Reading mode: Light Dark

What options for 300mm+ ?

Go to last post
A

ajf_2005

Active member
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
What would anyone recommend for lenses over 300mm?
It would be used on a 350D for motorsport and airshows.

Currently just have the basic 75-300mm zoom which I use a (cheap) 2x converter on but the problem I get is the autofocus does not then work and the image quality is pretty poor.

I would have a relatively low budget so no fixed length Canon 500mm etc!

What are the Canon 100-400mm IS USM lenses like? Can they be used with Canons own 2x converter and still retain autofocus?
Other option I have seen is the Sigma 170-500mm zoom.

All suggestions and opinions would be gratefully received.

Also, anyone used http://www.onestop-digital.com ? Prices seem good buty I think they are imported lenses jusdging by their eBay shop.

Andrew
 
The 100-400 L is a great lens. I'Ve had it for a week and I love it. AF won't work with teleconverters though.
 
Thank you for the reply - and email you sent.

The lens results do look very good and I guess the IS also helps in lower light conditions.

Shame about the teleconverters though. Do any reasonably priced lenses - zoom or telephoto still have AF with them or would I need to be spending silly money?

One other option I saw last night was the 300m F4 lens. Whilst slightly less flexible if I could put Canons 2x teleceonverter and still use AF it might be my better option.
 
ajf_2005 said:
Thank you for the reply - and email you sent.
The lens results do look very good and I guess the IS also helps in
lower light conditions.
Shame about the teleconverters though. Do any reasonably priced
lenses - zoom or telephoto still have AF with them or would I need
to be spending silly money?
One other option I saw last night was the 300m F4 lens. Whilst
slightly less flexible if I could put Canons 2x teleceonverter and
still use AF it might be my better option.
Click to expand...
You can't. AF does not work when the maximum Aperture is below f/5.6. With 2x TC, you lose 2 stops.
 
buddythedog said:
ajf_2005 said:
Thank you for the reply - and email you sent.
The lens results do look very good and I guess the IS also helps in
lower light conditions.
Shame about the teleconverters though. Do any reasonably priced
lenses - zoom or telephoto still have AF with them or would I need
to be spending silly money?
One other option I saw last night was the 300m F4 lens. Whilst
slightly less flexible if I could put Canons 2x teleceonverter and
still use AF it might be my better option.
Click to expand...
You can't. AF does not work when the maximum Aperture is below
f/5.6. With 2x TC, you lose 2 stops.
Click to expand...
Just seen that on Canons site too :( Thing is though, they say this:

Extender is Canon's name for a teleconverter. These high-performance accessories multiply the effective focal length of an attached lens by 1.4x or 2x. For example, a 200mm lens with Extender 1.4x has an effective focal length of 280mm: with the Extender 2x, this increases to 400mm. Extenders are only compatible with selected EF lenses, including the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 70-200mm f/4L, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM, EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM and fixed length L-series lenses of 135mm or higher.

So if AF does not work below f5.6 what makes a lens compatible or not? Both the lenses I mentioned in my posts are 'compatible' but both have maximum apertures below f5.6 with the extender.

Anyone any thoughts on the Sigma 170-500mm lens?
Andrew
 
eshropshire said:
The 300 f4 with a 2x TC becomes a 600 f8 lens. This makes the AF
not compatible with anything but 1 series cameras.

Have you also looked at the Sigma 50-500? I hear good reports on
this lens.
-
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
I thought about the 170-500mm but not the 50-500mm. Guess I assumed the greater range made it a more compromised lens. Which of the two is better?

I am after the higher power end of the zoom rather than an all in one so would be happy with whichever is likely to be better quality.

I guess the idea of using a medium power lens and a converter is not practical if I want AF and don't want to spend huge amounts?

Andrew
 
ajf_2005 said:
eshropshire wrote:

I thought about the 170-500mm but not the 50-500mm. Guess I assumed
the greater range made it a more compromised lens. Which of the two
is better?
I am after the higher power end of the zoom rather than an all in
one so would be happy with whichever is likely to be better quality.
Click to expand...
The 50-500 is better by far. It is also heavier and more expensive.
ajf_2005 said:
I guess the idea of using a medium power lens and a converter is
not practical if I want AF and don't want to spend huge amounts?
Click to expand...
If you need the reach, the best solution is to go for the longer focal length lens.
ajf_2005 said:
Andrew
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/macshark/birds
 
ajf_2005 said:
eshropshire said:
The 300 f4 with a 2x TC becomes a 600 f8 lens. This makes the AF
not compatible with anything but 1 series cameras.

