canon 300/4 or tokina 300/2.8

[jan_vanbussel]

I want to by a better telelens than my canon 70-300. First I wans

thining about a canon 300/4 or 400/5.6

But these won't autofocus on my eos5.

So now I am thinking about a tokina 300/2.8 witch is in the same

price class.

But will it's image quality be as good as the canons both with an

without convertors. And wat about autofocus.enz�

Also , does anyone know a good review about this lens.

[bobatkins]

<em>First I wans thining about a canon 300/4 or 400/5.6 But these won't autofocus on my eos5</em>

<p>

Yes they will, unless your EOS5 is broken!

<p>

If you're talking about using TCs, the 300/4 will AF with the 1.4x on it of course.

If you really need AF, it might be cheaper to trade the EOS-5 for an EOS-3

and use an f4 lens than to buy an f2.8 lens just so it will AF at f5.6 with a 2x on it!

Less weight too - and a better camera body.

[luc roymans]

HI Jan,

 

if your planning on using the tc's a lot, i would opt for the 2.8...you'll lose one stop with the 1,4 and 2 with the 2x...

 

cheers,

Luc

 

Luc Roymans @ www.Roymans.com

[thidglance]

Optically the Tokina is very good, build wise it is also very good. Autofocus wise, you will be a bit disapointed. I owned it for nikon, and would choose then 300 F4 AFS next time for the best compromise of weight, speed and AF performance.

[jan_vanbussel]

Sorry for my mistake but I meant to say that the canon 400/5.6 won't autofucus WITH the 1.4 convertor and the 300/4 won't autofocus WITH the 2 x convertor.

I am trying to find a lens that will be exelent around 400mm with the option of a good lens around 600mm with a convertor.

 

Sorry for my mistake.

[bobatkins]

Personally, from the point of view of size, weight, cost and optical performance, I'd go with a Canon 300/4L, get AF at 420 with a 1.4x and put up with having to use MF at 600 with a 2x (or upgrade to an EOS-3). Just don't expect spectacular performance with a 2x.

[bruce]

Jan... I have been down this road many times. Bottom line... if

you want the best optics and compatability with your camera

system, stick with the manufacturers lenses. I shoot Nikon, but

have used Tamron 300 f2.8's AF and MF lenses, and each time I

ended up trading or selling these to buy the Nikkor lens. I have

not used an after market lens for more than 2 years now, and will

probably never use one again. For whatever reason (most likely

psychological), I am willing to accept my image failures with my

Nikkor lenses, but blamed poor images on the Tamron when I

had previously used that lens.

 

regards,

bruce

 

http://www.owlseyenaturephotos.com

[bill_green2]

It all comes down to how much you need to shoot a 300 mm lens at 2.8. I would venture a guess that the Canon 300/4 shot wide open is at least as good as the Tokina stopped down to f4. So if you need to shoot at 2.8 you don't have much choice. If you will not be shooting at 2.8 you save at least three pounds by going with the Canon. I don't know what your budget is, but you can find good used Canon 300/2.8 non-IS lenses for about $2,000. What about a Canon 100-400 IS?

[jan_vanbussel]

So if I understand things correct you would stay away from tokina lenses and go for canon.

But then I would have to choose between 300 or 400.

You say 300+1.4TC is good but 300+2TC is not

Is that also true for the 400. I mean is the 400+1.4TC as good as the 300+1.4TC or is the quality of that combination more like that of the 300+2TC.

 

Thanks

[phil]

Apart from anything else, the 300/4 is available with image stabilisation, whereas the 400/5.6 does not have it. Some people have

suggested that the 400/5.6 is not quite as sharp as it might be, but

I would have thought the 400+1.4x would be at least as sharp as the

300/4+2x and in all probability sharper. Do not underestimate the value of IS, however, especially if you plan on shooting up in the 600mm range.