Canon Lens: Opinions Needed! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/18/2003 11:48:58 PM · #1

I ran across a used (pristine!) 300mm f/4L IS, I think I can wear the sales guy down to $850 US. Right now he wants $950, with a 1.4x Canon teleconverter thrown in (original version, not II).
I'm thinking this is nearly too good to pass up, but would like some opinions from DPCers. Also, if anyone knows anything about the differences between the two versions of the Canon 1.4x converters, I would also appreciate opinions in regard to that.

Thanks!

Fritz

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

12/19/2003 12:13:45 AM · #2

The 300mm f4 IS is a fine lens. I would think the original price of $950 wouldn't be out of line considering a new lens runs about $1100 and you're getting a TC as well.

The 1.4x Mk I and II converters function exactly the same except the Mk II's have rubber rings to help with moister/dirt infiltration.

12/19/2003 12:22:23 AM · #3

Thanks TechnoShroom. Same thing I was thinking on the price, seems a great value. Now if I hadn't just spent $$$ on a 70-200 f/2.8L this week...
I ran into a wildlife photog from British Columbia named Alan Cornall at the San Diego Zoo yesterday, we were talking about Canon equipment (he was shooting with a 600mm f/4L IS !!!!) He raved about the 1.4x converter, the 2.0x his opinion was "throw it in the river", LOL.

12/19/2003 12:38:34 AM · #4

Originally posted by kirbic:

I've used the 2x with much success. I though the main difference between 1 and 2 was that 2 supported "IS" when attached. But I'm not for sure. I use both on my 500/f4 "IS" all the time. They work great!

300 f4 "IS" is a fantastic lens I used to use one a few years ago. You'll like it, but if you have 70-200 f2.8. Why don't you just get the 1.4 tele for it?

12/19/2003 12:49:31 AM · #5

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Thanks TechnoShroom. Same thing I was thinking on the price, seems a great value. Now if I hadn't just spent $$$ on a 70-200 f/2.8L this week...
I ran into a wildlife photog from British Columbia named Alan Cornall at the San Diego Zoo yesterday, we were talking about Canon equipment (he was shooting with a 600mm f/4L IS !!!!) He raved about the 1.4x converter, the 2.0x his opinion was "throw it in the river", LOL.

I've used the 2x with much success. I though the main difference between 1 and 2 was that 2 supported "IS" when attached. But I'm not for sure. I use both on my 500/f4 "IS" all the time. They work great!

300 f4 "IS" is a fantastic lens I used to use one a few years ago. You'll like it, but if you have 70-200 f2.8. Why don't you just get the 1.4 tele for it?

Ahhh, MeThoS, you have cut to the heart of the matter. With the 1.4x on the 70-200, I would have approximately a 100-280 f/4, so why buy the 300 f/4?
My thinking was, it is prolly significantly sharper at 300mm than the 70-200+1.4x combination, and I could still use the 300 with the 1.4x to get a 420mm f/5.6 (quite useful), or with the 2.0x II I already own to get a 600mm f/8 (better'n NO 600mm at all...)

Thoughts?

12/19/2003 12:57:17 AM · #6

400 f5.6 is still a useful lens, and I've shot the 300 with the 2x. It works if you have the light...

...but I prefer to keep my camera bag lighter these days. So I like using my 70-200 2.8 "IS" with the teleconverters. I have a 300 2.8 that rarely comes out anymore. I usually have my 14, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 500, and the teleconverters. Sometimes I'll throw in my tilt shifts If I feel like playing. I have some lens I've never used, I bought for just in case I needed them. Like my 1x-5x macro. Maybe I'll try it out for this macro challenge. I would be my FIRST. ;D

12/19/2003 01:05:16 AM · #7

Thanks again MeThoS, probably first thing I will do with the 700-200 is stick the 2.0X II on and see how I like the results, I think that will give me the answer I need on the 300. Mebbe I will just make him an offer on the converter...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/19/2003 07:13:40 AM · #8

I've printed some of these shots at 20x30 and they are still very crisp. I'm not too sure that the advantage of the prime would be worth the grand it would cost, compared to this combination. I suspect it would depend on how often you really need a 300mm reach - if you are going to use it all the time, or are really interested in using it with the 1.4x then that's a different case - you'll get about 670mm on the 10D with that combo which is pretty good (!) Time to learn big lens technique around about then I guess!

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/19/2003 07:37:32 AM · #9

Thanks Gordon!
I'm very encouraged with the possibilities of the 70-200 + converters, I'm dying to try them out. Should get the opportunity this weekend.
Yes, the attraction of the 300mm prime is definitely the extra reach afforded by the converter(s) with the 300mm. I know that there have been reports that the converters "marry" better with some lenses than others, so if I decide to spring for the 300mm prime, I'll do a ton of testing and return it in within the 10 days I am allowed if not ecstatic about the results.
MeThoS really hit on the sticking point; the 300mm won't really be any faster than my 70-200 f/2.8+ converter, so sharpness and the extra reach with the 2.0x converter (960mm effective FoV, ay caramba!) would be the only real advantages.
An completely different approach for really long focal lengths would be to buy a Celestron C5 and use with/without an f/6.3 focal reducer to get 1260mm effective @f/6.3 with reducer, or 2000mm effective @ f/10 without. Faster, longer, but bokeh would stink and contrast would without doubt be lower.