Have you also looked at the Sigma 50-500? I hear good reports on
this lens.
-
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
I thought about the 170-500mm but not the 50-500mm. Guess I assumed
the greater range made it a more compromised lens. Which of the two
is better?
I am after the higher power end of the zoom rather than an all in
one so would be happy with whichever is likely to be better quality.

I guess the idea of using a medium power lens and a converter is
not practical if I want AF and don't want to spend huge amounts?

Andrew
Click to expand...
Andrew,

I am actually going through this debate right now. I was leaning hard on getting the 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC. I figured this would be good since I don't often need to go longer than 400. I could often see times when just 300 would be perfect. I have really fallen for my 85 1.8 and want more primes.

With all of that I hear mixed messages about how well the 300 f4 works with the 1.4. I keep hearing from many people that they had or have the 300 f4, but now use the 300 f2.8. I am sure the 2.8 is a great lens but it is beyond my budget.

Right now I am leaning to the 100-400 - I still worry since I hear it is not that great at 400. But then again, I might as well get this lens if it has the same IQ at 400 as the 300 f4 has with a 1.4x TC. I really wish I could find some definite answers on how the 300 f4 with a 1.4x compares at 400 to the 100-400.

I have toyed with the idea of getting the bigma. The range of 50-500 is pretty cool, and I have seen some good results with this lens. But this lens is very big and heavy and with no IS it screams to always using it with a monopod or tripod. I also worry because I am batting 50-50 on my Sigma EX lenses. One is a great lens the other is just so so.

The last lens is the 400 f5.6 I think for pure image quality at 400 this is the way to go, but I don't like the idea of spending over $1100 on a lens that would spend a lot of time unused seems a waste for me.

This will probably be my last big lens purchase for a while and I want to make the right one. I want to get the most bang for my buck and for me that seems to be either the 300 f4 or the 100-400. The advantage of the 300 f4 is that I could use the TC on some of my other lenses. I don't know what I am going to do still in debate mode.

Ed

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
 
300mm f4 is a great lens. I have the f4 and the 2.8
I ownned a Bigma for a year or so and have used the 400 5.6 and the 100-400

I had my f4 calibrated by Canon and it totally improved the AF performance

It works very well with the 1.4 converter but is less happy on the 2x

IS and Af are both excellent and image quality is both wonderfully sharp and produces a creamy and dreamy bokeh.

I have used the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6. The 100-400 is convenient but is not optically equal to the primes.

The question you asked is hard. How does the 300 perform versus the zoom at 400. If you're asking this question you don't need a 300 prime. You should consider the 400 f5.6. It's lighter, cheaper and superior to the zoom.

The Bigma is an interesting animal. It's a very good lens, big and heavy and with moderately fast AF. For the price it's a steal. My copy was noticeably less sharp beyond about 450mm.

The question to answer - is why do i want this lens and what am I shooting? The answer lies there :-)

In terms of pure IQ my experience rates the lenses in this order

1) 400 and 300mm primes
2) 50-500 and 100-400 zooms

There is very little to chose between the 100-400 and 50-500. Same is true of the primes.

Good luck
Rob
eshropshire said:
ajf_2005 said:
eshropshire said:
The 300 f4 with a 2x TC becomes a 600 f8 lens. This makes the AF
not compatible with anything but 1 series cameras.

Have you also looked at the Sigma 50-500? I hear good reports on
this lens.
-
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
I thought about the 170-500mm but not the 50-500mm. Guess I assumed
the greater range made it a more compromised lens. Which of the two
is better?
I am after the higher power end of the zoom rather than an all in
one so would be happy with whichever is likely to be better quality.

I guess the idea of using a medium power lens and a converter is
not practical if I want AF and don't want to spend huge amounts?

Andrew
Click to expand...
Andrew,

I am actually going through this debate right now. I was leaning
hard on getting the 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC. I figured this would be
good since I don't often need to go longer than 400. I could often
see times when just 300 would be perfect. I have really fallen for
my 85 1.8 and want more primes.

With all of that I hear mixed messages about how well the 300 f4
works with the 1.4. I keep hearing from many people that they had
or have the 300 f4, but now use the 300 f2.8. I am sure the 2.8 is
a great lens but it is beyond my budget.

