personal test of 2 Canon IS lens

[james_ownby1]

For over a decade I've used a Nikon 300mm f4 EDIF + 1.6xTE for bird photography. I've just purchased Canon's 300mmf4IS & 500mf4IS, and today finished a test (shooting a wall map of the U.S., indoors) comparing all three lens. Here are some results:

1. I used the Canon 500mmIS on a Bogen tripod at mfd, 1/50" at f5.6. Images with IS on were decidedly sharper than with IS off. This is contrary to what the lens manual advises but agrees with what Art Morris says about the IS lenses in his web site.

2. With the 300mm lens on the tripod, however, I could see no difference between images taken with IS on & those taken with IS off.

3. With IS on & shooting at 1/40", I could hand-hold the 300mm and get images just as sharp as with the tripod. Amazing!!

4. Colors in general seemed slightly more crisp and saturated with the two Canon lens than the Nikon 300mm, with or without the 1.6xTE

3. The Canon 500mmIS was sharper at its mfd (~15') than the Nikon 300mm f4 EDIF+1.6xTE at the same distance. But not by ve

[mikemilton]

Thanks for the interesting post. I'm using the 300F4IS and am considering the 4002.8 as a replacement / upgrade. Would you have an opinion on choosing between the following two approaches:

 

a) the 300 and 600 F4s

b) the 400F2.8 plus a 2x

 

I would think that b would offer more flexibility, possibly better image quality, and significantly less to truck about.

[ShunCheung]

Thanks to James for the interesting report.

 

As far as Mike's question goes, you need to provide more background info such as what other lenses do you have and what kind of setting you have in mind. For example, if you already have a 70-200 zoom, a 300mm/f4 becomes less necessary. I personally prefer to have a 300mm and a 600mm (or in my case 500mm) on separate bodies, and I can pick up either one to shoot immediately without wasting time to change lenses or add teleconvertors. And if you still need longer focal lengths, you can always add a 1.4x TC or even 2x TC on your 600mm. With one 400mm/f2.8, depedning on your subject, you'll probably need a TC most of the time and might need to rely on a 2x TC quite often, and I still have reservation with 2x TCs.

 

Having said that, more and more pros use 400mm/f2.8 type lenses in these days for wildlife work. Joe McDonald recently gave up his 600mm/f4 in favor of the 400mm/f2.8 when he travels to Africa. For one thing he uses the 400mm on his camcorder (which yields much greater magnification on the small mini DV frame), and the stricter airline carry-on restrictions make it much harder to hand carry a 300mm/f2.8 and a 600mm/f4 on international flights.

[mohan]

I am in a similar situation, but have decided which way to go... here are my decisions and reasons. If you read the reviews that Don Baccus wrote for the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/donb/300.html">300/2.8</a> and the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/donb/600.html">600/4</a> lenses you will get more background on what the advantages are in going this route.

<p>

I have had the 300/4IS for almost a year now, and have exclusively used it with the 1.4x teleconverter. This is an excellent combination, allowing a 400mm length and also low weight compared to the bigger glass. My photographic interest is in birds. It is sufficiently long enough that if you are not too ambitious, it can give you sharp pictures of big birds and you can get lucky with the smaller ones.

<p>

My next step is to get a 300/2.8. This gives me AF with a 2x converter, better range of depth-of-field options, brighter viewfinder image, and better optics. Just a step upgrade from the the 300/4IS. But, I am not sure if I am going to get rid of my 300/4IS though.

 

<p> After a few months, when there are more 600/4s in the used market, I am going to get one.

 

<p>

Of course if you have all the money and go the gym regularly, get a 600/4 today!

[james_ownby1]

My post ran too long & got cut off. I was going to add that all comparisons were made with a 10x loupe. The Nikon 300mmEDIF+1.6TE was comparable to the Canon 500mm with IS turned off, so the former is a great combo for bird photography. If Canon's TEs are as good as Nikon's, and I suspect they are, the Canon 300mm +TE should give great results.

 

Mohan makes a good point about the 600mm's weight. Unless you have biceps like Arnold Schwarzenegger, you aren't going to be taking long strolls carrying these big lenses. A monopod, however, used with an IS lens, ought to produce sharp images.

