300/2.8+2x vs. 400/4 DO+1.4x vs 600/4

Richt2000 · Sep 24, 2006

Hi all,

I am looking at ways to get to 600mm other than the 600/4.
Reasons - cost and weight. The 600/4 is over 5KG.

Although also expensive the 300/2.8 and 400/4DO are stella lenses, and can be combined with extenders to produce 600/5.6 and 560/5.6 using 2 and 1.4x extenders respectively. f5.6 means no issues with AF.

So has anyone tested / or know anywhere on the web where these two extender solutions have been tested, either against each other or to a 600/4 ?

Any thoughts are greatly appreicated.

(I am aware of cheaper ways using f5.6 lenses and taping pins to get af, using a 1.6x crop body to get more pixels etc. Its only the optical solutions I am interested in - thanks).

BTP · Sep 24, 2006

I would also consider the 500 f/4L IS. It gives you most of what the 600 does at less weight and less cost. It also works extremely well with the 1.4TC which will give you a 700mm solution. To me, this is the best of what you are actually looking for.
--
Brian

Lee Jay · Sep 24, 2006

BTP said:
I would also consider the 500 f/4L IS. It gives you most of what
the 600 does at less weight and less cost. It also works extremely
well with the 1.4TC which will give you a 700mm solution. To me,
this is the best of what you are actually looking for.

You can make the same argument about the 300/2.8. Two people have told me the 300/2.8+1.4 is as sharp as the bare 500/4L which is a pretty amazing statement. If so, that means we're talking about 420/4 versus 500/4 or 600/5.6 versus 700/5.6. While not insignificant differences, they are comparable to the differences between the 500/4 and the 600/4. Plus the 300/2.8 throws in the ability to go down to 300 and 420 and down to f2.8 as well which the 500/4 does not.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Scion · Sep 24, 2006

would need to be stopped down a bit for best results.

I preferred the 300mm 2.8 with extenders personally.

BTP · Sep 24, 2006

ljfinger said:
BTP said:

I would also consider the 500 f/4L IS. It gives you most of what
the 600 does at less weight and less cost. It also works extremely
well with the 1.4TC which will give you a 700mm solution. To me,
this is the best of what you are actually looking for.

Click to expand...

You can make the same argument about the 300/2.8. Two people have
told me the 300/2.8+1.4 is as sharp as the bare 500/4L which is a
pretty amazing statement. If so, that means we're talking about
420/4 versus 500/4 or 600/5.6 versus 700/5.6. While not
insignificant differences, they are comparable to the differences
between the 500/4 and the 600/4. Plus the 300/2.8 throws in the
ability to go down to 300 and 420 and down to f2.8 as well which
the 500/4 does not.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I own both the 300 f/2.8L IS and the 500 f/4L IS. I would not choose my 300 to get me to 600. The 500 bare is close to a 600, and with a 1.4 TC it gives even more focal length than a bare 600. This is a far better solution than the 300 + 2x (quality, autofocus speed, bokeh). If you need a 300 or 400 f/4, the 300 f/2.8L IS is an utterly fantastic lens. If you are looking in the 600mm area, I would go for the 500 or 600. The OP wanted a 600, but was concerned about size and cost. The 500 can be handheld for short periods of time. It is considerably lighter/easier to use than the 600...at least to me. The 500 also gives you a cost savings. The OP seemed to be ok with the cost of the 400 f/4 DO. This is very close to the cost of the 500, so I assumed that this was fine.

I still state that IMO, with what the OP is interested in, I think looking at the 500 would be a good idea. For me, it would be the best option for this case.

--
Brian

Lee Jay · Sep 24, 2006

BTP said:
If you need a 300 or 400 f/4, the 300 f/2.8L IS is
an utterly fantastic lens. If you are looking in the 600mm area, I
would go for the 500 or 600. The OP wanted a 600, but was concerned
about size and cost. The 500 can be handheld for short periods of
time. It is considerably lighter/easier to use than the 600...at
least to me.

Sure. But the "short periods of time" is what concerns me. I often handhold my 70-200/2.8L IS with stacked 1.4s for hours, even as much as 7 hours. I've not heard one person claim that's possible with the 500 but many have said it is with the 300. For me, I've decided against either one because I seem to need a zoom very badly for what I do with this lens. So I'll continue with my system until a supertele zoom with IS becomes available. I'll consider that option at that time.

BTP said:
The 500 also gives you a cost savings. The OP seemed
to be ok with the cost of the 400 f/4 DO. This is very close to the
cost of the 500, so I assumed that this was fine.

If the OP is okay with the cost of the 500 and with its weight, then it is certainly a better solution for the 600mm range than is the 300/2.8. However, if the weight is a problem, then the 300/2.8 is, IMHO, a better solution than the 400/4DO. It's longer (420/4 versus 400/4), just a bit heavier, goes to 300/2.8 and seems to do just as well with a 1.4 as the DO does bare, and as well with a 2x as the DO does with a 1.4.