Right now I am leaning to the 100-400 - I still worry since I hear
it is not that great at 400. But then again, I might as well get
this lens if it has the same IQ at 400 as the 300 f4 has with a
1.4x TC. I really wish I could find some definite answers on how
the 300 f4 with a 1.4x compares at 400 to the 100-400.

I have toyed with the idea of getting the bigma. The range of
50-500 is pretty cool, and I have seen some good results with this
lens. But this lens is very big and heavy and with no IS it screams
to always using it with a monopod or tripod. I also worry because I
am batting 50-50 on my Sigma EX lenses. One is a great lens the
other is just so so.

The last lens is the 400 f5.6 I think for pure image quality at 400
this is the way to go, but I don't like the idea of spending over
$1100 on a lens that would spend a lot of time unused seems a waste
for me.

This will probably be my last big lens purchase for a while and I
want to make the right one. I want to get the most bang for my buck
and for me that seems to be either the 300 f4 or the 100-400. The
advantage of the 300 f4 is that I could use the TC on some of my
other lenses. I don't know what I am going to do still in debate
mode.

Ed

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
--
Taking pictures first, equipment second
 
Robert,

This is a great response, thank you for taking the time to post.

The main reason I am thinking of the 300 f4 over the 400 f5.6 is there are times when I know that I will only want a 300 prime. In fact, I think this will be more of a need than a 400. But I do know there will be times when I want to reach 400, thus it seems like the 300 f4 with a 1.4x would be more versatile for my needs.

The only question I had was image quality and your post gave me some good insights. I think 300 f4 is the way for me to go. I appreciate you taking your time to respond.

Ed
Robert Holloway said:
I had my f4 calibrated by Canon and it totally improved the AF
performance

It works very well with the 1.4 converter but is less happy on the 2x

IS and Af are both excellent and image quality is both wonderfully
sharp and produces a creamy and dreamy bokeh.

I have used the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6. The 100-400 is convenient
but is not optically equal to the primes.

The question you asked is hard. How does the 300 perform versus the
zoom at 400. If you're asking this question you don't need a 300
prime. You should consider the 400 f5.6. It's lighter, cheaper and
superior to the zoom.

The Bigma is an interesting animal. It's a very good lens, big and
heavy and with moderately fast AF. For the price it's a steal. My
copy was noticeably less sharp beyond about 450mm.

The question to answer - is why do i want this lens and what am I
shooting? The answer lies there :-)

In terms of pure IQ my experience rates the lenses in this order

1) 400 and 300mm primes
2) 50-500 and 100-400 zooms

There is very little to chose between the 100-400 and 50-500. Same
is true of the primes.

Good luck
Rob
eshropshire said:
ajf_2005 said:
eshropshire said:
The 300 f4 with a 2x TC becomes a 600 f8 lens. This makes the AF
not compatible with anything but 1 series cameras.

Have you also looked at the Sigma 50-500? I hear good reports on
this lens.
-
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
I thought about the 170-500mm but not the 50-500mm. Guess I assumed
the greater range made it a more compromised lens. Which of the two
is better?
I am after the higher power end of the zoom rather than an all in
one so would be happy with whichever is likely to be better quality.

I guess the idea of using a medium power lens and a converter is
not practical if I want AF and don't want to spend huge amounts?

Andrew
Click to expand...
Andrew,

I am actually going through this debate right now. I was leaning
hard on getting the 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC. I figured this would be
good since I don't often need to go longer than 400. I could often
see times when just 300 would be perfect. I have really fallen for
my 85 1.8 and want more primes.

With all of that I hear mixed messages about how well the 300 f4
works with the 1.4. I keep hearing from many people that they had
or have the 300 f4, but now use the 300 f2.8. I am sure the 2.8 is
a great lens but it is beyond my budget.

Right now I am leaning to the 100-400 - I still worry since I hear
it is not that great at 400. But then again, I might as well get
this lens if it has the same IQ at 400 as the 300 f4 has with a
1.4x TC. I really wish I could find some definite answers on how
the 300 f4 with a 1.4x compares at 400 to the 100-400.

I have toyed with the idea of getting the bigma. The range of
50-500 is pretty cool, and I have seen some good results with this
lens. But this lens is very big and heavy and with no IS it screams
to always using it with a monopod or tripod. I also worry because I
am batting 50-50 on my Sigma EX lenses. One is a great lens the
other is just so so.

