# Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III



## Canon1 (Sep 15, 2013)

I previously owned a 300 f2.8is version I and absolutely loved that lens. Razor sharp, very versatile, small and light (relatively) and worked very well with a 1.4x TC. The one down-side is that it was very SOFT with a 2.0x TC.

I ended up selling this lens to fund a 500 f4 is Version I. I have been pretty happy with this lens for the most part, however it does not perform super well with TC's from both an IQ standpoint as well as an AF speed standpoint. I find that I almost exclusively use this lens without TC's to produce images I am consistently happy with.

I really miss my 300 2.8, and have been considering the newer version II for quite some time. I would need to sell my 500 to afford one so I thought I would ask for feedback from those who own the 300 Version II and have used it with a 2.0x converter Version III. The lens comparison tool from TheDigitalPicture indicates that this lens does quite remarkably with a 2.0x TC. So well to my eye that I am thinking it would be a nice replacement for my 500 f4 Version I, and give me the 300/420mm that I so often miss. Has anyone used this 300+2.0 combo? How do the images look? How snappy is the AF? Compared to the 500f4is? Any feedback is appreciated.

Happy Shooting,


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 15, 2013)

The photo attached was taken with a 5D2. AF was at least good, I don't have a whole ream of comparison data with other lenses but I could keep up with birds of prey circling.

Jim


----------



## stephan00 (Sep 15, 2013)

I tried the 300 + 2x III both on the 5d III and the 7d, and the 5d III had no problems with quality or focussing. However, in a few instances the 7d would not even try to focus, until I had recomposed and tried again. This was maybe 3 frames out of more than 900, so nothing to worry about in my trial cases, but if you really absolutely have only one try for a shot, it does pose a small risk.

I admit that I have never tried with a 500, as the 300 is my first longer lens, but I would be inclined to say that the quality is ok. The first two with the 5, the last one with the 7 (at ISO 1250, actually a bit higher than I try to stay with this body).

P.S.: I also used the 300 with the 1.4 III and the quality and AF-speed is outstanding - and I didn't have any problems with the 7d either, so if you can afford to crop, this might be the safer way.


----------



## candyman (Sep 15, 2013)

@stephan00 & @ Jim Saunders


Thank you for posting images. I like to see images from field use.
I am in process of saving for 300 f/2.8 MK II and plan to use it also with the 2x extender. I am curious about the IQ result. It seems to be good.


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 15, 2013)

I am shooting with a 5diii. I understand that only the 5diii, 1dx and maybe the 6d are able to fully utilize the AF power of the new superteles with version ii extenders. 

I should have mentioned this in my OP. I am particularly interested in how this performs with the 5diii. 

This might be a great question for neuro. It seems he has experience with just about every canon lens, tc and body combo imaginable. Neuro?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 15, 2013)

I just shot with this combo (it was my first time out with my 300 2.8 II) and I found it worked very well. The focus with the 2x III and 5D III is a bit slow (like any use of the 2x) and hunts unless you use the focus limiter, but is very accurate. The AF is going to be much slower than a raw 500 or 600mm lens, but if you pre-focus and use the limiter, it's going to work well, and will work well for AI Servo tracking. I used Focal the other night to calibrate as well, so that may have helped. f/8 is a tad sharper than f/5.6, but 5.6 is definitely usable. Here are two shots from today's shoot - not much to look at, but the hot weather had most critters hiding...will post more photos once I have a more productive shoot:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> I am shooting with a 5diii. I understand that only the 5diii, 1dx and maybe the 6d are able to fully utilize the AF power of the new superteles with version ii extenders.
> 
> I should have mentioned this in my OP. I am particularly interested in how this performs with the 5diii.
> 
> This might be a great question for neuro. It seems he has experience with just about every canon lens, tc and body combo imaginable. Neuro?



I haven't used the 300 II (yet - it's on my short list of future purchases). The increased AF precision of the MkIII extenders apply only when used with the MkII supertele lenses (and possibly the 70-200 II, not sure about that one).

