300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender v 500mm f4

[telscossie]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

 

[hotdog321]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

I don't have a good answer, though I don't think you will go wrong with either. Both sound great and I've had good results with the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4X for action (not so great with a 2X.) But I use the 300 f/2.8 for sports and often need the speed.

A straight 500 f/4 also looks good and you don't have to fiddle with an extender, but you lose the flexibility of dual focal length choices. Just to make things more difficult, the 100-400 II is also well-regarded.













--
photojournalist

Photos by Craig Hartley

Welcome! I am an editorial photographer based in Houston, Texas. I've put together some of my cool, fast-loading pages for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy!. Welcome! Craig Hartley is an editorial photographer based in Houston, Texas. I've put together some of my cool, fast-loading picture pages for...

craighartley.zenfolio.com

 

[CameraCarl]

I'm assuming you mean the 500mm f4 II and my response is based on this assumption. If I were you I would buy the 500 because you get adequate reach with it for most wildlife and if you find you need more reach, you can always buy a 1.4X III later. If you start off with the 300 + 1.4x and it isn't long enough, you would be limited to getting a 2x. I don't think your image quality with the 300 + 2x III will be as good as a 500 + 1.4x III.

 

[Erwann Loison]

given the price of the 300 f/2.8 and the current rebates on version II big whites, why not the 400/2.8 II currently available for $8000 (the 300+1.4x would be about $6500)? I don't have the money but if I had that would be my choice. Longer, yet just as fast, apparently one of the greatest performer in IQ, takes a 1.4x like a breeze and does quite ok with a 2x if you needed more reach.

I know it's still $1500 more not counting the extender(s), but in term of IQ and versatility when you're about to flush serious money anyway... If I had over $6000 at hand for a lens, I would borrow the rest to get my hands on the 400/2.8 asap. Some of my all time favorites pictures I saw from other photographers were taken with a 400/2.8.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

I have both and I would recommend the 500. There's little if any difference in the image quality of the bare lenses, but the 500 is better for two reasons and they are both related to the Extenders:

- AF performance is better with no Extender, and AF performance with the 1.4x is better than with the 2x. I get a much higher hit rate with the 500+1.4x than I used to get with the 300+2x, and the bare lens is better still. The biggest difference is with moving subjects, but even with static subjects I'm more likely to achieve perfect focus when working fast.

- If you want maximum reach in an extreme case and the atmospheric conditions allow it, you can get a maximum focal length of 1000 mm with the 500, but only 600 mm with the 300 (without stacking TCs).

The other point is that the 300+1.4x is only 420 mm so the 500 immediately gives you more reach.

The other side of the coin - when your subjects are big enough and/or close enough, it's an absolute joy to shoot at 300 mm f/2.8; and the 300 is a lot lighter to carry around! But as I said I have both and I use the 500 more than 90% of the time.

 

[telscossie]

Sorry I should of said I am looking at mark 1 versions in both

 

[CameraCarl]

Sorry I should of said I am looking at mark 1 versions in both

A word of caution: Canon has announced they are no longer repairing or supporting the 500mm f4. I don't know about the 300mm, but I think it may also be on their list. So this may factor into any decision you make. If you don't get a good one, you may have a hard time getting it fixed. Even third party repair shops may be unable to get parts.

 

[Erwann Loison]

Sorry I should of said I am looking at mark 1 versions in both

Then used I guess? Then they're all in the same price range, from slightly below $3000 to around $3500 for the best condition ones. The 300 is arguably a bit cheaper.

I'd get the 400/2.8, because it is a great focal length that multiplies nicely with TCs and gives you f/2.8 when you need it, with great sharpness. You'd get a 560mm f/4 with a 1.4x and a 800mm f/5.6 that still AF quite well and is still not a slow lens, that is something to consider maybe.

And yes as CameraCarl pointed out, no repair anymore at Canon but there are so many copies out there I'm sure a specialized repair shop can still fix them for number years.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

I have both and I would recommend the 500. There's little if any difference in the image quality of the bare lenses, but the 500 is better for two reasons and they are both related to the Extenders:

- AF performance is better with no Extender, and AF performance with the 1.4x is better than with the 2x. I get a much higher hit rate with the 500+1.4x than I used to get with the 300+2x, and the bare lens is better still. The biggest difference is with moving subjects, but even with static subjects I'm more likely to achieve perfect focus when working fast.

- If you want maximum reach in an extreme case and the atmospheric conditions allow it, you can get a maximum focal length of 1000 mm with the 500, but only 600 mm with the 300 (without stacking TCs).

The other point is that the 300+1.4x is only 420 mm so the 500 immediately gives you more reach.

The other side of the coin - when your subjects are big enough and/or close enough, it's an absolute joy to shoot at 300 mm f/2.8; and the 300 is a lot lighter to carry around! But as I said I have both and I use the 500 more than 90% of the time.

Just seen your new post in which you clarify that you would be buying a Mark I. Obviously budget will play a part but personally I would be very wary of spending a four-figure sum on a lens which can't be repaired if something goes wrong.

If you do decide to go ahead with a Mark I the arguments are basically the same, but the combination of the higher weight of the 500 and much less effective IS means it is much harder to hand hold.

 

[BlueRay2]

I'm assuming you mean the 500mm f4 II and my response is based on this assumption. If I were you I would buy the 500 because you get adequate reach with it for most wildlife and if you find you need more reach, you can always buy a 1.4X III later. If you start off with the 300 + 1.4x and it isn't long enough, you would be limited to getting a 2x. I don't think your image quality with the 300 + 2x III will be as good as a 500 + 1.4x III.

hmmm...then i have some news for ya:


300 f2.8 II+canon TC 2.0 III

as it is, most of the comments on this forum is based on anecdotes and theories, not based on 1st hand personal experience, and in most cases, those anecdotes and theories pass as "facts", which will affect someone's decision making on purchasing that lens or camera!



--
we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

 

[CameraCarl]

I'm assuming you mean the 500mm f4 II and my response is based on this assumption. If I were you I would buy the 500 because you get adequate reach with it for most wildlife and if you find you need more reach, you can always buy a 1.4X III later. If you start off with the 300 + 1.4x and it isn't long enough, you would be limited to getting a 2x. I don't think your image quality with the 300 + 2x III will be as good as a 500 + 1.4x III.

hmmm...then i have some news for ya:


300 f2.8 II+canon TC 2.0 III

as it is, most of the comments on this forum is based on anecdotes and theories, not based on 1st hand personal experience, and in most cases, those anecdotes and theories pass as "facts", which will affect someone's decision making on purchasing that lens or camera!

So where is your 500 + 1.4x comparison? One shot does not prove anything. I've been using Canon extenders for almost 25 years and have owned two generations each of the 1.4x and 2x. I have also been using Canon super telephoto lenses since the days of film with over 12,000 images in my files. So I hesitate to say that I do have a bit of personal experience. I never was as satisfied with the results with the 2x as I was with the 1.4x. You've proven that in at least one instance (and using the latest 300mm lens, not the first gen lens the OP is considering) you can get good results from a 300 + 2x. I am just expressing my opinion based on my experience that a 500 + 1.4x will give better results than a 300 + 2x under identical conditions.

 

[ffabrici]

Buy the focal length you need without extenders. The latest generations of extenders are great but the 1.4x deteriates the lens resolution by 10% and the 2x by 20%, so a bare lens will always provide better resolution and faster AF.

The 1.4 III converter is a really good compromise/alternative to a longer FL, whereas the 2x converter isn’t much better than cropping the extra reach when using a 1.4x converter.

I have the 200L f/2, 300L II and 800L and I have used and tested almost all combinations of the big whites and extenders. Birders seem to prefer the 500mm f/4 with a 1.4x converter which provides the most versatile and portable long tele solution.

 

[KevinRA]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

Hi

I own the 500 II and 300 II - both are great lenses. I used to own the 500 1 - but sold mainly so to make sure I did not end up with a paper weight when Canon stopped guaranteeing service/repairs - annoying as that is. So got a near mint 2nd hand copy of both of the IIs... I did also try the 300 mark1 at an event - and liked it with 1.4X and bare - but not with the 2X so much so dismissed it at that time for my usage. I'd personally not use a 300 2.8 mark I for where I wanted reach and mostly using with a 2X - fully respect some will have taken greater images with this combo than I could.

Based on mark II's - the 500 + 1.4X TC is totally sharp - vs the mark 1 which was good but you could start to see the degradation just a little. The 300 II is really good with a 2X even when in focus - and I use this as my lighter weight rig without hesitation (in addition to occasional low light work at 300mm) - birds in flight the AF does struggle occasionally with 2X and hit rate lower - IQ very good but not quite up there with the 500 II + 1.4. Probably about the same IQ as 500 I +1.4X. The mark II also in both lenses has better IS.

If you get a recent say 2010+ 500 mark 1 in near mint condition, good chance it will last a good while - but no guarantee. (Mine was 2004 so getting old already when Canon stopped servicing them). The 500 mark 1 though is s great lens and can be handheld by most people for a while. But you may be able to get a used mark II 300 2.8 for just a shade more and this should have 5 years+ of canon service life yet, since they have not announced the mark 3 yet - and it does pair quite well with a 2X TC - OK not as well of course as a 600 f/4 I appreciate.

