# Superteles: 300 vs 500



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 24, 2013)

Hey all, I recently acquired a 300 2.8L IS Vers. 1. It is a fantastic lens, nail bitingly sharp and the combination with my 1.4x II TC still produces amazing images. My main use for this lens is nature / wildlife photography of mostly mammals / occasional orca and sometimes a few birds. I usually cart my gear with me while hiking (perhaps up to 4-12 miles roundtrip).

I haven't had the lens that long to really get a lot of experience with it but an opportunity has come up to trade this lens and another for a 500 4L IS vers. 1. 

So.....the 300 has going for it sharpness, an extra stop of light, lighter weight and better portability, easily hand-holdable, fairly versatile focal lengths with TC's (haven't tried a 2x yet) but suffers a little in reach.

The 500 would give me an extra 200mm of reach natively and still decent image quality at 700mm with a 1.4x. However this is also 3 lbs heavier and would require replacing the monopod that I currently shoot off of with a full tripod / gimbal setup.

I'm shooting a 5D3 currently, no crop bodies. An alternative option would be to keep the 300, and wait for the 7D mark II to get the multiplier.

What would you guys do? I know with wildlife focal length is never enough but part of me doesn't want to give up the versatility and compactness of the 300.

Decisions, decisions......


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 24, 2013)

I use the Canon 300mm F2.8 L IS Mk1 as well and also find it to be an excellent lens. I frequently use mine with a Canon 2 x Mk3 extender (didn't like my Mk2) which isn't bad compared to a 600 F4 L IS Mk1 in decent light. AF does slow down a bit but it is still accurate on my 1D4.
I would try out the 2 x Mk3 extender before you make your decision but, if you are going to be relying on extenders most of the time then a longer lens is possibly a better option.
I have played with a 500 Mk1 and a Mk2 and they are both excellent lenses, but as I found my 600 a bit short a lot of the time I sold it and went for a used 800 F5.6, (thank you E Bay -I could never have afforded it otherwise!) which is now my most used lens.


----------



## BrettS (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm shooting with a 6D and 500 Mk. II. I have a Glass Taxi and Gitzo tripod for hikes. I'd like to try a monopod. I can handhold the 500, but like my 180 Macro, the money shots require the tripod. I can only tell you that I'm utterly happy with the 500. Also use 1.4x and 2.0x although not AF with the 2.0x... was hoping Canon would offer f/8 AF with a 6D firmware upgrade, but hasn't happened yet.... wondering if I should have grabbed the 5DIII instead - for that reason and the joystick, else I am completely happy with 6D. But I digress...


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 25, 2013)

Johnf3f -- Not sure I'll be able to actually try my 300 with the new 2xIII.....the opportunity for the trade may not be around for long so I may need to make a decision before that.

BrettS -- For support right now I'm using a RRS monopod and monopod head....fantastic setup, weighs next to nothing for hiking and braced against my leg with the 300 it is actually reasonably solid as long as you're using an appropriate shutter speed but I fear once I get out to 500mm+ a tripod will be necessary for critical sharpness.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 25, 2013)

John3f3 -- Do you shoot mostly birds?


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 25, 2013)

Ultimately I think having both a 300 and something longer (500/600) would be ideal but that won't happen for at least 2-3 more years so with the chance now jump to a 500 I'm wondering if I will gain more photo opportunities by having the extra reach over the 300.


----------



## RGF (Jul 25, 2013)

I have both the 500 and 300 v1. Use the 500 10-20x more than the 300. Now that I just got the 200-400 (lots of $), I think both the 300 and 500 will see much less use. Eventually I will replace the 500 with a 600 for the reach, especially when shooting birds. 200-400 is great for general wildlife.

I know this is much more money than you planning on spending, but it is an alternative setup. 

BTW - I would avoid 2.0 Mk 2 (soft) and the 600F4 V1 (too heavy). 500 F4 V1 is a great lens and the V2 is not much lighter.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 25, 2013)

I too think the 200-400 would be great but waaaaayyyyyyy out of my price range. Spending 4k on the 300 2.8 was about my limit and getting the 500 is only feasible by trading the 300 and a wide angle plus putting up a few hundred cash on my end.

Congrats on the 200-400!!!! Especially on a crop body you basically have a 320-896mm zoom....covers pretty much everything


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 25, 2013)

I have the 300 2.8 mk1 and the 600 f/4L mk1 and use them on a 5DIII. With a full frame camera you need to be able to get to 600 one way or another for wildlife. I've contemplated downsizing to the 500 due to the weight issues but would seriously miss the extra 100mm. On the 7D, I can use the 300 + 1.4x and get about the same.

I've even considered trading in both the 300 and 600 for the 300mkii if the IQ would stand up with the 1.4iii extender. I'm about to get one on eval so I can make that decision in a couple of months.

So my friend it's all about what you shoot the most. with the 500 F/4 you lose one stop over the 300 2.8, you lose some flexibility of being able to use extenders and still get a lot of light, and you probably will lose a little bit of AF speed. On my 600 the AF speed is ok with the 5DIII but I swear the 300 2.8 +1.4iii AF's faster and more accurately. The 300 combo also seems to better track eagles flying toward the camera (i.e. more keepers but more cropping required).



can0nfan2379 said:


> I too think the 200-400 would be great but waaaaayyyyyyy out of my price range. Spending 4k on the 300 2.8 was about my limit and getting the 500 is only feasible by trading the 300 and a wide angle plus putting up a few hundred cash on my end.
> 
> Congrats on the 200-400!!!! Especially on a crop body you basically have a 320-896mm zoom....covers pretty much everything


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 25, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> John3f3 -- Do you shoot mostly birds?


That's mainly what I use the 800 for. I often use a 13mm or 20mm extension tube to allow closer minimum focus. I also use it on animals such as Deer when I want to get close up and personal without causing disturbance, or in the Rut.
Recently a friend of mine has been using his 600 F4 for landscape work with very interesting results, the long focal length gives a different perspective to his images. This arose out of not being able to carry additional lenses when carting the 600 around, but has now become an interest in itself.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 26, 2013)

Sounds good Eastwind. The 500 sold so I think plan B is to look into the 2xIII as John3f3 suggested and that will get me out to 600mm on my 5d3. When the next iteration of the 7D comes around I'll probably look at that as an inexpensive (relatively, maybe....) way to get a little more out of the 300.

Thanks for all the comments!!!!

Cheers.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 26, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> Sounds good Eastwind. The 500 sold so I think plan B is to look into the 2xIII as John3f3 suggested and that will get me out to 600mm on my 5d3. When the next iteration of the 7D comes around I'll probably look at that as an inexpensive (relatively, maybe....) way to get a little more out of the 300.
> 
> Thanks for all the comments!!!!
> 
> Cheers.



In good light you will get some very nice results with the 2 x Mk3 and a 300 F2.8. Naturally it is a compromise but when I can't carry my long lens then it is a compromise that I am happy with.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 27, 2013)

I would not make that trade, I shoot nature, but also sports, and the 300 f2.8 is a phenomenal sports lens. i think the 300 2.8 is the more versatile of the lenses when you include teleconverters.

I would acquire the 1.4X and 2X ver III converters for more reach. You could add a used 7D

My super tele "Kit" is the 400mm f2.8 IS ver I, the 1.4X and 2X ver III converters, plus a 300mm f4 IS. I have a 5DIII and a 7D giving me options to shoot 300mm to 1280mm (equiv.). I shoot pro surfing, football, soccer. etc. 

This young lady is just about 1 mile away, the island behind is 14 miles away: 



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 27, 2013)

I've already got the 1.4x II and have been using the 300 with that quite a bit...image quality is excellent, AF speed is still pretty good.

From the reviews I've read, image quality between the 1.4x II and the 1.4x III is almost identical so I don't think I'll be upgrading that TC but since I don't have a 2x yet I will definitely be looking at getting the 2x III.

I used to have a 7d and ended up trading it in to get the 5d3. I was never happy with the noise in my 7d images so if they improve that in the 7D II and put in a 5d3 AF I'd be all over that.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 27, 2013)

My thoughts based on what I own & have owned.

300/400 f/2.8 Version 1 Lenses, both great, but heavy.

300 & 400 f/2.8 Version 2 Lenses, IQ I feel about the same as the Version 1 Lenses, but 30 percent less weight.

600f/4 Version 2 Lens, lightish, great IQ

200-400f/4 great versatility, great sharpness, but horrible price.

When I purchased the 200-400f/4 I sold the 400f/2.8 as I dont feel I'll use the 400f/2.8 that much anymore.

I kept the 300f/2.8 II & 600f/4 II as they do a different job, 300f/2.8 great for low light, hand holdable, all round in my view the sharpest Lens Canon make, works really well with Series III 1.4x

I kept the 600 f/4 as with the 1.4x gives me some Legs.

If you shoot Birds, at some point you will need good IQ 600 +, the 600f/4 with 1.4x will give you that with spades, clearly seen from Images from people such as Gary Samples with his Eagles.

The 300f/2.8 I will work very well with the Series III 1.4x, But for Birds I think you will find yourself short most of the time.

The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.

If you shoot mostly wildlife your 300f/2.8 plus your 1.4x converter should work just fine, look to upgrade at some point when you can afford it to the 600f/4 II if you find your shooting BIF more than other wildlife, the issue is you may then find the 600 is too long for wildlife but just fine for BIF, Life, full of difficult decisions.

Which ever way you go, good luck with the Imaging.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2013)

eml58 said:


> The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.



Most of what you wrote is sensible. But, many of would dispute that sentence. I use the 1.4x TC III and the 2xTC III with the 300mm f/2.8 II and find the IQ with both extenders excellent. 

Whether you keep the 300 or buy a 500 depends on your style and physique. If you don't work out with weights, like walking and hand held shots and not carrying a tripod, then keep the 300mm. If you don't work out but like sitting in a hide or elsewhere for hours, then get a 600 or 500. If you are Arnie or Rambo, carry both plus a tripod.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 27, 2013)

The 500 F4L IS is a great lens, you will not regret upgrading.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 27, 2013)

With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x. The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime. No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.



Karlos said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > The 2x Converters are in my opinion almost worthless as they degrade the IQ way too much, but they give you an Image at a price in an emergency.
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 27, 2013)

Eml58, looks like you have used a number of lenses in the past. I was wondering what your opinion is on using the 300 2.8L II +1.4iii+apc-c compared to a 600 F4L IS mk1+full frame?

Wondering if the new 300 combo on a crop is as good as the old 600 by itself on a full frame?

I'll have one of the new 300s in a couple of weeks for eval and plan to run this comparison through it's paces.



eml58 said:


> My thoughts based on what I own & have owned.
> 
> 300/400 f/2.8 Version 1 Lenses, both great, but heavy.
> 
> ...


----------



## photo212 (Jul 27, 2013)

RGF said:


> I have both the 500 and 300 v1. Use the 500 10-20x more than the 300. Now that I just got the 200-400 (lots of $), I think both the 300 and 500 will see much less use. Eventually I will replace the 500 with a 600 for the reach, especially when shooting birds. 200-400 is great for general wildlife.
> 
> I know this is much more money than you planning on spending, but it is an alternative setup.
> 
> BTW - I would avoid 2.0 Mk 2 (soft) and the 600F4 V1 (too heavy). 500 F4 V1 is a great lens and the V2 is not much lighter.


same here.

I use the 300mm with a teleconverter as my handhold lens whilst the 500mm and 1.4xTC is on the gimbal mount. Which is being used is dependent on if I'm standing still or on the move. So consider your shooting style. Do you campout at one spot and wait? (500mm) or do you constantly move about (300mm)?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x. The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime. No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have done pretty exhaustive testing and my results were that rezzing up the 1.4 was not as good as using the 2xTC. The TDP site shows the same. Maybe your 2xTC isn't so good or there is an AFMA problem?