[kelly_krabbenhoft]

James, I know this isn't the intent of your post, but your last comment got me wondering. What do you consider a long hike with a 600 f4? At 6', 170, I by no means have the biceps or physique of Arnold, but I guess make it up with heart. Because when I am pursuing big mule deer bucks, bull elk or whatever the subject may be with my 600 and Gitzo 1548, my focus overrides exhaustion. I always figure that I can rest later. By pacing yourself, days in the field don't have to be work with even the biggest of glass. I keep reading these doom and gloom threads about the 600 and am frankly "tired" of them, no pun intended. For all of those considering big glass, it isn't going to restrict your movement if you do it wisely. ps- thanks for the review of the lenses James.

[richard_mittleman]

just want to give mega dittos to Kelly's remarks about how "horrible" it is to hike with the 600/4. It does get uncomfortable after a while, but when it does you just put it down, breathe the fresh air, check out the scenery and then pick it up and continue on.

[ShunCheung]

To Kelly and Richard, as we have said over and over, nature photographers come in many different sizes and strengths. Not too long ago someone told me right here in this forum that a 200mm/f4 is too heavy for long hikes; that is right, a <B>200mm/f4</B>, which is about 2.5 pounds/1 kg. My reaction was like "you've got to be kidding." Meanwhile, some young guy said that he had no trouble hiking with a 600mm/f4 with a Gitzo 410 tripod, ballhead, etc. etc.

<P>

Like many other things in photography, what is "too heavy" for you to carry around is your individual decision. There is no one "right" answer for everybody.

<P>

While we are on this topic, keep in mind that a 400mm/f2.8 is only a bit lighter than a 600mm/f4. Both are among the heaviest lenses commonly used in nature photography.

[irvin_crouse2]

I am curious about the original part of the question discussing the difference between Nikon AFS lenses such as the 300mm to 600 mm lenses and Cannon's new big glass with the IS. Are people noticing a difference in sharpness as well as color contrast etc.

[mark_lagrange]

I am into nature/bird photography. My primary lenses are the Canon 100-400 f/5.6 (for in flight photos)and the 400 f/2.8 used with teleconverters. I chose the 400 f/2.8 over the 600 f/4 due to versitily. I have side goals of also doing a touch of sports photography...and the 400/2.8 used without the teleconverters is the lens of choice in that field. However, since I do concentrate on birds I have had moments of remorse in not purchasing the 600/4. Even with a 2X converter making my lens a 800/5.6 I have found myself stretching to fill the frame especially with smaller birds.

 

One pretty cool thing I just tried, without having re-read George Lepp's article in OP is the stacking of teleconverters. I merged my 2X and 1.4X with a small extension tube in between to allow them to mate. Now my 400/2.8 has become a 1120mm (if my math is right). Now how's that for versitility in one lens. However, I notice my maximum aperature reading is still f/5.6. Can anyone explain that one? What am I really shooting with when I stack 'em? Does the stacking order matter? Any other concerns besides the probable image degradation? <<<which isn't to bad when using canon teleconverters>

 

How's that for taking your topic and runnin' with it!!!

[bobatkins]

I've seen several claims of good image quality with stacked TCs. My own experience and tests (300/2.8L, 500/4.5L, 600/4L) suggest it's not a good idea unless you are desperate and anything is better then nothing. You can get acceptable quality images if the subject doesn't call for high resolution and just about anything can be "publication quality", so that's not much of a guide! Since I used two tripods, MLU and focus bracketing in the tests, the image degradation wasn't due to vibration or focus errors.

 

You get the wrong aperture because the extension tube doesn't transmit all the info about the TC. A 2.8 +1.4x +2x gives you an f8 lens no matter what the readout says. Exposure will be OK though since the body is metering the actual light coming through the lens.

 

Order may or may not matter (I didn't find much difference), but test it for yourself.

 

BTW my tests on the 300/4L IS suggest I can get away with 1/125 most of the time and get pretty sharp images. Maybe not quite as sharp as on a tripod, but close. At slower the chances of getting a sharp image do drop. You can get lucky and get a sharp shot at 1/30, but I wouldn't bet you could do it 100% (or even 25%) of the time.