You might also be worth looking at the sigma or tamron (v2) 150-600's or the sigma 60-600 - if you don't want to buy a mark II Canon?

 

[Erwann Loison]

I'm assuming you mean the 500mm f4 II and my response is based on this assumption. If I were you I would buy the 500 because you get adequate reach with it for most wildlife and if you find you need more reach, you can always buy a 1.4X III later. If you start off with the 300 + 1.4x and it isn't long enough, you would be limited to getting a 2x. I don't think your image quality with the 300 + 2x III will be as good as a 500 + 1.4x III.

hmmm...then i have some news for ya:


300 f2.8 II+canon TC 2.0 III

as it is, most of the comments on this forum is based on anecdotes and theories, not based on 1st hand personal experience, and in most cases, those anecdotes and theories pass as "facts", which will affect someone's decision making on purchasing that lens or camera!

This is a lovely shot but you have to admit it's a bit soft

 

[hermit383]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

I remember being in a similar contest when i got my super tele. In this case it is absolutely no contest to get the 500f/4. Not to make things more confusing for you but I'll go ahead anyways.

I'm 5'10 150lb

- I routinely wear/walk for upwards of 4 hours sometimes beyond with a Lowepro 450 backpack with 2 primes, 2 zooms, teleconverter, Remote cable, etc all inside.

- Simultaneously, I'll also have one body with 70-200 2.8 on a black rapid, and 600 f/4L IS II attached to another body slung over my neck with the lens strap

- The EF 600L IS II is always used handheld, If i'm going anywhere in the car it's attached to a body in the Lowepro 600AW case ready to be in use in 6-7 seconds. Can't even tell you how many shots i've got this way where most sane people would never have a 600f/4 with them ready for use. Since august 2017, it's literally never once been more than 20feet away from me. I mean this to the most literal extent without exception. So it's plenty portable.

Ultimately I was buying this lens for reach. and the 600 Is the king of that. With the EF600f/4L IS II, it changed everything. It went from the EF600L IS being basically a tripod only lens to being actually relatively lightweight lens in my opinion. When I was in the same situation as you, i decided against the 500. Instead I ended up deciding to go for the 600 f/4 once I picked it up and realized how light and small the Version II is. I had only seen it in pictures online and it looked way bigger in photos. In my hands the 600L II wasn't a big deal at all. ( yes the III is lighter but it's a non issue for me)

granted, i have not used the 500 to compare, but my 600L II literally goes everywhere with me, even on stupid trips to the grocery store etc. I bought an expensive carbon gimbal and carbon tripod with it initially, and I literally never use it. It feels like a waste almost for my needs. The IS of the lens is so good that If its dark and need a slow shutter speed I can shoot of 3 or 4 images back to back and be basically guaranteed a sharp result at 1/20th of a second. I "can" go even lower than that if I shoot more.

What I am saying is that I only shoot the lens handheld. If i'm staking out a spot for bird and I know I'll be there all day, that's when i bring a tripod but this is more for the fact that it holds the camera and lens in "ready" position more than saving myself from wearing out.

The way I see it **in my opinion**:

600F/4- Reach Priority 100%

I'm able to use this lens without teleconverters 90% of the time, and always handheld. I don't dislike teleconverters, they are a tool, but they are for when you need more reach at the sacrifice of AF speed, microcontrast/pop, tonality. Granted these super tele's have plenty microcontrast to spare, but seeing a perfectly shot portrait shot with a bare super tele lens is like nothing else. A teleconverter will take that away to a significant degree in my estimation. Even though the 1.4X doesn't negatively hit the 2:1 resolution detail too too much, it still takes away that pop and amazing clarity you get in my opinion. Shooting with a teleconverter is for when you need to get that shot that will be amazing and of a breathtaking subject that you just couldn't get with the bare lens.

this bare lens will make a portrait/landscape lens of a magnitude like you've never seen compared to any other lenses.

I've used the EF600F/4L IS II indoors at night in a dimly lit fashion show ( without spot light)

1/500th, ISO 16,000, F/4, That's really dark and these F/4 Lenses still focus amazingly tack sharp, albeit slower and with a little hesitation (keep in mind, this is very very dark conditions)

Here though, this is where I would pick a 400F/2.8 if I were photographing here the majority of the time, for both the snappier AF in the dark, and lower noise/better image.

500F/4- Absolute portability priority / Reach Priority 70/30%

This is the lens that is made for traveling to difficult to get to far away places. Tightly packed canoe, safari, small personal aircraft, restrictions on travel/luggage, camping/backpacking when you need to bring living supplies.

It's for when you absolutely need to save on weight and space, traveling long distance, planes, fan boats etc..

