>Consider the following combinations that might be used
>on an EOS-3 camera:
>[1] 300mm f4 canon IS + canon 2X converter
>for an effective 600mm f8;
>[2] 100-400 canon IS set to 400mm + canon 1.4X
>convertor for an effective 560mm f8.
>Which will be sharper?
>Which will focus faster?
>Is there any pracitical difference between the two combinations?
>The intended use is for bird photography, specifically spring
>migrants, especially warblers. Anyone with experience,
>please comment.
Imre,
I bought your combination (1) with bird photography very much in mind
not long after the 300/4 IS came out. I found the results disappointing
though I have not regretted my purchase of the 300 because I have found
it to be a very versatile lens and have used it a lot. The close focus
being a significant factor in this. Now that the 100-400 is available I
would, in more general terms than you are setting out, find it a very
tough decision.
First, I think that basically the 300 with x2 is just not long enough,
heavy enough and, lets face it, expensive enough, to do the job you
require. I know professionals get excellent bird pictures with 400 and
500 mm lenses but apart from those really lucky occasions this requires
a lot of time and effort, usually working with your own hide. If, like
me, you feel you can't compete with this and just want to take pictures
of interesting birds you've seen whilst out birdwatching then you need a
longer lens. You will occassionally get a decent picture with 600mm but
this corresponds to a good view in binoculars - a good view in a
telescope will often give you something barely identifiable.
The only qualification I will put on this is that I don't know where you
are - on my one trip to N. America (Western Canada) I did get some
reasonable bird pictures because some common birds, which were totally
new to me, were bigger and more approachable than most birds in the UK.
In more specific terms I have found the 300 with the x1.4 to be fine but
with the x2 not - it delivers a good contrasty image but the very fine
detail, often so important with a bird, is not there. If you're real
close you may still get a fine picture, but so often you're not and it
is a problem. I had an opportunity to try a 300/2.8 IS with my own x2
converter and this performed much better.
Film used in all instances was Kodachrome 64 BTW. I took my Canadian
pictures on a 500N but have a 3 now. I seem to have written the above
assuming you want to take slides, if you are not and just want postcard
sized prints then you will probably not be pushing the envelope as much
in terms of definition and could also use faster film which would allow
you safer shutter speeds and smaller apertures.
I haven't had chance to take any shots with a 100-400 and compare. The
only test I have seen of the 100-400 it came out quite badly which does
not compare with the experience of people on this list which seems to
have been good. It is quite likely that the zoom is at its worst at the
long end, I wouldn't be surprised if there is not much difference
between the two combos you cite.
On the focusing front, on the basis of the little playing I have done,
the 100-400 in native form is really quite slow. So despite the slowing
effect of the x2 converter I would put my money (but not perhaps a lot!)
on the 300 x2 combo being quicker.
A major question in my mind is what will the 400/4 DO be like with
converters. I have formed the opinion from reading and looking at MTFs
that there is a major performance gap between the "cheap" telephotos,
300/4 & 400/5.6, and the expensive ones 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4.5 or 4,
600/4, whether in old or IS versions when used with a converter,
particularly the x2. Whether this is related to better colour correction
or not I don't know. Even better correction is claimed for the 400/4 so
it will be interesting to see. But I guess this is going to be �3500 UKP
or similar (sigh).
So I think my message is, if you are limited by budget or weight to one
of these two choices, you should seriously consider what other things
you might be using the lens for and should also make a determined effort
to go somewhere where you can try both combinations out and take photos
of the same subject under the same conditions - you need a Canon demo
day or something.
HTH, Richard Stephenson
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
