Posted by Les McDonald on January 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Which Canon 300mm lens would you recommend - the F4 or F2.8? I am aware of the sticker shock associated with the 3x more expensive F2.8 but look at lenses as a lifetime investment. So cost aside then, which lens makes more sense to own?
The F2.8 is attractive because it is very sharp and retains its autofocus with a 2x extender on a 40D. These are my questions: Will it still be acceptably sharp and focus relatively quickly with the 2x extender or is this pushing the limit of what this lens is capable of? Is it too heavy to hand hold? Is is too heavy to hike long distances with? Is there too much of a risk of damaging the front element since it can't be protected with a filter?
The F4 is attractive because it is much lighter. However, the trade off is that the reach for action photos is reduced because it doesn't retain autofocus with a 2x extender on a 40D and it is one stop slower than the F2.8. These are my questions: Will the F4 be almost as sharp as the F2.8 with the 1.4x extender? Will I miss the extra stop that the F2.8 affords at 420mm(1.4 x 300)? Will I miss the extra reach and autofocus of the F2.8 at 600mm(2.0 x 300)?
The bottom line: Realizing that there is no perfect lens, I'm looking for the best compromise between weight, sharpness and versatility. What do you think?
Posted by Steve Foss on January 3, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Les, since you're making a lifetime investment and cost isn't a big factor, I have to ask you is how strong you are. I've handheld the 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 and gotten sharp images, but it's a matter of how good your deltoid muscles are. I will also say that the combination of a sturdy monopod coupled and IS is a deadly weapon and much more portable than a tripod.
There's little difference (if any) in sharpness between the two lenses. Pixel peepers like to say the f2.8 version is Canon's sharpest telephoto, but the differences they say they see are so minute as to be more imagination than reality (or are blown out of proportion), and can be explained away by small variances in IQ from copy to copy. And printing, not pixel peeping, is the only IQ test that really matters. The stop difference in aperture can occasionally be the key between a sharp image in low light and a soft one. Don't worry about being unable to protect the front element of the f2.8 with a filter. The only time I ever put on a protective filter is when I'm shooting wide angle and have the camera over my shoulder and am moving around quickly, which I have to do on some shoots. Then the UV filter on my 17-40 prevents dings and smears. Otherwise, I've always simply relied on the big hoods of the telephotos to protect the front element and have never had a problem.
I've seen some images shot with the 2x and 300 that are acceptably sharp, but it takes very good light and a rock-solid steadying technique to go from the native 300 to the 600mm equivalent with the 2x. And yes, it is pushing the limits of the lens' capability. As to acceptable IQ, what's tolerable varies from photographer to photographer. You'll get poorer color/contrast performance with the 2x on as well. On the 40D, expect a big more hunting for focus with both the 1.4 and the 2x than you'd get from a top Canon body, and it'll be especially prevalent in snow or in low light. But I've shot the 300 and 1.4 with the 30D and gotten acceptably fast focus capability.
If you feel the weight will be OK, and since the best lens is more your question than the lower price, there's no question in my mind that the f2.8 will serve you better.
However, it's easy to settle those questions in your own mind by renting the two lenses and trying them out before you buy. And on another note, Canon L glass in mint condition holds its value wonderfully, so if you don't try before you buy and you end up buying the "wrong" lens, you won't take much of a hit selling it used and buying the other one.
Depending on what kind of photography you are into: if it's BIF then you probably will be taking early morning pictures and you will need the 2.8. If price was not a question I would only go one way and that is with the 2.8.
You mention reach. The 2.8 and a teleconverter will give you more reach. However, I would buy a used 400 mm 5.6 and really enjoy the results and reach that is attainable.
I am the owner of the 300mm, f4 and have very sharp photos using it. The 2.8, for me, is out of the question because of the cost factor, but its advantages are obvious. For me the decision was easy.
Suggestion: rent the two lenses, for a day or two, and give each a try? That way you would be better suited to making that decision.
Posted by Richard Hahn on January 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Les,
Good afternoon. I can help a little I think. I have an Canon XTi and use the 300 F4 with a Canon 1.4.tc. I like this combo and use it only handheld. It does get heavy after a while, but the neck strap helps.
I feel it auto focuses pretty fast, but I never compared it to a F 2.8 lens. I photograph mostly wildlife and nature. There are many times that I wish that I could get closure, but I do not know if the difference between the 1.4 & 2 tc would make up the distance.
Have you tried the 40 D with the F 2.8 & the 2 tc or are you being told it will not work. When I bought the 300 the money was the issue so I had to go with the F4 & I have no regrets. I still want a 500 or 600, but dreamimg is cheap and reality is not.
I can't speak for either of the canon lenses but I use a sigma 300mm f2.8 prime along with both (dedicated) converters on my 40d. I find that neither sharpness and focus speed are affected much when adding the 1.4x but there is a noticable decrease in both when adding the 2x. The image quality is still very usable though!
The weight might be an issue, but the sigma costs A LOT less than the canon equivalent. (sigma also make a 120-300mm f2.8 zoom that others say is excellent, although I have no experience myself...)
Hi Les. Happy New Year. I just ordered the 300 F4 IS for Gail to use with her 40D. Weight is a major issue and the 2.8 is just too heavy for her to handle at 6 pounds! we will use the 1.4 TC with it to get 420mm. If we need anything more than that we will use our 500 F4.
For the money if you need longer than 420 (300 + 1.4 TC) I would consider a prime 400 like the 400 5.6 or the 400 DO and use a 1.4 TC with it. A lot of people like the 400 DO, but it can give funky specular highlights in an OOF BG.
I think you will universally find that trying to squeeze 600mm hand held out of a 300 mm lens will not be the best way to go. You will give up sharpness, make the system as heavy as a larger prime anyway, and slow the AF quite a bit. So, use a 300 and 1.4 TC. More focal length than that bite the bullet and get the bigger lens you need.
Posted by Nate Chappell on January 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I guess one thing that I would add is that I have the 300 F4 and I find the autofocus to be very slow compared to the 500 F4 which I also have. I haven't used the 300 F2.8 but it's my understanding that it is faster than the 500F4 which would make it a great deal faster than the 300F4. Bob Steele, a terrific avian photographer often uses the 300 2.8 with the 2X for bird in flight shots and says that the quality (and the shots that I've seen) is excellent with this combo. I use the 500F4 for most flight shots. If I were you I would go into a good camera store and see if they could put the 300F2.8 and 2X on a body for you and you could see how fast it focuses and take a few shots with it.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
You are right, Nate. On the Rebel, 20D-50D and 5D series Canon cameras, when the center focus point is selected, f2.8 lenses offer more precise and faster focus acquisition and tracking than slower lenses.
I've shot the 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 off xxD and 1 series bodies and found the 300 does focus a bit faster, though the difference seemed smaller to me on the 1 series bodies than the xxD series.
You can't go wrong with the 2.8. The 2xTC seems to have litte to no effect on image quality. The lens is hand-holdable, but tiring to use for a long preiod of time. Loss of auto-focusing speed on a 1D body is hardly noticeable. I used to us it on a 10D and I can't remember noticing a loss of AF speed, but hen, the 10D was never terribly fast anyway. The lens is heavy enough that I sometimes choose not to take it with me if I am going to be walking very far and if I don't expect to use it. This morning as I chose to leave it in the car in favor of my 70-200 f2.8 for a two mile hike, I kinda wished I had a smaller long lens.
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM
You gave no clue what you want to photo, and that is important. If you need f2.8, you need it and it's that simple. I've used 300mm f2.8 lenses before, and all in all you can hike with them if not doing an overnight. They are heavy to handhold and are at the limit of what I would want to do. As for the filter thing, forget it. These kinds of lenses already have a cover element built into them. I rarely use a so-called "protection" filter much, usually just around waterfalls (spray) and so on. I'd say 99% of the time I don't use one (do like polarizers in the daytime, depending.) None of my lenses have ever been damaged because there was no filter. I do use the lens hood and lens cap when not taking a shot. The lens cap is far tougher than a flimsy piece of glass.
Discussion
10 repliesThe F2.8 is attractive because it is very sharp and retains its autofocus with a 2x extender on a 40D. These are my questions: Will it still be acceptably sharp and focus relatively quickly with the 2x extender or is this pushing the limit of what this lens is capable of? Is it too heavy to hand hold? Is is too heavy to hike long distances with? Is there too much of a risk of damaging the front element since it can't be protected with a filter?
The F4 is attractive because it is much lighter. However, the trade off is that the reach for action photos is reduced because it doesn't retain autofocus with a 2x extender on a 40D and it is one stop slower than the F2.8. These are my questions: Will the F4 be almost as sharp as the F2.8 with the 1.4x extender? Will I miss the extra stop that the F2.8 affords at 420mm(1.4 x 300)? Will I miss the extra reach and autofocus of the F2.8 at 600mm(2.0 x 300)?
The bottom line: Realizing that there is no perfect lens, I'm looking for the best compromise between weight, sharpness and versatility. What do you think?
There's little difference (if any) in sharpness between the two lenses. Pixel peepers like to say the f2.8 version is Canon's sharpest telephoto, but the differences they say they see are so minute as to be more imagination than reality (or are blown out of proportion), and can be explained away by small variances in IQ from copy to copy. And printing, not pixel peeping, is the only IQ test that really matters. The stop difference in aperture can occasionally be the key between a sharp image in low light and a soft one. Don't worry about being unable to protect the front element of the f2.8 with a filter. The only time I ever put on a protective filter is when I'm shooting wide angle and have the camera over my shoulder and am moving around quickly, which I have to do on some shoots. Then the UV filter on my 17-40 prevents dings and smears. Otherwise, I've always simply relied on the big hoods of the telephotos to protect the front element and have never had a problem.
I've seen some images shot with the 2x and 300 that are acceptably sharp, but it takes very good light and a rock-solid steadying technique to go from the native 300 to the 600mm equivalent with the 2x. And yes, it is pushing the limits of the lens' capability. As to acceptable IQ, what's tolerable varies from photographer to photographer. You'll get poorer color/contrast performance with the 2x on as well. On the 40D, expect a big more hunting for focus with both the 1.4 and the 2x than you'd get from a top Canon body, and it'll be especially prevalent in snow or in low light. But I've shot the 300 and 1.4 with the 30D and gotten acceptably fast focus capability.
If you feel the weight will be OK, and since the best lens is more your question than the lower price, there's no question in my mind that the f2.8 will serve you better.
However, it's easy to settle those questions in your own mind by renting the two lenses and trying them out before you buy. And on another note, Canon L glass in mint condition holds its value wonderfully, so if you don't try before you buy and you end up buying the "wrong" lens, you won't take much of a hit selling it used and buying the other one.
You mention reach. The 2.8 and a teleconverter will give you more reach. However, I would buy a used 400 mm 5.6 and really enjoy the results and reach that is attainable.
Suggestion: rent the two lenses, for a day or two, and give each a try? That way you would be better suited to making that decision.
Good afternoon. I can help a little I think. I have an Canon XTi and use the 300 F4 with a Canon 1.4.tc. I like this combo and use it only handheld. It does get heavy after a while, but the neck strap helps.
I feel it auto focuses pretty fast, but I never compared it to a F 2.8 lens. I photograph mostly wildlife and nature. There are many times that I wish that I could get closure, but I do not know if the difference between the 1.4 & 2 tc would make up the distance.
Have you tried the 40 D with the F 2.8 & the 2 tc or are you being told it will not work. When I bought the 300 the money was the issue so I had to go with the F4 & I have no regrets. I still want a 500 or 600, but dreamimg is cheap and reality is not.
I hope that this might help a little.
I can't speak for either of the canon lenses but I use a sigma 300mm f2.8 prime along with both (dedicated) converters on my 40d. I find that neither sharpness and focus speed are affected much when adding the 1.4x but there is a noticable decrease in both when adding the 2x. The image quality is still very usable though!
The weight might be an issue, but the sigma costs A LOT less than the canon equivalent. (sigma also make a 120-300mm f2.8 zoom that others say is excellent, although I have no experience myself...)
Just something to think about!
Billy
For the money if you need longer than 420 (300 + 1.4 TC) I would consider a prime 400 like the 400 5.6 or the 400 DO and use a 1.4 TC with it. A lot of people like the 400 DO, but it can give funky specular highlights in an OOF BG.
I think you will universally find that trying to squeeze 600mm hand held out of a 300 mm lens will not be the best way to go. You will give up sharpness, make the system as heavy as a larger prime anyway, and slow the AF quite a bit. So, use a 300 and 1.4 TC. More focal length than that bite the bullet and get the bigger lens you need.
I've shot the 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 off xxD and 1 series bodies and found the 300 does focus a bit faster, though the difference seemed smaller to me on the 1 series bodies than the xxD series.
Kent in SD