GoodEnd

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/19/2003 09:17:25 AM · #10

The Cannon "L" lens had a high quality glass, I not certain if it is really glass or cristal. It had a very clear image, without huge glares or distortions. It will be fine to use with your 2x converter with some lighting restrinctions.

dwoolridge

12/19/2003 09:37:29 AM · #11

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I have some lens I've never used, I bought for just in case I needed them. Like my 1x-5x macro.

Damn. Is that the MP-E 65mm? Definitely number 2 on my wish list. Completely impractical, but I really don't have enough photos of rice grains and cockroach turds.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/19/2003 10:01:26 AM · #12

I have often heard that the 2X converter isn't that good and that the 1.4X is way better, but no one could tell me why. Can anyone here tell me why I shouldn't buy the 2X?

12/19/2003 10:20:15 AM · #13

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

[quote=MeThoS]I have some lens I've never used, I bought for just in case I needed them. Like my 1x-5x macro.

Damn. Is that the MP-E 65mm? Definitely number 2 on my wish list. Completely impractical, but I really don't have enough photos of rice grains and cockroach turds.[/quote

Yeah it is...and that's why I haven't used it yet. I do have some small stuff in my reef tank that needs shot though... ;D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/19/2003 10:24:57 AM · #14

Originally posted by kiwiness:

I have often heard that the 2X converter isn't that good and that the 1.4X is way better, but no one could tell me why. Can anyone here tell me why I shouldn't buy the 2X?

It's all subjective. Technically the 1.4x is sharper due to the increased magnification of flaws in the 2x. But to the neked eye, you probably won't notice. It all depends on the size of the final output, and how picky you are. I've used Canon glass for like 8 years now. My mentor is on the Canon team. I've used about all the "L" lenses except for the 600 f4 and the 1200 f5.6...

Message edited by author 2003-12-19 10:25:23.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

12/19/2003 10:39:22 AM · #15

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by kiwiness:
I have often heard that the 2X converter isn't that good and that the 1.4X is way better, but no one could tell me why. Can anyone here tell me why I shouldn't buy the 2X?

It's all subjective. Technically the 1.4x is sharper due to the increased magnification of flaws in the 2x. But to the neked eye, you probably won't notice. It all depends on the size of the final output, and how picky you are. I've used Canon glass for like 8 years now. My mentor is on the Canon team. I've used about all the "L" lenses except for the 600 f4 and the 1200 f5.6...

Thanks Brent.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/19/2003 10:43:11 AM · #16

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kiwiness:
I have often heard that the 2X converter isn't that good and that the 1.4X is way better, but no one could tell me why. Can anyone here tell me why I shouldn't buy the 2X?

It's all subjective. Technically the 1.4x is sharper due to the increased magnification of flaws in the 2x. But to the neked eye, you probably won't notice. It all depends on the size of the final output, and how picky you are. I've used Canon glass for like 8 years now. My mentor is on the Canon team. I've used about all the "L" lenses except for the 600 f4 and the 1200 f5.6...

Thanks Brent.

Glad to help. If you ever need to see the results of a lens I have just ask. I can shoot a test for you to see before you buy. ;D

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

12/19/2003 10:50:47 AM · #17

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Glad to help. If you ever need to see the results of a lens I have just ask. I can shoot a test for you to see before you buy. ;D

Weeeell, now that you mention it. I've been looking at the Canon EF 100-400 mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM. Can you tell me any advantages/disadvantages about it?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/19/2003 10:51:58 AM · #18

Originally posted by kiwiness:

I have often heard that the 2X converter isn't that good and that the 1.4X is way better, but no one could tell me why. Can anyone here tell me why I shouldn't buy the 2X?

Other than it maybe being not quite so sharp as the 1.4x, the 2x loses you 2 stops of light, compared to 1 stop for the 1.4x

Depends on the lens you put it on, but if you put a 2x on an f4 lens, you'll lose auto focus (as you have to have a max ap of f5.6 or more for AF to work, as I understand it)

12/19/2003 11:05:31 AM · #19

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
Glad to help. If you ever need to see the results of a lens I have just ask. I can shoot a test for you to see before you buy. ;D

Weeeell, now that you mention it. I've been looking at the Canon EF 100-400 mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM. Can you tell me any advantages/disadvantages about it?

I loved that lens. I don't have one now, but that thing rocks. I used it heavily at my previous employer. Pretty sharp glass. The only disadvantage was the 5.6. which is much of a disadvantage. I shot a lot of chrome through that lens and was always pleased.