The Amazing 300/4 IS and 1.4X TC II Combination

[jim_mueller2]

I was at the Milwaukee County Zoo event called Zoo Ala Carte yesterday.

Numerous food vendors sell a variety of cuisine while bands perform a wide

genre of music. It's a casual affair. So brought my old Canon 300D DSLR plus

300/4 IS and 1.4 TC II along for some casual shots. It was an overcast day,

not the greatest for animal shots.

 

Still, I am always blown away by the above lens combination. It never ceases

to amaze me, even after 3 1/2 years.

 

An original untouched jpg right out of the camera (below).

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/image/65365005/original

[ahockley]

I have this exact same setup and like you am continually impressed by the results.

[jwhite3.0]

Very true. I rented the 300mm f2.8 IS L last week and 300mm f4 IS L this week. With both I used the 1.4X TC MKI. I will continue to rent the 300mm f2.8 IS for low light shooting but probably buy the 300mm F4 IS in a couple months. Very light, can shoot all day with the f4 IS lens however with the 2.8 IS I could barely lift it after a couple hours of hand-held shooting.

[brucecyr]

Nice series of bird shots! Any tips on how you get so close?

[jim_mueller2]

>>Nice series of bird shots! Any tips on how you get so close?<<

 

You must stalk most wild birds. With Image Stabilization I don't need a tripod. This makes stalking, sometimes on my hands and knees, much easier.

 

Also the extra reach with a 1.4X TC and 1.6X cropping factor helps!

 

Of course the typical penguin in the typical zoo requires no stalking.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I see you stopped down 1 2/3 stops. I found that stopping down a stop was necessary with my 300/4L IS USM and 1.4x II; if shot wide open, it was noticeably soft. The lens+TC combination also had significantly more chromatic aberration than the lens alone, though that's easily fixed in software.</p>

 

<p>The lens itself is a very good lens - very sharp, quick AF, great background blur, of reasonable size and weight, easy to handhold due to IS; all in all, a joy to use. And with the TC, as long as you stop down a bit and fix the CA, the same thoughts apply. The only reason I sold the lens was that when I went digital with a 1.6-crop body, there were a lot of times I needed something shorter, whereas on a film body, 300 and 420 would do the job a lot of the time.</p>

 

<p>Gratuitous downsampled photos: <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1292Horseface.jpg" target="_blank">300/4 on its own</a>, <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/1555Cheetahalert.jpg" target="_blank">300/4 + 1.4x</a>, <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/1563Dee.jpg" target="_blank">300/4 as a portrait lens</a></p>

[brucecyr]

I use the non-IS 300 f/4 L handheld on a 350D for understory bird shots, and occasionally with the 1.4X TC. But for many 1.4X and almost all 2X shots a monopod is necessary. Still, I almost never get that close unless I fall asleep and wake up with an unaware bird nearby :-)

 

I think for Cedar Waxwing shots like yours with the visible tongue flick I need to chop 30-40 feet out of the trunk of our Mulberry tree. As it is, the shortest path involves hoisting the 600mm SIGMA mirror at about a 70 degree angle!

[jwhite3.0]

There was an interesting point among many brought up. Do you really need a monopod with a combination of 300mm F4 IS + 1.4X TC? I did notice that with the extender a greater majority of the pics were blurry than without the extender. I chalked it up to beginners use of the IS on a lens. I figured that the IS would help with even an extender on. Additionally I am talking about shooting in good light.

[brucecyr]

John White said:

 

"Do you really need a monopod with a combination of 300mm F4 IS + 1.4X TC?"

 

I don't think there is a categoric answer. Rather, it depends -- on available light (as you adumbrate), on wind, on personal steadiness, etc. Fortunately the 300 f/4 in either variant is light enough that you don't need much support. For example, I use a Slik 350 for which the manufacturer doesn't even bother to list a maximum weight since presumably its so slight!

[jwhite3.0]

Thanks Bruce, that was my fault, I didn't read carefully enough. You are using the non-IS version. However, maybe this is a topic I should do a little more research for my own needs when I venture out from renting to buying lenses with or w/o IS.

 

I get the sense that in good daylight, a F4 IS will be ideal for shooting without support and with 1.4 or 2X extenders. There may be an art to shooting with IS that I haven't completely picked up because I had the same blurriness issues with 300mm f2.8 IS + 1.4X. Not every pic was blurry but maybe in thinking IS will reduce blurriness in >90% of shots in good light is false. I also let IS kick in before shooting and I am talking about shooting wide open at F4 or F2.8 with a 20D, AI servo, IS mode 1, and Av priority mode. Subjects are moving animals. I'd say for still objects one can approach >90% non-blurry images with IS.

 

I've heard that if your 1/exposure time is double your 1/focal length then you don't need IS. Does keeping IS on in this situation a bad thing or nothing to worry about?

 

Sorry for piggy-backing on the original question

[brucecyr]

John,

 

I'll let someone with more experience offer an answer since the longest IS lens I have/use is the 70-300, which offers the most recent IS version. I believe the early versions of Canon's IS should be shut off for use on tripods/monopods, but almost certainly not for handheld shots.

 

Absent a solution to your blurry shots, the problem may deserve a thread of its own.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Do you really need a monopod with a combination of 300mm F4 IS + 1.4X TC?

 

Below 1/100 - Yes.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.