BTP said:
I still state that IMO, with what the OP is interested in, I think
looking at the 500 would be a good idea. For me, it would be the
best option for this case.

If he can put up with the weight, I agree. If not, then I'd go for the 300/2.8.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Powerdoc · Sep 24, 2006

I went to the 300 2,8 IS route with TC 1,4 and TC 2. The 300 2,8 with TC 2 is not optically on par with the 600 F4 at the same aperture but it's a good performer.
The level of performance are good, and at 600 it's a good new.

with a little bit of usm it's very sharp even on 100 % crop (without TC it's very sharp without any USM)

more images here : http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/sailing
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range

excal · Sep 24, 2006

From left to right... 600/4 non-IS L (with case), 300/2.8 IS L, 100-400, 70-200/2.8 IS L and one coffee cup. For size reference, the screen behind is a 42" 16:9 plasma.

Excal

Richt2000 · Sep 24, 2006

Hi guys, thanks for your views. This is all very useful stuff. Especially

Lee Jay said:
However, if the weight is a problem, then the 300/2.8
is, IMHO, a better solution than the 400/4DO. It's longer (420/4
versus 400/4), just a bit heavier, goes to 300/2.8 and seems to do
just as well with a 1.4 as the DO does bare, and as well with a 2x
as the DO does with a 1.4."

I did consider the 500, but its nearly as big and heavy as the 600/4.

The 300/2.8 is 2.5Kg and the 400DO is 1.9 KG which are more the sort of weight I am prepared to go to (I already usually carry 4-6KG of other equipment). I handhold most of the time - I find the 100-400L and 70-200L a breeze to hand hold and carry all day, and I think I could manage up to 2.5Kg. But 4Kg is going to be too much.

The 300/2.8 is looking like the best option. Im hoping someone has done some test shots comparing !

ljfinger said:
BTP said:

If you need a 300 or 400 f/4, the 300 f/2.8L IS is
an utterly fantastic lens. If you are looking in the 600mm area, I
would go for the 500 or 600. The OP wanted a 600, but was concerned
about size and cost. The 500 can be handheld for short periods of
time. It is considerably lighter/easier to use than the 600...at
least to me.

Click to expand...

Sure. But the "short periods of time" is what concerns me. I
often handhold my 70-200/2.8L IS with stacked 1.4s for hours, even
as much as 7 hours. I've not heard one person claim that's
possible with the 500 but many have said it is with the 300. For
me, I've decided against either one because I seem to need a zoom
very badly for what I do with this lens. So I'll continue with my
system until a supertele zoom with IS becomes available. I'll
consider that option at that time.

Lee Jay said:

The 500 also gives you a cost savings. The OP seemed
to be ok with the cost of the 400 f/4 DO. This is very close to the
cost of the 500, so I assumed that this was fine.

Click to expand...

If the OP is okay with the cost of the 500 and with its weight,
then it is certainly a better solution for the 600mm range than is
the 300/2.8. However, if the weight is a problem, then the 300/2.8
is, IMHO, a better solution than the 400/4DO. It's longer (420/4
versus 400/4), just a bit heavier, goes to 300/2.8 and seems to do
just as well with a 1.4 as the DO does bare, and as well with a 2x
as the DO does with a 1.4.

Lee Jay said:

I still state that IMO, with what the OP is interested in, I think
looking at the 500 would be a good idea. For me, it would be the
best option for this case.

Click to expand...

If he can put up with the weight, I agree. If not, then I'd go for
the 300/2.8.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--
Click profile for current and previous equipment.

Website: http://www.fotoz.co.uk

Richt2000 · Sep 24, 2006

Wow that looks good. Another vote for the 300/2.8 then.
Thanks for your pbase link - looks really nice.
Thanks !

Powerdoc said:
I went to the 300 2,8 IS route with TC 1,4 and TC 2. The 300 2,8
with TC 2 is not optically on par with the 600 F4 at the same
aperture but it's a good performer.
The level of performance are good, and at 600 it's a good new.
with a little bit of usm it's very sharp even on 100 % crop
(without TC it's very sharp without any USM)

more images here : http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/sailing
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range

Richt2000 · Sep 24, 2006

Yup, 600 and 500 are def to big for me.
Thanks for posting.

PS - nice plaz !

excal said:
From left to right... 600/4 non-IS L (with case), 300/2.8 IS L,
100-400, 70-200/2.8 IS L and one coffee cup. For size reference,
the screen behind is a 42" 16:9 plasma.

Excal

Lee Jay · Sep 24, 2006

Richt2000 said:
The 300/2.8 is looking like the best option. Im hoping someone has
done some test shots comparing !