CR member AlanF routinely uses the 300 II + 2xIII with a 5DIII, you might check out some of his posts.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I haven't used the 300 II (yet - it's on my short list of future purchases). The increased AF precision of the MkIII extenders apply only when used with the MkII supertele lenses (and possibly the 70-200 II, not sure about that one).
> 
> CR member AlanF routinely uses the 300 II + 2xIII with a 5DIII, you might check out some of his posts.


You definitely need to keep the 300 on your list - it's a much more manageable size / weight than it's big brothers. I found this "poor man's 600mm" with the 2x very hand-holdable as well.

I keep wondering about the 70-200 II and the MkIII extenders, too. There are conflicting statements about this one from CPN, Chuck Westfall, and other Canon sources.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 16, 2013)

Another thing to consider is that TC's can have issues just like a lens. If you have a soft image with a TC (assuming proper focus), get the TC checked out, or even send the combo to Canon for checking.

Its certainly true that some lenses just do not do well with a TC, but a 300mm f/2.8 IS should not be soft.


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am shooting with a 5diii. I understand that only the 5diii, 1dx and maybe the 6d are able to fully utilize the AF power of the new superteles with version ii extenders.
> ...



Thanks Neuro. I'll se if AlanF comments.... if not I'll PM him.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 17, 2013)

If you're interested you can look at my post history to see what I've gotten with the 300 II and 2X III. However, that's with the 6D. I'm not convinced I've been able to match AlanF but I'm very happy with the portability - VERY. The combination is snappy for AF in most circumstances and I find the narrower FOV allows for better AF than with the 1.4, which I've basically stopped using for smaller birds. AF is accurate, no problem there but I have a +5 AFMA set to shift slightly back compared to the +3 that the factory set when I had it checked. My early posts were all in "anything shot with a 6D" and lately I'm only posting to "show your bird portraits".

I might add that I've been out virtually every day this summer with this combination. Here's one of the uncropped shots - 300 X2 2000th F7.1 ISO 1250

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 17, 2013)

its AlanF. I am in Greece with a dodgy internet connection. As mentioned, I find the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII to bw excellent. Just as mentioned above, the AF on the 5DIII is snappy but not as good on the 7D, where too it has occasionally failed to focus. Check my posts on Show your bird portraits for some examples. I would like to have use of a 500mm or 600mm, but the general convenience and weight of the 300mm is much better for me. I hardly ever use it with the 1.4xTC III as the extra length gained with the 2x far outweighs any minimal degradation of IQ, if any.


----------



## mwh1964 (Sep 17, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't used the 300 II (yet - it's on my short list of future purchases). The increased AF precision of the MkIII extenders apply only when used with the MkII supertele lenses (and possibly the 70-200 II, not sure about that one).
> ...



I use the 70-200II + 2TCIII combo for seaplanes and sport outside. I find this combo very attractive in IQ and AF. The AF might be faster than 70-300L. I most admit I don't see any noticeable image degradation with the TC. But that's probably just me.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 17, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I find the 70-200II + 2TCIII combo awesome as well, though not quite as good as the 70-200 + 1.4TCII combo which seems to have almost no impact on the 70-200 IQ. It seems optimized for the Mk III extenders, but who knows. I think my new wildlife setup will be the 300 + 2x on my 5DIII and 70-200 + 1.4x on my 5DII. I can then swap or remove TCs to give me 70-600mm. 

As for AlanF's comments, I echo what he says about the convenience of the 300. I was waiting (and waiting) for the 200-400, but the size, weight, and (dear God) cost of it are too much. I don't live in a dusty environment nor do I earn the majority of my income from photography, so the "inconvenience" of changing TCs (that I have $1,000 invested in) isn't a big deal for me. So far the 300 II + 1.4x III & 2x III seems to be a sweet combination, and with the 70-200 II over my shoulder and 16-35 II, 24-70 II, and 180 macro in my bag, I'm covered for just about everything that I like to shoot.


----------



## Plinian (Sep 17, 2013)

I used the 300 2.8 ii + 2xTC iii for about a year to shoot wildlife and loved it. For my shooting (70% stationary birds, 30% medium-large BIF) IQ and AF speed seemed (and still seems) terrific, and not perceptibly different from the naked 300. All on a 5d3. For small birds, I still wanted more reach (but also wanted portability and handholding capability), and picked up a 500 ii about 6 months ago. My impression of the 300/2x combo vs. the 500/1.4x combo is that they are about the same with regard to IQ and AF speed, with a very slight edge to the 500. The Pelis and Avocet were shot with the 300/2x and the Sora with the 500/1.4.

Greg


----------



## candyman (Sep 17, 2013)

@plinian
Beautiful picture 'avocet.jpg' !


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 18, 2013)

Thanks for all the comments and images posted.


----------



## krisbell (Apr 14, 2014)

Just to add my 2 cents - I picked this lens up and have had one day shooting with it. Initial impressions when used with 2x extender are good image quality and decent focus performance. For me it is the only, good quality, portable long lens option available. My previous setup was a 100-400mm - in comparison I would say the IQ is comparable, but with 300m+extender combo winning out due to quality of bokeh and an intangible quality to the photos...and the fact it is 600mm vs 400mm!

All shots taken on a 5dmkiii and 2x extender...




Mating Sandwich Terns (Thalasseus sandvicensis) by Kristian Bell, on Flickr




Flying Pelican by Kristian Bell, on Flickr




Preening Plover by Kristian Bell, on Flickr


----------



## Plainsman (Apr 14, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I previously owned a 300 f2.8is version I and absolutely loved that lens. Razor sharp, very versatile, small and light (relatively) and worked very well with a 1.4x TC. The one down-side is that it was very SOFT with a 2.0x TC.
> 
> I ended up selling this lens to fund a 500 f4 is Version I. I have been pretty happy with this lens for the most part, however it does not perform super well with TC's from both an IQ standpoint as well as an AF speed standpoint. I find that I almost exclusively use this lens without TC's to produce images I am consistently happy with.
> 
> ...



Why not consider the 400/4 DO which reaches nearly 600 with only a 1.4XTC.
Lighter to carry around as well.
Seems to be a good seller for Canon.


----------



## Helmi2010 (Apr 14, 2014)

Hi,

In my opinion the 2.8 300mm MK II is with and without TC a great lens!
Some shots with the 2X TC.






Podiceps cristatus, Haubentaucher, Great Crested Grebe
Eos 7D, EF 2.8 300mm MK II + 2X MK III TC, ISO 320, F 5.6, 1/1250 Sec. Handheld, AF.







Aythya fuligula, Reiherente, Tufted Duck
Eos 7D, EF 2.8300mm MK II + 2X MK III TC, ISO 320, F 7.1, 1/800 Sec. Handheld, AF.






Aeshna mixta, Herbst-Mosaikjungfer, Migrant Hawker
Eos 5D MK III, EF 2.8 300mm MK II + 2X MK III TC, ISO 800, F 7.1, 1/640 Sec. Handheld, AF.


Best regards

Helmut


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 14, 2014)

The 300mm II is a great lens; probably Canon's best thus far in terms of IQ and resolving power. I also have a 600mm II and only use it when I know my subject will be a known distance and I will be stationary (it is still heavy when you add a beefy monopod and 1Dx to it). So 300mm II + converters are the way to go when walking around and potential subject is an unknown. Also it's just much more versatile; thinking field sports, air shows, even some portrait work.

Here are some shots with the 300mm II + 2x III combo:


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 14, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I previously owned a 300 f2.8is version I and absolutely loved that lens. Razor sharp, very versatile, small and light (relatively) and worked very well with a 1.4x TC. The one down-side is that it was very SOFT with a 2.0x TC.
> ...



This is an old thread from 7 months ago and was recently resurrected. About 6 1/2 months ago I went ahead and bought the 300ii and the 1.4 and 2.0 version iii. 

I am loving this combo and highly recommend it to anyone. I like everything about this combo and it is far better for me ten my 500 and consistently makes better images. For the bird and wildlife photographer, it is tough to beat this combo.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2014)

Canon1, So did you sell the 500. I was seriously wondering if the 500 with converters wouldn't be better for the added reach. I've shot for 1 year now with the 300 X2 and have been pretty satisfied except for the desired reach (might consider a 7D2). If you have both lenses I'd really love to hear the feedback on a direct comparison.

Jack


----------



## Kerry B (Apr 14, 2014)

For me the 300 with the 2 x extender is a perfect combination, yes it is slightly slower attaining focus and there is a little image quality loss but you gain so much more. The 300f2.8 mk11 is probably Canons sharpest telephoto lens, hook it up to the new extenders and you have a very versatile lens combination.
I recently posted the Robin image, the first one with no crop, the second image is cropped from the original. Make up your own mind.


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 14, 2014)

Of course, for the very best versatility: 






When 600mm does not cut it, the 600mm II + 2x III is nice option to have too. But I'm still on record for the 300mm f/2.8L II being the best with teleconverters.

Taken with 600mm II + 2x III on 1Dx:


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 14, 2014)

Great shots all over this thread - and I love this combo as well. If you don't shoot birds, exclusively, you really owe it to yourself to try the 300II with 1.4 & 2x III TCs. It's so versatile. I use it to shoot everything from wildlife to portraits, to sports and being able to go from 300 to 420 to 600mm in a relatively short amount of time is awesome. I love the bigger whites, but they are heavy and bulky. I with this combo, I can hand carry and hand hold the lens for hours. 

It requires a different type of shooting to get closer to your subjects, but its small size and weight allow you to do just that. I've posted the shots below elsewhere, but here are some more at 600mm to go with this thread:

Shot from a tripod & with the drop-in CPL:





Shot from my (cramped sports) car:





Handheld at 1/30s proving the 4+ stops of IS:


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 14, 2014)

Thanks to all for posting some truly spectacular photos on this thread. I rented the 300 f/2.8 in November and now recently purchased one (through the "group buy" deal last month. I've not had time to fully try it out yet, but here are a couple of OOC jpegs from a trip to Bosque Del Apache in November using the 300 + 2xiii combo. These are only cropped to fit here. I STILL have not gotten to post processing on any of my shots from that trip. These are hand held.


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 14, 2014)

Awesome shots mackguyver! I especially like the hawks!

JPAZ, nice shots, but the last one is definitely over exposed. Bring it down in post and it will be awesome. Bring the whites down on the first shot.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 14, 2014)

Thx. I always expose a little "to the right" then bring it back in post.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2014)

Just a lowly "English" sparrow but taken with 300 X2 and my new $250 1D2, for anyone still wondering about the 300. The odd spring bird is beginning to show up, mainly geese.

Jack


----------



## Skulker (Apr 14, 2014)

I use the 300 Mk11 with the 2X Mk111. 

I love it its a very useful combination, very usable.

Here is an image taken with it, in poor light and pouring rain. First shot is the whole image, second is a crop of the head.

Both images processed in LR with sharpening @ 25.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 15, 2014)

Very nice


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 15, 2014)

This is a great thread, glad it was revived. Not to hijack the thread by any means but not having the 300L, has anyone tried the 1.4xIII or the 2xIII on there 100-400L? My copy is very sharp and I really love it. Just wondering if the teleconverters would work equally as well with my 5dMk III and my 100-400mm, offering me 560mm with the 1.4xIII on the long end and 800mm with the 2xIII on the long end of my 100-400mm??

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 15, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Canon1, So did you sell the 500. I was seriously wondering if the 500 with converters wouldn't be better for the added reach. I've shot for 1 year now with the 300 X2 and have been pretty satisfied except for the desired reach (might consider a 7D2). If you have both lenses I'd really love to hear the feedback on a direct comparison.
> 
> Jack



Jack,

I was quite happy with my 500 mark 1 when shooting without tc's. I found that with the 1.4 that AF was pretty slow and iq degraded a fair amount. I tested several tc's and used a few 500's all calibrated to 5diii and felt the same way. I could always get better results by cropping a shot at 500, so I never used the tc's. Also, for the type of shooting I do (hiking, kayaking) it was not the most portable lens. So the 300 was the best choice for me. 

My take on the 300 for AF and iq compared to the 500:
300 without tc is the sharpest lens I have ever used. It's unbelievable. And the AF is so fast. 
300 with 1.4tc has almost no iq loss, is sharper then the 500 at f4 and AF is still very very fast. 
300 with 2.0 is not quite as sharp as the 500, AF is not quite as fast, but still excellent for fast moving subjects and blows the 500+tc away with both iq and AF. 

Of course, this is the 300ii with v iii tc's compared to a 500i with v ii tc's. it is my understanding that the new 500ii and 600ii lenses are extremely sharp even with tc's. 

I went with the 300 because the focal length fits my shooting style so perfectly, and with tc's it is still great. Go with version ii lenses if you can afford them. They are worth every penny.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 15, 2014)

Thanks Canon1. I forgot it was series I of the 500 you had. I'd sure like a real life hands on 300 - 500 comparison in series II with extenders.

However, I think I should just be happy with my 300 II and extenders and let others strive for the sharpest shots. I also prefer its lightness and size.

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> However, I think I should just be happy with my 300 II and extenders and let others strive for the sharpest shots. I also prefer its lightness and size.
> 
> Jack


Jack, I've used all of the II series (except the 500 II) and while they have their applications, you should be happy with what you have. It's the best blend of IQ, speed, and size/weight I've found. The other lenses are heavy and bulky and really can't be hand held for any length of time. They're also a lot bigger in terms of transporting/carrying them.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 15, 2014)

mackguyver, I bet you're just saying that so you'll have sharper shots than me! 

Thanks for the reality check. I'm saving for the elusive 7D2 with hopes of decent performance with more reach. I figure the 6D and a 7D2 should serve me well as I travel Alberta/BC till my shooting days are over.

A sign of spring, yesterday. Yes a frog even though the creek is still mostly ice. Pretty heavy crop.

6D 300 X2 500th F11 ISO 640

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> mackguyver, I bet you're just saying that so you'll have sharper shots than me!
> 
> Thanks for the reality check. I'm saving for the elusive 7D2 with hopes of decent performance with more reach. I figure the 6D and a 7D2 should serve me well as I travel Alberta/BC till my shooting days are over.
> 
> ...


Nice shot, Alan, and I have the same gear as you (at least in Superteles), so my photos will only be sharper if I play around in Photoshop . It's funny to think about ice when I hear my fellow Floridian's complaining that it will "only" be 70F tomorrow. I grew up in New England, so I know what winter is, but the people around here...

The biggest challenge of 600mm on a FF body is getting close enough, but the more I shoot wildlife, the more I realize that no lens is long enough to shoot everything you see. Getting close is _the_ trick to getting most wildlife shots. It seems like you always need a 200-600mm lens or a 3000mm lens  Maybe that's why the 200-400 1.4x is already so popular, but it's still seems too big and bulky for my liking. I might have to borrow one from Canon to see how I like it, but my wallet is rather afraid to do that!


----------



## Eimajm (Apr 16, 2014)

I'm shooting with a 7d 500mm mk I with 1.4tc and I have no problems with sharpness. There should be hardly any noticeable degradation wide open if properly calibrated and using correct long lens technique.


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 16, 2014)

Eimajm said:


> I'm shooting with a 7d 500mm mk I with 1.4tc and I have no problems with sharpness. There should be hardly any noticeable degradation wide open if properly calibrated and using correct long lens technique.



It's just a matter of your "sharpness" tolerance. Mine is too low to be happy with the combo you suggest. I have calibrated all of my lenses and use proper technique. Not only do I believe that the 500+1.4 is too soft for my tastes, focal iq testing supports my belief. (With multiple lens copies) I'm not suggesting that this is rubbish by any means, just that I am much happier with the iq of my 300 along with the smaller lighter build.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I might have to borrow one from Canon to see how I like it, but my wallet is rather afraid to do that!



Your comment puts you at the top of the slippery slope 

I've enjoyed this thread, people helping people, enjoyable to see.

My own take on the 300f/2.8 II has been written on CR a few times, in my view it's the sharpest Lens Canon have made, at least of those I own and have owned. Brilliant with the 1.4x III and pretty good with the 2x III. 

When I head out on Safari to Africa I invariably plan where I'm going to have either the 600f/4 II + 300f/2.8 II, or the 200-400f/4 & 300f/2.8 II, I'de love to take all 3 Lenses but when I'm travelling without my Sherpa (My Son), it's too much Cabin luggage, and Africa is not the place to be checking in Long Lenses in check in Bags.