The last lens is the 400 f5.6 I think for pure image quality at 400
this is the way to go, but I don't like the idea of spending over
$1100 on a lens that would spend a lot of time unused seems a waste
for me.

This will probably be my last big lens purchase for a while and I
want to make the right one. I want to get the most bang for my buck
and for me that seems to be either the 300 f4 or the 100-400. The
advantage of the 300 f4 is that I could use the TC on some of my
other lenses. I don't know what I am going to do still in debate
mode.

Ed

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
--
Taking pictures first, equipment second
Click to expand...
--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
 
Ed

Thanks for your nice response :-)
I've owned and used alot of these lenses

They are all good at what they do. The real issue is what the shooter wants to do :-)

Rob
eshropshire said:
This is a great response, thank you for taking the time to post.

The main reason I am thinking of the 300 f4 over the 400 f5.6 is
there are times when I know that I will only want a 300 prime. In
fact, I think this will be more of a need than a 400. But I do know
there will be times when I want to reach 400, thus it seems like
the 300 f4 with a 1.4x would be more versatile for my needs.

The only question I had was image quality and your post gave me
some good insights. I think 300 f4 is the way for me to go. I
appreciate you taking your time to respond.

Ed
Robert Holloway said:
I had my f4 calibrated by Canon and it totally improved the AF
performance

It works very well with the 1.4 converter but is less happy on the 2x

IS and Af are both excellent and image quality is both wonderfully
sharp and produces a creamy and dreamy bokeh.

I have used the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6. The 100-400 is convenient
but is not optically equal to the primes.

The question you asked is hard. How does the 300 perform versus the
zoom at 400. If you're asking this question you don't need a 300
prime. You should consider the 400 f5.6. It's lighter, cheaper and
superior to the zoom.

The Bigma is an interesting animal. It's a very good lens, big and
heavy and with moderately fast AF. For the price it's a steal. My
copy was noticeably less sharp beyond about 450mm.

The question to answer - is why do i want this lens and what am I
shooting? The answer lies there :-)

In terms of pure IQ my experience rates the lenses in this order

1) 400 and 300mm primes
2) 50-500 and 100-400 zooms

There is very little to chose between the 100-400 and 50-500. Same
is true of the primes.

Good luck
Rob
eshropshire said:
ajf_2005 said:
eshropshire said:
The 300 f4 with a 2x TC becomes a 600 f8 lens. This makes the AF
not compatible with anything but 1 series cameras.

Have you also looked at the Sigma 50-500? I hear good reports on
this lens.
-
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
I thought about the 170-500mm but not the 50-500mm. Guess I assumed
the greater range made it a more compromised lens. Which of the two
is better?
I am after the higher power end of the zoom rather than an all in
one so would be happy with whichever is likely to be better quality.

I guess the idea of using a medium power lens and a converter is
not practical if I want AF and don't want to spend huge amounts?

Andrew
Click to expand...
Andrew,

I am actually going through this debate right now. I was leaning
hard on getting the 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC. I figured this would be
good since I don't often need to go longer than 400. I could often
see times when just 300 would be perfect. I have really fallen for
my 85 1.8 and want more primes.

With all of that I hear mixed messages about how well the 300 f4
works with the 1.4. I keep hearing from many people that they had
or have the 300 f4, but now use the 300 f2.8. I am sure the 2.8 is
a great lens but it is beyond my budget.

Right now I am leaning to the 100-400 - I still worry since I hear
it is not that great at 400. But then again, I might as well get
this lens if it has the same IQ at 400 as the 300 f4 has with a
1.4x TC. I really wish I could find some definite answers on how
the 300 f4 with a 1.4x compares at 400 to the 100-400.

I have toyed with the idea of getting the bigma. The range of
50-500 is pretty cool, and I have seen some good results with this
lens. But this lens is very big and heavy and with no IS it screams
to always using it with a monopod or tripod. I also worry because I
am batting 50-50 on my Sigma EX lenses. One is a great lens the
other is just so so.

The last lens is the 400 f5.6 I think for pure image quality at 400
this is the way to go, but I don't like the idea of spending over
$1100 on a lens that would spend a lot of time unused seems a waste
for me.

This will probably be my last big lens purchase for a while and I
want to make the right one. I want to get the most bang for my buck
and for me that seems to be either the 300 f4 or the 100-400. The
advantage of the 300 f4 is that I could use the TC on some of my
other lenses. I don't know what I am going to do still in debate
mode.

