Canon 300mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter

[jackbreakfast]

Hello there!
I wonder if any of you folks have experience with this particular combination? I would love to hear any of your thoughts: good, bad, what have you. And before you mention it, I've already ruled out the 400mm f5.6 for various reasons, although of course I know it's a terrific lens in its own right...
I really appreciate any input...
j.b.

[Kin Lau]

That's what I use with my 7D. My wife uses the 7D + 400/5.6L.

AF speed and sharpness wise, the 400/5.6L is better, sometimes significantly. You just need to learn to deal with it.

I can keep up with the warblers and flight-shots just fine. I also get shots that my wife can't due to the much shorter minimum focal distance (1.5m vs the 3.5m of the 400/5.6L). I can also shoot in darker conditions with IS on and using flash, I find it helps quite a bit.

If the subject is less than a 1/4 frame, then the 400/5.6L wins easily in detail captured which will cover most things over 20ft away. But if you did not have both to compare, you won't really notice.

I also have a Sigma 50-500, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Sigma 400/5.6 APO, and the EF 300/4L IS is easily a match for all of them.

A big difference, is to use the Canon 1.4xTC mark II version. I've used the Canon mark 1 version, the Sigma 1.4, a Tamron 1.4 (4 element only), and AF speed & sharpness is easily better with the Mark II 1.4x TC.

[Michael Tam]

I am not a Canon user but this article about the Canon 300 f4 IS lens testing with inclusion of the 1.4x teleconvertor may be helpful to you:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/172-c ... rt--review

Please note on the MTF test the following quotation:

"Combined with the EF 1.4x II there's a slight but visible drop in resolution but the center remains in very-good territory followed by still good+ borders. Subjectively (not measured) the combination also seems to suffer from a loss of contrast".

Good birding and photography.

[jackbreakfast]

Thanks much for the information, it's appreciated. I've ruled out the 400mm b/c of its too-long MFD and lack of IS, etc. Certainly the 400 f5.6 will look better/behave better than the 300 + 1.4, but a man can't have everything in this dusty world. Any other thoughts from folks would be welcomed by y.t., and thanks again for the help, folks...

[BoboBird]

Wow talk about just in time!

I was discussing lens with one of the best bird photographers around these parts of Asia and he was insistent that I would be better off with a 300/f4 instead of a 400/5.6.
A couple of points he made -

- IS vs no IS (I did test the 400 a week or so ago and could not get any sharp shots even with my back braced against a pole and arms held tight together. A brace will certainly be needed)
- f4 vs f5.6 - versatility in lower light particularly winter evenings.
- 1.4x and 2x TC compatible instead of just 1.4x.

Today I tested the 300/f4 outside the shop, lighting was so-so and every shot with and without a 1.4 were razor sharp. With a Kenko 2x, AF was quite slow and needed really good contrasty conditions to focus but that was probably due to the low contrast lighting. With 2x it will go to f8 so today was not quite ideal for that sort of aperture.

The 300 was ultra-sharp at f8 and f11. Wider apertures like 5.6 or bigger did not show perceptible changes though it allowed use of faster shutter speeds and lower ISOs.

Overall pretty impressed but I need to compare the test pics with those taken with the 70-300L to make a definitive decision on whether to go with another 300 or abandon the hunt for now.