I've never owned a 500, thinking about it I wonder why, I've owned both the 400f/2.8 I & 400f/2.8 II but not a 500, the 200-400f/4 is hands down the Lens of choice when I head out, but for Dawn/Sunset the 300f/2.8 II is in it's element, and completely hand holdable, the 200-400f/4 get's heavy quickly, as did the 400f/2.8 especially the Version I.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 16, 2014)

Skulker said:


> I use the 300 Mk11 with the 2X Mk111.
> 
> I love it its a very useful combination, very usable.
> 
> ...



Love the "Spirit Bear" Image Skulker, have to do this sometime soon, planning on a trip to the US later this Year, hope I get the chance to Photograph these Guys.

Where did you manage to see this Chap ??, would be interested to know.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 16, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> The photo attached was taken with a 5D2. AF was at least good, I don't have a whole ream of comparison data with other lenses but I could keep up with birds of prey circling.
> 
> Jim



Nice shot of Patrick Stewart. Sorry to go off track a bit; I notice the camera struggling to reproduce rich reds. Same thing happens in my 5d3, when I shoot red flowers, the reds bleed over. If I try and fix in post, the shot looks desaturated, if I only reduce red then it looks weak but I regain some textural detail... correcting the red back to proper saturation and I lose textural detail. Anyone else notice this? till this point I thought it was limited to me only...


----------



## timcz (Apr 16, 2014)

Really like that spirit bear picture.

I use the 2x III with my 300 2.8 IS (version 1) and I get pretty good results, not stellar, but i would say acceptable. Have tested it mostly on birds and the sort, but really would like to try with large mammals. 

This thread really makes me want to upgrade it to the v2. 

A question I have though, with the v1 300 2.8, is it worth upgrading my 1.4 II to the 1.4 III?


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 16, 2014)

timcz said:


> A question I have though, with the v1 300 2.8, is it worth upgrading my 1.4 II to the 1.4 III?



Nope. Optically the iii might be a sliver better then the ii, but not noticeable. When I used to have the 300 v1, I bought a 1.4 iii and could not tell any difference in IQ. FoCal numbers were a little better for the iii, but something like 4-5% higher.... not noticeable even at 100%. 

The only reason to get a viii TC is if you have a vii lens. This will result in a significant improvement in AF speed and accuracy.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 16, 2014)

These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 16, 2014)

Most lenses give great results with the image filling the frame. You see what a lens can do by looking at 100% crops of a small bird occupying just a small part of the frame, just like in the last posts. Here are three 100% crops I took with my 2.8 300mm II + 2xTCIII last weekend, with just a few hundred pixels each way occupied. I posted a few more today in the BIF thread. It is a great combo (and a nice back up for my Tamron 150-600).


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

Alan, great shots crops  Those grebes that you and Eldar are posting and beautiful birds. I've never seen them before.

Also, I'm not sure if you're annoyed with DxO for having profiles of seemingly every other lens except for the 300mm +/- extenders, but if you haven't filled out their request form, that might help persuade them to build the profiles.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 16, 2014)

Please define 100% crop again - poor memory! :-[

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Apr 16, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Please define 100% crop again - poor memory! :-[
> 
> Jack


Hi Jack
100% crop means that you have cut a section from the full frame and haven't reduced it in size. So, 1 pixel in the crop = 1 pixel from the original. 
Always good to correspond with you.
Alan


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2014)

bornshooter said:


> These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.



Ummmm, Bornshooter, these are real "Birds".

From you ?? Real Birds ??


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 17, 2014)

Thanks Alan,

Now here is a 300 shot, cropped out and posted without applying any size reduction. That makes it a 100% crop right? Is the lens performing roughly what you'd expect, ISO 1250 1200th F3.2 How would you be evaluating this?

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 17, 2014)

I'm looking for a similar 600, but this is 420. 400th F11 ISO 800

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 17, 2014)

Closest comparison with 600 I could find, 100% crop. 500th F14 ISO 640

Jack


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 17, 2014)

eml58 said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.
> ...


I know edward but these birds do not complain haha


----------