Ed

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
--
Taking pictures first, equipment second
Click to expand...
--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
Click to expand...
--
Taking pictures first, equipment second
 
Robert Holloway said:
Ed

Thanks for your nice response :-)
I've owned and used alot of these lenses

They are all good at what they do. The real issue is what the
shooter wants to do :-)

Rob
Click to expand...
Thanks Rob, I guess that is the hardest part being on a tight budget. Trying to find the lens that will meet most of your needs - the old 80-20 rule. I think the 400 f5.6 would be cool to have, but I think it falls more in the 20 category than the 80.

I think the 300 f4 having IS and a TC fits more in the 80. The 100-400 fits very nicely in the 80 for needs, but not sure about image quality.

Too many lens choices - not enough money :-).

Thanks for your advice.
Ed
Robert Holloway said:
eshropshire said:
This is a great response, thank you for taking the time to post.

The main reason I am thinking of the 300 f4 over the 400 f5.6 is
there are times when I know that I will only want a 300 prime. In
fact, I think this will be more of a need than a 400. But I do know
there will be times when I want to reach 400, thus it seems like
the 300 f4 with a 1.4x would be more versatile for my needs.

The only question I had was image quality and your post gave me
some good insights. I think 300 f4 is the way for me to go. I
appreciate you taking your time to respond.

Ed
Robert Holloway said:
300mm f4 is a great lens. I have the f4 and the 2.8
I ownned a Bigma for a year or so and have used the 400 5.6 and the
100-400

I had my f4 calibrated by Canon and it totally improved the AF
performance

It works very well with the 1.4 converter but is less happy on the 2x

IS and Af are both excellent and image quality is both wonderfully
sharp and produces a creamy and dreamy bokeh.

I have used the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6. The 100-400 is convenient
but is not optically equal to the primes.

The question you asked is hard. How does the 300 perform versus the
zoom at 400. If you're asking this question you don't need a 300
prime. You should consider the 400 f5.6. It's lighter, cheaper and
superior to the zoom.

The Bigma is an interesting animal. It's a very good lens, big and
heavy and with moderately fast AF. For the price it's a steal. My
copy was noticeably less sharp beyond about 450mm.

The question to answer - is why do i want this lens and what am I
shooting? The answer lies there :-)

In terms of pure IQ my experience rates the lenses in this order

1) 400 and 300mm primes
2) 50-500 and 100-400 zooms

There is very little to chose between the 100-400 and 50-500. Same
is true of the primes.

Good luck
Rob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
 
There have been a couple of fruitful threads comparing 300 mm lenses (f4 & f2.8) to 100-400 and 400/5.6. The second one was especailly useful.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18221436

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18359344

If I remember correctly and can summarise many hours of reading various opinions: -

1. 300/2.8 with 1.4 TC has superior image quality to 100-400 and is equal in quality to 400/5.6 Prime. This is a huge tribute to the 300/2.8.

2. 300/4 with 1.4TC is about the same IQ as 100-400.

My reading of your needs, is that (given you do not want to spend $3800 for the 300/2.8) you should get either the 100-400 zoom OR the 300/4 rather than the 400/5.6 Prime. The zoom gives you more felxible range esp on the wide end. The 300 f4 without TC will probably give you better IQ than the 100-400.

However as the Bigma shots showed, what we get out of lenses in the field is the ultimate test and often makes the bench tests under controlled conditions pretty irrelevant.

Good luck in your choice.
eshropshire said:
I think the 300 f4 having IS and a TC fits more in the 80. The
100-400 fits very nicely in the 80 for needs, but not sure about
image quality.
Click to expand...
 
4 times now I have tried to respond to this thread, and 4 failures, what about the 5th?
--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

orbmansony
Stacking TCs
Replies
9
Views
6K
Victor Engel
V
ProfHankD
I would go 500mm and I would go 500 more
Replies
1
Views
39K
Tom Caldwell
T
B
Looking to Upgrade: OM-1 Mark II + 300mm vs Canon R7 + RF 100-500
Replies
4
Views
6K
beagle1
B
janbanan
Chasing Maximum Focal Length on a Budget
Replies
11
Views
4K
John Crowe
John Crowe
Z
Affordable zoom lens options for Canon EOS-M
Replies
4
Views
8K
UncleVanya
UncleVanya

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top