOTH extenders stacked up, 1.4X + 2X ?</p>

<p>I saw/read all the reviews from the net, I would appreciate any advice from real users with actual experience with this lens.</p>

<p>Thanks very much.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the help. I will probably be forced to go with the 300mm F2.8 and extenders since the 500mm used and shipped from the States is way off my budget, and as John said, it will probably be years until I find one in Canada.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

 

 

I always like to carry a Nikon or Canon 400mm 2.8 for zoo trips but the weight was a issue to handhold so thought about it had an idea . I have a Nikon 300mm 2.8 AF-s , bought another Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR , plan was to sell the 300 AF-s (prices have dropped ), then had an idea to keep the VR by itself and add on the 300 AF-s a 1.4 or 2X extender, that way I can switch the lenses , Any comments ?

I always like to carry a Nikon or Canon 400mm 2.8 for zoo trips but the weight was a issue to handhold so thought about it had an idea . I have a Nikon 300mm 2.8 AF-s , bought another Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR , plan was to sell the 300 AF-s (prices have dropped ), then had an idea to keep the VR by itself and add on the 300 AF-s a 1.4 or 2X extender, that way I can switch the lenses , Any comments ?

Though I'm sure there are others who use both brands, you'd probably get more responses in the Nikon forum, since you're asking about Nikon gear.