# FYI, Canon 300mm F4 with a 1.4x Kenko



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Original shot out of camera










Approx 50% crop










Not bad i think, gives me 420mm without the camera crop factor, and I get IS. With the canon 400mm f5.6 I get the same IQ but no IS.....Think of getting the 300mm vs the 400mm. BTW the cost of both lens are about the same.


----------



## dicklaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

That setup works well what was the distance,camera to subject?

dick


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Dick, as far as I can guesstimate, it was about 25-30 feet.


----------



## sandybottom (Jun 1, 2005)

I'm enjoying my 300mm even though it's the other brand.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

One of my favorites in this range is the Nikon 80-400mm (Canon 100-400mm). I like the big zooms in this range a lot. Not the best for low light but still faster and sharper than most fixed lenses with a TC. Cost is about the same as 300mm f4 IS and a TC. Don't forget the super zooms! Just one example from the 80-400mm: HERE

Examples from the Canon 100-400mm HERE


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

I did the 100-400 thing, the push pull was just kinda ackward for me. Guess I would get used to it over time.
What I am looking for is a prime, can not afford the 500mm IS and the 400mm dosent have IS, so I am testing the 300mm with IS plus the 1.4x and see if the image I get is what I am looking for. As for super zooms I have the 150-500 OS and I am pleased with what it offers as a super Z, just want the IQ of the subject that stands out against the background and from what Ive been told/read a prime is the only way to get there.
The 400mm was an awesome lens, just wish it had IS. Now the 400mm 2.8 does offer IS but at 3200.00 (on the low end) its just not an option for an amature like me.



Arlon said:


> One of my favorites in this range is the Nikon 80-400mm (Canon 100-400mm). I like the big zooms in this range a lot. Not the best for low light but still faster and sharper than most fixed lenses with a TC. Cost is about the same as 300mm f4 IS and a TC. Don't forget the super zooms! Just one example from the 80-400mm: HERE
> 
> Examples from the Canon 100-400mm HERE


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

That's the toughest situation to be in - you want the reach and image quality, but there's very few ways to get both without shelling out a ton of cash. I shot for years with a 2x or 1.4x on my 70-200 while trying to find a way to get more for less. I got some good images with that combination, but ultimately gave in to the big glass. My biggest mistake was renting a 500/4. Once I did that, there was no turning back ;-)


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

LOL, I understand completely, Did that mistake with the 400mm. God forbid If I was to rent the 500 or 600.:biggrin: I see them 500/600 come up for sale on the fourms...all I can do is leave the CC at home...just too much temptation......Ive noticed its about 1000.00 per MM for them things.
And Canons 1200mm is just nuts. 120.000K. :headknock



fishphoto said:


> That's the toughest situation to be in - you want the reach and image quality, but there's very few ways to get both without shelling out a ton of cash. I shot for years with a 2x or 1.4x on my 70-200 while trying to find a way to get more for less. I got some good images with that combination, but ultimately gave in to the big glass. My biggest mistake was renting a 500/4. Once I did that, there was no turning back ;-)


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

> 400mm 2.8 does offer IS but at 3200.00 (on the low end)


Fred, if you run across one, gimme a holler. Most are $6800 new, and I don't see many for sale. Prolly couldn't afford it anyway, but it would be real tempting.
Mike


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Sure will Mike, The ones around that price have been to older ones, And not very pretty, but as long as the glass is good who cares right?
This one was on there the other day but, he backed out....http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=624982&highlight=400mm+2.8



MT Stringer said:


> Fred, if you run across one, gimme a holler. Most are $6800 new, and I don't see many for sale. Prolly couldn't afford it anyway, but it would be real tempting.
> Mike


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

I know the temptation thing. I wanted a new truck and bought a 500mm f4 instead.. My old truck works just fine. (-:}


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

stargazer said:


> I did the 100-400 thing, the push pull was just kinda ackward for me. Guess I would get used to it over time.
> What I am looking for is a prime, can not afford the 500mm IS and the 400mm dosent have IS, so I am testing the 300mm with IS plus the 1.4x and see if the image I get is what I am looking for. As for super zooms I have the 150-500 OS and I am pleased with what it offers as a super Z, just want the IQ of the subject that stands out against the background and from what Ive been told/read a prime is the only way to get there.
> The 400mm was an awesome lens, just wish it had IS. Now the 400mm 2.8 does offer IS but at 3200.00 (on the low end) its just not an option for an amature like me.


 Wow Fred, great images. I sure like it when other folks do the "field" research on a purchase I'm considering. lol. I'm assuming this is the 300mm f4L prime you were test/renting? I was already leaning towards the 300 w/IS over 400 w/o IS. Given the price similarity and the results with the TC, I'd say you've made up my mind. lol. Thanks. The 400mm prime F2.8L IS is way out of my hobby budget but the 300mm f4L IS could possibly be worked in,,, in the near future.....hmmmmmmm....Thanks for tips and PM's Fred,,,,,,Jim


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

The 300/4 lenses focus at pretty close distances, which is another plus. They aren't quite marcro lenses, but they are pretty versatile.


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

fishphoto said:


> The 300/4 lenses focus at pretty close distances, which is another plus. They aren't quite marcro lenses, but they are pretty versatile.


 I remember reading that. Somewhere around 5 ft. for the 300mm I believe. I wanna say the 400mmf5.6 was 15 ft but I may be off on that one. I've been looking at these and a couple others for a while now, so all the specs sorta run together. CRS kickin in again....Jim


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

I can not remember the distance myself but it is pretty close and with an ext tube attached it should make for some pretty good closeups.



fishphoto said:


> The 300/4 lenses focus at pretty close distances, which is another plus. They aren't quite marcro lenses, but they are pretty versatile.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Resharpened


----------

