Canon 300 lens comparison on digital and non-digital SLR

[howard_grill]

I know there has been some discussion of this before, but I still am

unable to make a decision about a purchase as it applies to what I

would like to do.

 

I currently own a Canon 300mm F4 IS and am wondering if 'upgrading'

to the 300 F2.8 (without IS) is worth the cost.

 

I enjoy nature photography and would like to start trying my hand at

birds...though I do not live near where the bigger birds tend to be.

I would really like to use a 500 or 600 F4 IS but it is, needless to

say, quite expensive, particularly for someone that is not quite sure

how much he can use it (but certainly wants the opportunity to).

 

I do enjoy being able to handhold the F4 IS, though I find the light

loss with the 1.4 and 2x converter a bit troublesome so I usually use

it with the 1.4 only. I would be willing to give up handholding and

spend the extra money if the results would justify it. I also use

the 300 at the zoo as well as in nature areas.

 

I realize the general benefits of the extra stop but was also

wondering�is the optical quality of the F2.8 (non-IS) THAT much

better than the F4 IS in terms of sharpness and contrast,

particularly at F2.8 and F4? Is the F2.8 with a 2x converter truly

sharp? Is it easier to get vibration free, sharp photos with a

tripod mounted 300 f2.8 non-IS with a 2x converter than it is with a

600 F4 IS (same effective focal length but less weight)?

 

Finally, what about using a digital camera that, say, increases

effective focal length by 1.6 because of the size of the CCD? Is

the �optical quality� that one would get with a 300 F2.8 with a 1.4

teleconverter on the digital camera (correct me if I am wrong, but

wouldn�t this give an effective approx. 660mm f4 lens)be the same as

the 300 F2.8 with 1.4 TC on a non-digital camera�or do you lose

quality (sharpness, contrast) because you are effectively enlarging

the center of the �35 mm� frame? How different would the quality be

compared to a 600F4 on a non-digital camera? If optical quality is

lost, would you not lose such quality with any lens on a digital

SLR? Is it worth getting a digital SLR as a �poor mans� long

telephoto?

 

Thanks for any help.

 

Howard

HMSDOC@aol.com

[peza]

I don't think so 300/2.8 is worth for you, unless you have need for faster lens and you will not stop down to get more DOF.<br>

TC's are killers of optical quality. First lens worth look is either 500/4IS or 400/4 DO IS.<br><br>

Digital is not bad idea at all. What about D60 instead of 300/2.8& TC to get 400+/f4 lens ?

[ShunCheung]

If you are interested in birds, you are much better off saving for a 500mm/f4 IS (or better yet the 600mm/f4 IS if you can deal with the weight and size). I am more skeptical about the 400mm/f4 DO as there are very mixed (and drastically different) reviews on it. The DO lens is certainly poor value for the money unless you must have a light-weight 400mm lens.

 

The 300mm/f4 IS is fine and unless you must have that extra stop, the extra benefit from the 300mm/f2.8 is limited with literally a heavy penalty (both in terms of weight and cost). Even on a digital body, the 300mm/f2.8 is not going to be long enough for birds and adding 2x TCs will degrade your images quality even though it may still be acceptable. That topic has been beaten to death already.

[howard_grill]

Petr...will 300 f2.8 and a D60 get me a 480 (isn't it 1.6x conversion) and will the 480 still be f2.8 or do you lose light doing this as well?

Howard

[ShunCheung]

A 300mm/f2.8 on a D60 is still a 300mm/f2.8. The aperture won't change and the quality improves a bit since you are only using the center (and better) part of the lens. The angle of view changes since the D60 is a smaller format than full-frame 35mm so that you get more magnification. That is what that 1.6x factor is all about.

[jarnott]

No need to by a digital camera to get 1.6x zoom. Just crop your scan and then make the crop larger by 1.6x. You'll end up with the same thing, if not better with a higher resolution scanner.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Howard,

I do bird photography and have a 300 f/4, and a 600 f/4. I think you'll find a 500 f/4 or a 600 f/4 will be much more valuable than one stop of light on the 300 2.8.

[mlfly]

I agree with the last response. The 300 f4 IS is just fine. Save for something longer. My 600 with a 1.4 extender and the D60 is almost 9000 or 10000 mm :) Well, maybe not quite, but it's very long and very useful. And, it can be too long, which is when the 300 shines.

 

Mike

[howard_grill]

I certainly appreciate the advice. Sounds like the 300 F4 IS is the 300 to keep...and I do really like being able to handhold it. Will have to see if I can swing a 500 or 600 F4 IS. I see a lot of info on other threads about the choice between these 2.

 

Howard

[ShunCheung]

Believe me, it is somewhat unusual that most people agree on a topic. If you are interested in birds, a 500 or 600mm is the obvious way to go. If you are indeed using a D60, the 500mm may work out better because of the narrower angle of view.

 

As it is currently discussed in an adjacent thread, an inexpensive way to go is a used 500mm/f4.5 AF. Obviously it is not as good as a current 500mm/f4 IS, but it is much cheaper.

 

I don't own a Canon D60, but there is plenty of complaints that its AF is slow. That may be an issue if you shoot moving subjects such as birds in flight. If you plan to go that route, I would investigate its AF speed. I have used a Nikon D100 and its AF is certainly not as good as the F5, D1, etc. and I question whether it is appropriate for action type photography.

[craig_bridge]

Pardon a Nikon user, but with decent long lens tripod technique and photoshop skills to get the most out of D60 images: Images from a 300 f/4 with matching 1.4x TC on a D60 at ISO 200 will be equivalent to 600 f/4 on a film body with ISO 100 film scanned with a 4000 dpi scanner.

 

Don't be fooled by the relatively low weight of a 300f/4+1.4xTC+D60, you need the stability of a tripod and head that will handle a 600f/4+EOS. If you've never used a 500mm+ lens, your going to go through the long lens tripod technique learning curve. With a D60, it will be cheaper materals wise, but you'll still pay in learning time (but the faster turns will allow you to compress it into a shorter period assuming you aren't simultaneously going through the D60 digital image learning curve).

 

BTW: I use both a 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR and 600 f/4 AFS on a D1x for birds.

[howard_grill]

Lots of great help here. I don't have a digital SLR at this point but am thinking towards the future as I suspect I will own one in the next few years. The 500 F4 IS is less expensive than the 600 but for the difference one could just about get the digital SLR. In that case, the difference in reach is more than made up for by the effective change in focal length (and you get the camera for 'free')...obviously, one could argue the focal length with a digital would be that much more with a 600, but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. My inclination would be to save for the 500 (and somehow convince my wife I need it :>)) and ultimately a digital SLR with a conversion factor and that gives me the 300 F4, 300 F4 with TC, a 500F4, and a 500 F4 with TC all on either an Elan 7 or a digital to extend the reach.

 

I suspect in the future digital SLRs may well be full 35mm frame CCDs, but there will always be ones with conversion factors available second hand. Who knows, perhaps they will continue to manufacture digital SLRs with conversion factors just for people who want to extend the reach of their lenses?

 

Howard