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/300_vs_400

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

BTP · Sep 24, 2006

The 100-400 looks falsely large in this photo since it is fully extended. It looks like it is almost the same size as the 300 f/2.8L IS. It isn't. I have both of these lenses, and the 300 f/2.8L IS is a fair amound larger/heavier.
--
Brian

thx1138 · Sep 24, 2006

Richt2000 said:
PS - nice plaz !

excal said:

From left to right... 600/4 non-IS L (with case), 300/2.8 IS L,
100-400, 70-200/2.8 IS L and one coffee cup. For size reference,
the screen behind is a 42" 16:9 plasma.

Excal

Click to expand...

--

I am using the 300 f/2.8L IS + stacked 1.4x TCs for birding/surfing. I find the results excellent given my limited abilities. It's definitely a good substitue for the 500 f/4L IS while you find your feet and save the money for the big gun. At the moment I just don't get the time to justify the 500 or 600 and the 300 is a great compromise. Compact, reasonably light, definitely handholdable for extended periods and much cheaper.

Yes the 500 and 600 are ultimately the best solution but even if I had the money I'd still cut my teeth on this lighter setup. I would also consider the 400 f/4 DO + 1.4x TC combo, but that's as dear as the 500 so really you are paying for ultimate portability.

f/8.0, ISO 200, 1/400s. I think it's a swallow but I'm not sure.

f/8.0, ISO 200, 1/640. Crested terns

f/8.0, ISO 200, 1/800. Crested tern (mother on the left and baby on
the right constantly squawking for food)

f/8.0, ISO 200, 1/1000. Cattle egrets.

f/8.0, ISO 200, 1/640. Little pied comorants

Richt2000 · Sep 25, 2006

thanks thx.
500 and 600 are to big and heavy for travel for me.

The 300 is looking to be the best option to extend. Plus yo get the sharpest 300 there is !

thx1138 said:
I am using the 300 f/2.8L IS + stacked 1.4x TCs for
birding/surfing. I find the results excellent given my limited
abilities. It's definitely a good substitue for the 500 f/4L IS
while you find your feet and save the money for the big gun. At the
moment I just don't get the time to justify the 500 or 600 and the
300 is a great compromise. Compact, reasonably light, definitely
handholdable for extended periods and much cheaper.

Yes the 500 and 600 are ultimately the best solution but even if I
had the money I'd still cut my teeth on this lighter setup. I would
also consider the 400 f/4 DO + 1.4x TC combo, but that's as dear as
the 500 so really you are paying for ultimate portability.

--
Click profile for current and previous equipment.

Website: http://www.fotoz.co.uk

Jack W. · Sep 25, 2006

I have the 300f/2.8 and the 500f4. Both are terrific lenses, even when used with extenders.
The 300f/2.8L IS+Canon 2xTC+20D:
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/57070655/original
Same, but with a 30D:
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/59761455/original
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/58886755/original

Jack

Richt2000 · Sep 25, 2006

Wow - those are great thanks for posting
Another vote for the 300 then....
I think its going to be the best option for me.

Jack W. said:
I have the 300f/2.8 and the 500f4. Both are terrific lenses, even
when used with extenders.
The 300f/2.8L IS+Canon 2xTC+20D:
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/57070655/original
Same, but with a 30D:
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/59761455/original
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/58886755/original

Jack

--
Click profile for current and previous equipment.

Website: http://www.fotoz.co.uk

Ben Lanterman74611 · Sep 25, 2006

With the 300 and telexrs you have 3 ranges available and more if Canon ever makes a .7x

I couildn't afford the 600 and bouight the 300 2.8 and have been glad ever since. I do a lot of inflight airplanes and hand hold the 300 with or without telexrs all the time. I wouldn't have a chance with the 600 even if the framing was right.

Would I buy the 600 if I could, heck yes.

If anyone has a left over 600 that they aren't using - send it postage paid to me at .....

Sorry, my mind just wandered a bit.

Best of luck.

--
Ben Lanterman

http://public.fotki.com/benlanterman/
http://webpages.charter.net/benlanterman/Index.html
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=208093

stever9 · Sep 25, 2006

i'd suggest renting both lenses and doing a comparison yourself

i've not used the DO(which i believe will not be quite as good), but the 300 +2x will make excellent 13x19s from either an APS or full-frame camera - but by comparison to a 100-400 or 300 f4 it's still a pretty heavy lens - the reason for considering the DO and my recommendation to do your own test

bobbyz · Sep 25, 2006

The number of ranges remain same even with 600mm (600 f4, 840 f5.6 and 1200mm f8), it is just they are different focal lengths. And depending on what you shoot, those ranges might be more important than what you get with 300mm.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com

300/2.8+2x vs. 400/4 DO+1.4x vs 600/4

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts