Posted by Tim McIntyre on January 8, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Greetings all.
I need some opinions as to buy either the Canon 300 2.8L or the 500 f4.The lens will be used for birding /wildlife.I know it is a no brainer that the longer the better thing holds true, especially for birding but the dilemma lies in weight/portability issues.I am no weakling but can the 500 be hauled around nature trails for 4-5 hours and be ready at a moments notice? Other than using a monopod(which probably won't cut it in early morn light)how do users of the 500 f4 haul around there gimbalhead behemoths and be ready to shoot within seconds? Should I just keep my 400 5.6L and make due with poor low light performance in exchange for portability and stealth? On the other hand lies the 300 f2.8L It seems to offer great versatility with 1.4 and 2x teleconvertors.The images I have seen in this group with the 300 and 2x converter(600 f 5.6)are just awesome.I have even seen shots with stacked converters on the 300 and the image quality is just stunning.It weighs considerably less,is less bulky and looks like it would be much easier to hike around and stalk in the field.For me this is a huge investment and do not want to regret my purchase. Sorry for the long rambling but I need some advice .
Tim
I've got both in Nikon, and my pick heading out the door depends on what I'll be doing. The 300, being shorter, is a lot more convenient for long road trips. Wieghts are similar, so for me it's an issue of bulk and subject matter.
Day trips will usually give the nod to the 500, though it does mean carrying my bigger pack. With large mammals, I often find that the 500 is too much for my taste. If small birds are on your menu, then you'll probably be a lot happier with the 500. While the 300 is reasonable with the extenders, it's probably not as good as the straight 500, image-wise. On top of that, a 500 with extenders will give a lot more range latitude with small subjects.
I'd go for the 500. I have the 600 f4 and I often use it with the 1.4x or 2.0x - the focal lenght is never enough ;-)
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 8, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Go for the 600. It is a great lens. I carry mine along with the Gitzo 1548 tripod legs and Wimberly head with not much problem. I have even taken it on a couple considerably long hikes without problem. I guess you inquired about the 500. I have heard that it is a nice lens as well.
I split the difference and went for a 400/2.8
I need reach, but I also need the extra stop of speed.
Weight of these lenses is often overstated, they are really well balanced and can be handheld , carried long distances and used very easily from vehicles.
300/2.8 is a little short for most wildlife applications.
Posted by Don Miller on January 8, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I had the 300 2.8. It's still a much bigger lens than the 400 5.6. It might be best to keep the 400/5.6 and stay current with Canon latest 1.6 crop camera. Maybe Canon will have a second generation DO, or other new lenses in the future.
With the 400 2.8 and the 600, it's more like moving furniture, not "moving on a moments notice".
I'm a hack as a bird photographer. But if birds were my thing, I would keep an eye on Nikon and others for higher density sensors and lighter lenses. It seems Canon is working the other end with full frame camera.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 8, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I've kept my 400mm f5.6 for the times when I need portability and/or the flexibility of handheld flight shots. I have no problem with hauling the 500mm & CF tripod on 4-5hr dayhikes - when I KNOW I will need the reach. I frequently use it with 1.4x and 2x TCs for birds, so I'm certain that I would not be happy with only a 300mm focal length, even with good TC performance. Just my $0.02.
Go with the 500mm f/4 as opposed to the 300mm f/2.8. Not only will you have better "reach" you will also have a much better ability to isolate the image background, partocularly with large animals.
The 400mm f/2.8 is not a compromise. It is heavier than the 500mm f/4 with a weight almost as much as the 600mm f/4. Both will definitely requilre a tripod comparable to the Gitzo 1548 with a full Wimberly head.
As far as the 400mm f/5.6, I would keep it on a second body for quick shots. Carrying a 500mm on a tripod without a camera body would be unbalanced, though it could be done if you do not have a second body. Either way, your own body will get a workout.
Posted by Tom Webster on January 9, 2007 at 2:18 AM
I started with the 300mm f 2.8 and 2 months later traded up to the 500mm f 4. The 500mm f4 isn't that much heavier than the 300 f 2.8. I have mine mounted on a sidekick and gitzo 1325 tripod and I carry it for several hours without too much problem. I just carry the whole thing over my shoulder. The extra reach of the 500 is worth the 2.5 more pounds.
Posted by Jasper Doest on January 9, 2007 at 4:32 AM
Depends on what you want...'personally I'd go for a 300/2.8..which seems perfect for wildlife and is very usuable with birds when you use the EF20II.
Posted by Tim McIntyre on January 9, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Thanks for eveyones input , I am starting to weigh more towrds the 500 .
Tim
Posted by Robert Scholl on January 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM
This is a decision I too struggled with and went with the 500. While more reach is often wanted I have not second guessed the decision.
Posted by Ed Dubois on January 11, 2007 at 8:06 PM
As bird photos are my primary interest I use the 500 f4 IS usually with a 1.4 or 2X (and sometimes both). I've been very pleased with the quality of this lens and the weight at 8 lb is within reason. I used to shoot with a 300 and a 2x but found once I got the 500 I never used it any more so sold it - no regrets. The 500 in combination with the 100-400 has served me well for several years now and I haven't been wanting for more
Discussion
12 repliesI need some opinions as to buy either the Canon 300 2.8L or the 500 f4.The lens will be used for birding /wildlife.I know it is a no brainer that the longer the better thing holds true, especially for birding but the dilemma lies in weight/portability issues.I am no weakling but can the 500 be hauled around nature trails for 4-5 hours and be ready at a moments notice? Other than using a monopod(which probably won't cut it in early morn light)how do users of the 500 f4 haul around there gimbalhead behemoths and be ready to shoot within seconds? Should I just keep my 400 5.6L and make due with poor low light performance in exchange for portability and stealth? On the other hand lies the 300 f2.8L It seems to offer great versatility with 1.4 and 2x teleconvertors.The images I have seen in this group with the 300 and 2x converter(600 f 5.6)are just awesome.I have even seen shots with stacked converters on the 300 and the image quality is just stunning.It weighs considerably less,is less bulky and looks like it would be much easier to hike around and stalk in the field.For me this is a huge investment and do not want to regret my purchase. Sorry for the long rambling but I need some advice .
Tim
Day trips will usually give the nod to the 500, though it does mean carrying my bigger pack. With large mammals, I often find that the 500 is too much for my taste. If small birds are on your menu, then you'll probably be a lot happier with the 500. While the 300 is reasonable with the extenders, it's probably not as good as the straight 500, image-wise. On top of that, a 500 with extenders will give a lot more range latitude with small subjects.
I need reach, but I also need the extra stop of speed.
Weight of these lenses is often overstated, they are really well balanced and can be handheld , carried long distances and used very easily from vehicles.
300/2.8 is a little short for most wildlife applications.
With the 400 2.8 and the 600, it's more like moving furniture, not "moving on a moments notice".
I'm a hack as a bird photographer. But if birds were my thing, I would keep an eye on Nikon and others for higher density sensors and lighter lenses. It seems Canon is working the other end with full frame camera.
The 400mm f/2.8 is not a compromise. It is heavier than the 500mm f/4 with a weight almost as much as the 600mm f/4. Both will definitely requilre a tripod comparable to the Gitzo 1548 with a full Wimberly head.
As far as the 400mm f/5.6, I would keep it on a second body for quick shots. Carrying a 500mm on a tripod without a camera body would be unbalanced, though it could be done if you do not have a second body. Either way, your own body will get a workout.
Tim