300 f2.8 IS L II plus 2x Mk.III better than 100-400 f4.5/5.6 IS L?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 1,898
Like?
Re: A teleconverter is not a zoom...
In reply to birdbrain, 4 months ago

birdbrain wrote:

schmegg wrote:

joger wrote:

Wyville wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

Compare and contrast..

1. Teleconverter. You you have your 300mm and you say, "hold on a minute, I need a 400 now"

You take off your precious 300mm, look for an area of ground free of animal droppings, put it down carefully. Then you root in your pocket for the teleconverter container. You open it, take it out, remove the caps, put them carefully upon your person, reminding yourself to remember where they are, stick on the teleconverter, then pick up your carefully deposited lens, upon which by the grace of God, some seagull has not evacuated himself, or herself, try to work out where you start the twist, twist and return to your eye.

2. Zoom. Keep at your eye and zoom.

Bit of a difference. This is why, even though I have three teleconverters, I've used them about the same number of times as Italy has won the World Cup...

A bit melodramatic, isn't it?

While I love my 100-400L, I can't wait to get a prime and the 300/2.8 is probably second to the 500/4 as my most desired solution (although not entirely realistic at the moment due to the price of both).

It depends a lot on how you use a lens. On a variety of subject sizes a zoom is more useful, but for birds (for instance) I always end up at 400mm anyway.

sure he did - he asked about 300 plus 2x - that means 600 mm - for the 100-400 you need an 1.4x to come close to that - please read again

OK ... here's what he said ...

birdbrain wrote:

It should be but is there anyone using the new 300 f2.8 with the MkIII 2x converter? I was wondering what the IQ and AF were like, worse or better than the 100-400?

Is the 300 MkII easy to hand hold?

No mention of comparing the 300 f2.8 with 2x converter to a 100-400 with 1.4x converter there.
So thanks - but I probably didn't need to "read again" - you did.

I probably should have made myself a bit clearer.

A combo I use a lot is the 100-400 on a 7D, having got myself a 5D3 I have been looking for a lens and converter combo which would give me a similar amount of reach. The 7D and 100-400 is equivalent to 640mm while the 5D3 with a 300 f2.8 and 2x would be 600 so very similar. While with the 7D I would have 960mm, while shorter than the 500 + 1.4x 7D combo I have it's not bad.

I am looking at downsizing, the new Mk.II 500 is more than I want to pay and although lighter it would not be like the 300 f 2.8.

Hopefully I have made myself clearer?

thx for clarifying and confirming my interpretation - the 300 f/2.8 (II) plus an extender would perfectly fit your quality concerns and surely outperform the 7D plus 100-400 tool chain by a nice margin with only a bit more weight

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow