Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Canon 300mm f/2.8
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Jan 11, 2019 22:20:48   #
joderale
 
Is a 300 mm f/2.8 with a 2.0 extender basically the same thing as a 600 mm f/5. 6? Is there a loss of quality?

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 22:27:23   #
SnappyHappy
 
joderale wrote:
Is a 300 mm f/2.8 with a 2.0 extender basically the same thing as a 600 mm f/5. 6? Is there a loss of quality?


Basically yes, except you can remove the extender and have a 300 f2.8 when you need it

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 22:30:36   #
unlucky2
 
For Canon the 600 is f/4.... the 800 is f/5.6 for IQ check out UHH member Regis

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 22:34:08   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
Yes - on an absolute scale comparing the same image on a 600 f/4 to a doubled 300, there is a difference with the 600 prime being sharper, as it should. No, difference - in a practical sense, particularly if you step down a bit on the extended 300 and consider the versatility of the 300. Two of us on UHH use and post regularly with the 300/2x config and different EOS 5D models. You can click our URL user names and then list several recent topics-created and look at the photo gallery entries. Regis has been all 300/2x of late. My 300/2x posts are distributed across images and across several posts.

Here's a few recent:

Regis https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-573112-1.html
Regis https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-572216-1.html

Sager (mostly 300/2x) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-570692-1.html
Sager (all 300/2x) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-568485-1.html
Sager (all 300/x2) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-559412-1.html

As mentioned above, the 300 is a much more practical lens in terms of size & weight. The hood is large and makes the set-up seem large. But, it's roughly the same size and weight as the 100-400L IS II given the hood adds to the size but actually weighs next to nothing.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 09:18:05   #
joderale
 
Thanks for your replies. I meant to say 600 mm f/4.0 in my original post. The 300 is on my wish list, but very expensive.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 09:35:39   #
joderale
 
It was Sager's images from an earlier post that got me interested in this lens. I agree that the 300 mm is more versatile. So I've got a serious GAS attack. But I need to remember, and am learning, that equipment doesn't make you a photographer.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 10:06:14   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
joderale wrote:
It was Sager's images from an earlier post that got me interested in this lens. I agree that the 300 mm is more versatile. So I've got a serious GAS attack. But I need to remember, and am learning, that equipment doesn't make you a photographer.

If you haven't handled any of these lenses, try renting them as a toe-dip start. What you'll likely find from a 500L or 600L is that these are massive lenses and at $9000+ held there in your hands, pretty amazing in the images they can create. You'll get the most from having your own heavy duty tripod, gimbal head, and 1.4x / 2x extenders to which you can add the occasional super telephoto rental for specific needs. I rent a 500L once or twice a year for an annual event and found a used copy of the 300L that is more practical for everyday use where I live or travel. Consider too the 400 f/2.8L, I think the best combination of size, weight and image quality of the super teles. Look too at the 400 f/4 DO II and the 200-400L, where a copy was listed for sale this week. If that gas urge is still there, consider also the original IS versions of the lenses now at v IIs. The older models are all heavier with slightly less effective IS, but still blow-away excellent optics. If tripod / gimbal would be your typical approach, the IS effectiveness for handholding might be immaterial.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 10:59:14   #
Blurryeyed (a regular here)
 
joderale wrote:
Is a 300 mm f/2.8 with a 2.0 extender basically the same thing as a 600 mm f/5. 6? Is there a loss of quality?


Although the 300mm is supposed to be an excellent lens.... I have never shot one so I can't offer first hand knowledge, what I do know is that a 600mm lens, like the Canon 600mm f/4 will always be better than a 300mm lens with extender no matter how good the lens is. A member recently offered a 2X extender in the classified section here and I was very tempted because his price was excellent, but I decided that it would not really improve over cropping and the focus system would suffer. I may be wrong, others may offer differing opinions but the rule of thumb I have always used is that a quality 1.4X can help, a 2.0 is hardly better than a crop. But this is only my opinion, I could be wrong.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:06:24   #
joderale
 
Again, thanks for the good advice. Where were those lenses listed for sale?

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:43:06   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
joderale wrote:
Again, thanks for the good advice. Where were those lenses listed for sale?

Try Birds as Art - http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/used-photography-gear-for-sale/

There's no push notification, so you need to watch the posts daily if you're actively looking for something specific. You might try KEH. I prefer LensRentals.com for rentals and they sell their equipment as well, as still another reliable source.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 13:02:33   #
TriX (a regular here)
 
joderale wrote:
Thanks for your replies. I meant to say 600 mm f/4.0 in my original post. The 300 is on my wish list, but very expensive.


The price for the 300 f2.8 varies considerably depending on which version you intend to purchase. My son recently picked up a 300 f2.8 version 1 from KEH for $1300. A few scuffs on the (large) hood, but otherwise very nice. It is a beast in terms of weight - just under 6lbs with the hood, but an excellent lens for nighttime sports. I used it with a Canon 1.4x MKII T/C (yielding 420mm @ f4), and the results were excellent, but haven’t tried it with a 2X.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 14:07:36   #
RRS
 
joderale wrote:
Is a 300 mm f/2.8 with a 2.0 extender basically the same thing as a 600 mm f/5. 6? Is there a loss of quality?


I shoot both lenses and there is very little loss (IQ) with a 2X on the 300mm f/2.8. The big loss is one stop of light when shooting a 600 f/4.0 to the 300 with a 2X now at f/5.6. The other thing is that you have to be sure your focus is spot on as these lenses were designed to be shot wide open, shallow DOF. When birding I like to carry the 300 with either a 1.4 or 2X because it is so much lighter and shorter then the 600 that I shoot a lot with a 1.4 off a tripod.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 16:40:51   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
joderale wrote:
It was Sager's images from an earlier post that got me interested in this lens. I agree that the 300 mm is more versatile. So I've got a serious GAS attack. But I need to remember, and am learning, that equipment doesn't make you a photographer.


I have shot extensively with the 300 2.8 ver. I with 2X II - and it is ASTOUNDING ! BUT, it is a prime and you must be ready willing and able to zoom with your feet and/or have a high MP body for cropping - weight management is also an issue. And, yes it is a 600mm f5.6 with the extender. AF is OK but nothing to brag about. I am sure the newer versions are better with regard to AF. The 300/2X is especially good on a crop frame body - on full frame I would much rather have the 400 DO W/2X.

..

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 19:28:31   #
jeep_daddy (a regular here)
 
Here are some of mine. I have the original 300 f/2.8 not the II. I do have the Mark III teleconverters.

CHG_CANON wrote:
Yes - on an absolute scale comparing the same image on a 600 f/4 to a doubled 300, there is a difference with the 600 prime being sharper, as it should. No, difference - in a practical sense, particularly if you step down a bit on the extended 300 and consider the versatility of the 300. Two of us on UHH use and post regularly with the 300/2x config and different EOS 5D models. You can click our URL user names and then list several recent topics-created and look at the photo gallery entries. Regis has been all 300/2x of late. My 300/2x posts are distributed across images and across several posts.

Here's a few recent:

Regis https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-573112-1.html
Regis https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-572216-1.html

Sager (mostly 300/2x) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-570692-1.html
Sager (all 300/2x) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-568485-1.html
Sager (all 300/x2) https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-559412-1.html

As mentioned above, the 300 is a much more practical lens in terms of size & weight. The hood is large and makes the set-up seem large. But, it's roughly the same size and weight as the 100-400L IS II given the hood adds to the size but actually weighs next to nothing.
Yes - on an absolute scale comparing the same imag... (show quote)
Verdin
Verdin...
(Download)
Summer Tanager
Summer Tanager...
(Download)
Vermilion Flycatcher
Vermilion Flycatcher...
(Download)

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 23:45:28   #
speters (a regular here)
 
joderale wrote:
Is a 300 mm f/2.8 with a 2.0 extender basically the same thing as a 600 mm f/5. 6? Is there a loss of quality?

Yes, there will be some (albeit small) loss in image quality. A 600mm without TC will have better quality!

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.