----------



## msm (Jul 27, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> With todays high MP cameras, you get better IQ using a 1.4x and cropping than using the 2x. The only use for the 2X is when you need the reach but cant or dont want to lug around the equivalent in a prime. No one would ever use it as a "primary" solution.



That depends on what you put the 2x on. The new 2x TC on a 300mm IS II works just great together, hand holdable 600mm reach with great IQ at less than 3kg and no perceptible loss of AF speed on a 1dx or 5DIII body.


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jul 27, 2013)

If you shoot birds, by all means make the trade. For wildlife, it depends on where you are, 300+1.4x is enough for Africa, but not in other parts of the world depending on what you shoot. On the other hand, handholding a 500f4 on a boat shooting orca may be tough.

From what you describe, I'd get a crop body to go with the 300 and get the 2X III in case you need even more reach,

I loaned my 300f2.8 IS to my brother after getting a 500f4 II and never look back. I just came back from a trip to Africa and the 500 performed great for me from the safari vehicle. But I don't hike 4-12 miles with it and don't shoot orcas.

Loi


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 28, 2013)

Slightly off topic but has anyone here used the Promedia Katana gimbal?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 28, 2013)

Hi All,

I'd been agonizing for months over this choice that's presently being debated here. I am now comfortable with the 300 2.8 II and 2X III. I would never argue it's equal to a 600 but it sure is hand holdable and the IQ is nothing to be ashamed of. This shot is typical of what I get. It represents a crop of about 1/4 of the original. I wish that the comments that are made in CR could be accompanied by sample pictures because it's so hard to get a handle on what one person considers acceptable and another does not, but I know that's a tall order.

Jack

6D 300 F2.8 III with X2 III at 500th F25 ISO 1250 (should have dropped the ISO for this bright shot)


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 28, 2013)

Photo212 -- I usually hike, take some pics, hike some more take some pics.....certainly don't camp out in one spot all day long.

Thanks for the sample pick Jack. 

Lnguyen1203 -- Based on your experience the combined 420 was pretty similar to the 500 in Africa? I lived in South Africa for 3 months and at the time I was shooting with a 7D and 70-200 IS 2.8L Mk I. When I was driving around Pilanesberg, I found on several occasions that the 320 effective focal length was just too short which was why I was skeptical about the 420mm still being short so I may go the route of adding a crop body again to my kit when the 7D replacement arrives.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 28, 2013)

East Wind -- I look forward to seeing what your results of that comparison are.....



East Wind Photography said:


> Eml58, looks like you have used a number of lenses in the past. I was wondering what your opinion is on using the 300 2.8L II +1.4iii+apc-c compared to a 600 F4L IS mk1+full frame?
> 
> Wondering if the new 300 combo on a crop is as good as the old 600 by itself on a full frame?
> 
> ...


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jul 28, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'd been agonizing for months over this choice that's presently being debated here. I am now comfortable with the 300 2.8 II and 2X III. I would never argue it's equal to a 600 but it sure is hand holdable and the IQ is nothing to be ashamed of. This shot is typical of what I get. It represents a crop of about 1/4 of the original. I wish that the comments that are made in CR could be accompanied by sample pictures because it's so hard to get a handle on what one person considers acceptable and another does not, but I know that's a tall order.
> 
> ...



Jack, I have shot with both the 300f2.8 IS (version I) + 2X III and the 500f4 II + 2X III. The latetr IQ is far superior. I hear the IQ of the 300f2.8 II + 2.0X III is fantastic since the 300f2.8 II shares the same optics with the 500f4 II and 600f4 II. The issue here is not IQ, but reach and crop. Everytime you crop, you lose IQ.

Here is an example of a 500f4 II + 2X III, so focal length is 1000-mm, cropped to about 75% of original.

I have seen folks with fantastic photos and IQ with a 450D and Sigma 150-500mm. Getting close and having good light is key.

Loi


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2013)

Here is a typical example of what IQ is like for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a series III 2xTC attached. There is no PP on these, no unsharp mask etc, changing of contrast etc. The 5760x3840 full frame of the 5D III is reduced to 1200x800 to have it on screen. There are 100% crops of the centre and the head to show the level of resolution. These are tiny: 210x163 pixels at the centre and 763x619 of the head.

ps f/5.6, iso 800, 1/400s


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jul 28, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Here is a typical example of what IQ is like for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a series III 2xTC attached. There is no PP on these, no unsharp mask etc, changing of contrast etc. The 5760x3840 full frame is reduced to 1200x800 to have it on screen. There are 100% crops of the centre and the head to show the level of resolution. These are tiny: 210x163 pixels at the centre and 763x619 of the head.



That IQ looks good to me. TFS. Loi


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 28, 2013)

Thanks Lnguyen1203,

I'm older and retired and also tired after packing a camera and heavy lens around for hours. I'm thrilled with having 600 via 300 X2 because I simply would not be using a heavier lens, even if I was to try to justify the cost as a hobbiest.

As a newcomer to this CR world it is pretty obvious that everyone is quite naturally competitive and that's reasonably healthy except if it inhibits the display of good photos from folk who can't afford the very best. My friend suggested Canon and got me looking at upgrading from my Nikon D5100 (I have no regrets as I'm loving the 6D and 300 II, except for BIF) but now he's backed out of upgrading and I'm shooting with the better equipment and honestly I feel awkward in this reversed situation since he's the more experienced guy.

For those mobile hiker types wafflling about 300 2.8 II and 2X III my advice is go for it. It's got me so motivated to get out in the bush and I'm so thankful I'm not always tied to a tripod!! If I can shoot 420 or 300 I do but clearly I'm reluctant to start out without the 2X mounted.

To help anyone agonizing I've again included a shot that's typical, both cropped and uncropped for scrutiny. I've printed similar at 19 X 13 and been very pleased. Of course the 300 alone or with 1.4X does a little better but I'd never give up my 2X III.

6D 300 X2 1250th F8 ISO 1250 focused close to eye
Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 28, 2013)

Crop


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 28, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Crop



Looks fantastically sharp to me!! Nice pic Jack.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 28, 2013)

Thanks can0nfan2379,

A 300 owners worst nightmare to have folks pointing out the images are not sharp, dread. Still, for whatever reason all my shots are not sharp. 

Worth mentioning, using the 300 X2 gives a closer image which in turn allows a narrower region of focus and more accuracy and less hunting caused by such things as stray branches. So even if a 420 crop proved to be equal in quality there is still a 600 advantage. And the 600 view is more realtime informative.

Also I'm finding the 300, 420, 600 to be great for closeups, almost as good as a macro but with that extra distance from the subject.

When I first bought the 300 I was fussing like crazy and finally returned it and the extenders and 6D under warranty. They said nothing was wrong but both my friend and I are convinced they tweaked things up. Upon return AFMA for 300 was 0, for 420, 0 but for 600 +3 and those were not my settings initially. Anyway, I have no choice but to be a happy shooter now! And I truly am!!

This dragon is about half the frame, 6D 300 X2 1000th F16 ISO 3200 I had the shutter speed up because I was trying for moving targets, so it's a little grainy.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2013)

Whatever the detractors say, we are happy 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III shooters able to get very sharp images, hand held at a relatively light weight, as shown by the previous series of images. I'd quite like a 600mm f/4 II with a 1.4xTC III as a complement for ocasions spent sitting in a hide all day as it is a fantastic lens with longer reach. The 300mm is a very nice compromise for sports shooting and birding. We are spoilt 
for choice.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 29, 2013)

AlanF you've nailed it. 

We've made our compromises for good reasons as have others who prefer alternate lenses. I'm just happy to provide first hand personal information on why I'm satisfied with the 300 so that it helps others make their decisions, including a mild defence of the 2X III extender.

Jack


----------

