300mm lens: I have a 70-200 that I use with a 1.4 extender. Am thinking about buying a 300 2.8. Has anyone done this? Would you spend the money to do it again?

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have a 70-200 that I use with a 1.4 extender. Am thinking about buying a 300 2.8.
Has anyone done this? Would you spend the money to do it again?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

jim quist wrote:

I have a 70-200 that I use with a 1.4 extender. Am thinking about buying a 300 2.8.
Has anyone done this? Would you spend the money to do it again?

You must be willing and able to manage the :
cost-
weight - you must be in strong good physical condition....
size-

You do get uncompromising quality.....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

given the 1.4 extender gets you to 280mm, should you look at the 400mm instead?

jim quist Loc: Missouri

CHG_CANON wrote:

given the 1.4 extender gets you to 280mm, should you look at the 400mm instead?

Thank you for the perspective. I was so focused on the 300 that I hadn't even considered the 400...

face palm squared

:) :) :thumbup:

jim quist Loc: Missouri

imagemeister wrote:

You must be willing and able to manage the :
cost-
weight - you must be in strong good physical condition....
size-

You do get uncompromising quality.....

Im most worried about mismanaging my wife's evil eye when she sees it.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

CHG_CANON wrote:

given the 1.4 extender gets you to 280mm, should you look at the 400mm instead?

Agreed.

jcboy3

jim quist wrote:

I have a 70-200 that I use with a 1.4 extender. Am thinking about buying a 300 2.8.
Has anyone done this? Would you spend the money to do it again?

I have done it, and would do it again. Of course, the 400 2.8 would be nice, but it's twice the price, 40% longer, and 30% heavier.

The 300 2.8 is great with the TC-14, and on full frame it's still really good with the TC-17 or TC-20. So I can get some reach with it. I don't recommend using the higher power TC's if you have a crop sensor (but you are already getting the reach).

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

jim quist wrote:

Im most worried about mismanaging my wife's evil eye when she sees it.

And see it she would!!!
Jim, a lens like that is not about owning it, it's about what in the heck are you going to do with it?? It's a sports thoroughbred!
And just like THAT, you think, maybe 400?!?! (The heaviest lens Canon makes?) What is your use?? The rotating mass effect is really extreme on those big lenses. They are not for everybody, especially if you have one foot in the 4/3 grave!
All that said, my FAVORITE lens and one I use a LOT is my 200 1.8. It's shorter than the 300 but probably heavier at 7 pounds.
I would buy the 200 over and over and over!!! Did I say "over"?! :lol:
The advantage to a 2.8 is that it's a group "A", lens. On a fast pro body they will take full advantage of the body and focus and shot very fast. As soon as you put a multiplier behind it, it drops to lens group B or even C and you just lost ALL the advantages you paid for. At that point you may as well use a more wieldy 400 5.6.
1st, what is the use?
2nd, will that lens fill that niche?
Good luck! ;-)
SS

Haydon

The Canon 300 2.8L is one of the few lenses that doesn't suffer from severe huge IQ degradation when using a 2x teleconverter. That's just how sharp this baby is! If one can afford this expensive beast, it will offer possibilities with little loss in overall quality in image unlike anything else out there.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

jim quist wrote:

I have a 70-200 that I use with a 1.4 extender. Am thinking about buying a 300 2.8.
Has anyone done this? Would you spend the money to do it again?

Jim; I have both the 70-200 f2.8 and the 300 f2.8 VRII. It's heavy and expensive, but sharp and a great sports lens. However, at 70, I have no problem hand holding this lens when I need to. I use the TC 1.7 and IQ is still sharp. Wish I could afford the 400. Thinking on picking up a DX camera for extra reach or use the DX mode on my D3.
Oh, and yes, I would do it again!

jcboy3

juicesqueezer wrote:

Jim; I have both the 70-200 f2.8 and the 300 f2.8 VRII. It's heavy and expensive, but sharp and a great sports lens. However, at 70, I have no problem hand holding this lens when I need to. I use the TC 1.7 and IQ is still sharp. Wish I could afford the 400. Thinking on picking up a DX camera for extra reach or use the DX mode on my D3.
Oh, and yes, I would do it again!

I think you would really suffer the resolution loss with DX mode on the D3. Try the TC 2.0; it is just slightly worse IQ than the TC 1.7. But you can get the D7100 for really cheap these days, and put 24mpix at 1.5 crop into the 300 for great IQ. It will stand up to the TC 1.4, but I would go no higher with DX cameras. Personally, I prefer FX with TC 2.0 to DX with any TC.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Hmmm, interesting!
In his avatar, Jim shoots a Canon, yet everybody is handing him a Nikon!! :lol:
SS

jcboy3

SharpShooter wrote:

Hmmm, interesting!
In his avatar, Jim shoots a Canon, yet everybody is handing him a Nikon!! :lol:
SS

Well then, NEVERMIND!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

jim quist wrote:

I have a 70-200 that I use with a 1.4 extender. Am thinking about buying a 300 2.8.
Has anyone done this? Would you spend the money to do it again?

Considering what you have and if you can handle the extra cost the 400mm 2.8 is a better option. In addition the 1.4 TC will give you and awesome 560mm f4.

It weighs over 8 pounds so hand holding will be difficult.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

joer wrote:

Considering what you have and if you can handle the extra cost the 400mm 2.8 is a better option. In addition the 1.4 TC will give you and awesome 560mm f4.

It weighs over 8 pounds so hand holding will be difficult.

Transporting and pointing it .....accurately - will be DIFFICULT !