Canon 300 f/2.8L IS vs 500 f/4.0L IS

What do you think of using the 300 f/2.8L with the 1.4 TC for wildlife? How's the picture quality with this combo?
I can't speak from experience, but I'd be confident in saying that the quality would be excellent.

Another thing to consider is that if you use a crop body for telephoto, if gives you a narrower FOV....not necessarily more magnification but it does give the feeling of more reach. So while a 5DII would be great for landscapes, you might prefer a 50D for wildlife.

Yeah, I would think so too. That will a 420 f/4.0 with that combo. I think the combination of the 5D2 anf the 300 f/2.8L with 1.4TC would be great. This way I can also take off the 1.4TC and use the 300 for closer photos.
 
You sound like me a several years ago. Worked my way to about 12 lenses trying to equip for various things (GAS too) then realizing that it really didn't help me enjoy the world of photography. Examined my photos and started selling... the stuff that just didn't add. Got it down to about a new 24-105L (over the 24-70L), my trusty ol100-400L (70-200 f2.8L), and a single 50 f/1.4. No regrets. I do shoot mostly primes but on a different system.

I was also thinking in a addition to upgrading to the IS version that I can pick up a prime lens. Have you used any of the following: 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2.0L, and the 200 f/2.8L. Which would you recommend? I shoot landscapes some wildlife.

The primes that I had enjoyed most prior to selling most of them: 24L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, and 300 f4L. The best balance between value and performance. 50mm f/1/.4 is inexpensive and high performer. The 85 f/1.2L is slightly overpriced, heavy and doesn't play into the type of photography you have listed. The 85mm f/1.8 is a wonderful performer for portraits and so is the 100 f/2.8 macro. 135 f/2L is the fastest telephoto in the lineup and a WONDERFUL performer (I "almost" regret selling it). I simply liked the 24L focal length and it is a good performer (a little soft wide open). The 300 f/4L is a long telephoto that is easily packed and handled. Not too expensive either. The 135L and 200L seemed a bit too close and I think the 135 is better.
 
You sound like me a several years ago. Worked my way to about 12 lenses trying to equip for various things (GAS too) then realizing that it really didn't help me enjoy the world of photography. Examined my photos and started selling... the stuff that just didn't add. Got it down to about a new 24-105L (over the 24-70L), my trusty ol100-400L (70-200 f2.8L), and a single 50 f/1.4. No regrets. I do shoot mostly primes but on a different system.

I was also thinking in a addition to upgrading to the IS version that I can pick up a prime lens. Have you used any of the following: 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2.0L, and the 200 f/2.8L. Which would you recommend? I shoot landscapes some wildlife.

The primes that I had enjoyed most prior to selling most of them: 24L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, and 300 f4L. The best balance between value and performance. 50mm f/1/.4 is inexpensive and high performer. The 85 f/1.2L is slightly overpriced, heavy and doesn't play into the type of photography you have listed. The 85mm f/1.8 is a wonderful performer for portraits and so is the 100 f/2.8 macro. 135 f/2L is the fastest telephoto in the lineup and a WONDERFUL performer (I "almost" regret selling it). I simply liked the 24L focal length and it is a good performer (a little soft wide open). The 300 f/4L is a long telephoto that is easily packed and handled. Not too expensive either. The 135L and 200L seemed a bit too close and I think the 135 is better.

For the longest time I always wanted one of the telephoto lenes. I can't afford the 500 f/4.0L but the 300 f/2.8L IS is with in my budget. The 300 does not have an instant rebate so do I take advantage of the rebates now and buy this lens later or buy the 300 now. Decisions, decisions.
 
If you really want a long telephoto go for the 500 over the 300 with a TC it's rally that simple. If you want a long reach evry once and awhile the 300 TC will work but the image quality of the 500 you won't match.

I've been thinking of giving up my 400L f/2.8 for a 500 or 600 f/4 L because when you get down to the bottom of it TC's still just degrade the pic.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top