It's not about being a lighter easier to use lens in my opinion, since the 600f/4L II is plenty light now and handhold able 100% the 500 is like the "mini" 600 you take when you basically can't fit the 600 and need living supplies and are traveling long distance when the extra size will inhibit your movement/ability to capture the photograph you want to make.

400F/2.8- Low light/ Reach Priority, concerts, fashion, photojournalism etc

It's the lens you get when you know your going to be either in extreme dark, or are going to be shooting in relatively low light places the majority of the time. Specific types of sport photography with known field sizes. Indoor photography/ Dark photography.

Many regard this as the best outdoor portrait lens ( I agree with that statement but also enjoy the 600f/4 for this too)

Indoor/Outdoor 40/60%

300F/2.8- Portraiture, Indoor sports, Indoor photojournalism, Photojournalism, Events, concerts

This lens to me symbolizes photojournalism and a standard, do it all telephoto. It's portable and versatile and lightweight.

Many regard this as another "best" portrait lens ( I also love this as a portrait lens, but if I could only have one, would personally get the 400)

it's the Indoor/Outdoor telephoto 50/50%

I find I need more reach almost always, and rarely need less reach when it comes to telephoto lenses in this category. Sometimes I find my 50mm too long in tight spaces, but the spaces that I'm working with when using a telephoto of this category are almost always conducive to more reach.

I even do ridiculous things with my 600f/4 most people never think of, like said it literally is NEVER more than 20 feet away from me, and has literally never been more than 20 feet away from be since getting it in august 2017. Call me weird idc. I get the most random crazy almost candid type street shots with it in scenarios where most people would absolutely never have a 600f/4 on them. If i'm going anywhere in the car the 600f/4L IS II is on a body ready to be grabbed from the passenger seat/floor and ready for use in 7 seconds.

Overall:

I find I need more reach almost always, and rarely need less reach when it comes to telephoto lenses in this category. Sometimes I find my 50mm too long in tight spaces, but the spaces that I'm working with when using a telephoto of this category are almost always conducive to more reach.

I even do ridiculous things with my 600f/4 most people never think of, like said it literally is NEVER more than 20 feet away from me, and has literally never been more than 20 feet away from be since getting it in august 2017. Call me weird idc. I get the most random crazy almost candid type street shots with it in scenarios where most people would absolutely never have a 600f/4 on them. If i'm going anywhere in the car the 600f/4L IS II is on a body ready to be grabbed from the passenger seat/floor and ready for use in 7 seconds.

 

[Don Lacy]

You don’t specify what type of wildlife photography if it’s large mammals that you can get close to then the 300 will work if it’s large mammals that you can’t get close to or smaller mammals and birds then the 500 is your only real choice. Without a TC it still has more reach then the 300 + TC and with a TC your at 700mm and still sharper then most lenses

 

[threw the lens]

I'm assuming you mean the 500mm f4 II and my response is based on this assumption. If I were you I would buy the 500 because you get adequate reach with it for most wildlife and if you find you need more reach, you can always buy a 1.4X III later. If you start off with the 300 + 1.4x and it isn't long enough, you would be limited to getting a 2x. I don't think your image quality with the 300 + 2x III will be as good as a 500 + 1.4x III.

hmmm...then i have some news for ya:


300 f2.8 II+canon TC 2.0 III

as it is, most of the comments on this forum is based on anecdotes and theories, not based on 1st hand personal experience, and in most cases, those anecdotes and theories pass as "facts", which will affect someone's decision making on purchasing that lens or camera!

This is a lovely shot but you have to admit it's a bit soft

It appears to have been messed with by noise reduction software.

Might have been nice to present a SOOC 100% crop with minimal influence on the conversion if it was raw.

I am interested in the performance of a 300 v1 + TC, or third party 300

 

[danski0224]

Am looking to get either of these set ups in the future 300mm f2.8 + 1.4xlll extender or 500mm f4 for wildlife has anyone got any opinions on these to which might be the better option . Thanks

A lens without a teleconverter always performs better than one with a teleconverter.

If you are planning to use the 300 with the 1,4x all the time, then the 500 is probably a better choice.

Bear in mind that Canon no longer services the 500mm IS (version 1) and support for the 300mm IS (version I) will likely end in 2021 or sooner (VII came out in 2011).

Serviceability at 3rd party repair shops is entirely dependent on the availability of repair parts.

These lenses are designed to function under the demands of professional photographers and should last a long time in the hands of mere mortals. But, there is still that risk of having a 4 figure doorstop.

 

[ed rader]

get the 100-400L II. i would not buy a lens that required me to use a TC most of the time. of your choices i'd get the 500. the 500 + 1.4 tc + 100-400L II would give you excellent coverage.