Hì,

I know, many people has done the same question to you a lot of time, I’m sorry for this but I have a big dilemma and I can not find a solution by my self! I have a MF system (Mamyia 645 pro TL) with 55-80-150 lenses and tubes and TTL flash that permit me to shot portraits, lanscapes, nature scenes and macro. Now I’m conversing my Nikon system in Canon Eos USM system because I think that is better if I use the smaller format to shot what I can not with the medium one, and this is the wildlife and in particular the birds photography. I have the possibility to by an Eos1n body and a three choice of lenses:

a) Canon EF 300 f/2,8 L USM + canon EF 2x b) Canon EF 400 f/5,6 L; c) Canon EF 100-400L IS USM;

And here I can’t decide. I’m strongly attracted from the 300 f/2,8 + EF 2x so I’ll have a 600 f/5,6 whit an acceptaple optical quality and a superb 300 f/2,8 but lack the IS; Or I can buy the Canon EF 100-400L IS USM, a little blind but a zoom usefull and IS and with a minimum focus distance of 1,8m!!!!! I’d like shot shy egrets, kingfishers, sparrows, and other small and big bird, I’d like also to shot big and small mammals like, deers, rabbit ......... . I know, also with a 600mm I have to stay as close as possible to the animals, but what’s your opinion about the 300 f/2,8 plus the 2x teleconverter on the Eos 1n? Can this combination help me to realizze my dream?

Thanks a lot.

Emanuele, Italy

-- Emanuele (manu_puma@libero.it), January 21, 2002

Answers

Disclaimer: I don't have any of this equipment, and I'm not a serious nature shooter. So I'm guessing here.

If I had the budget for an EOS 1N plus one of a, b, or c, I'd go with a - the 300/2.8L USM plus the 2x TC. Without the teleconverter, it's the sharpest and the fastest, and for the stuff you're planning on shooting, I don't think you'll need to go much shorter than 300mm anyway. So you'll get superb, sharp, snappy pictures with beautifully blurry backgrounds, and since it's so fast, you'll be able to shoot in lower light and/or use slower film. With the teleconverter, it's probably in the same league for sharpness as the others are, and it's the same speed, but it's longer, and I think you'll find some of your subjects will need more than 400mm.

Me, I don't have the budget for that kind of equipment, and I like the convenience of a zoom, and I love IS. So when replacing my consumer-grade telephoto zoom gets to the top of the priority list (probably later this year), I'll be getting the 100-400. But like I said off the top, I don't shoot the same stuff as you.

If you live near a big city, see if there are any stores that rent equipment. I know of a place here in Toronto, Canada, that rents the 300/2.8, the 2x TC, and the 1N, so if I were in your shoes, I could spend a little money on a rental and find out exactly how the combination performs. Maybe you'll be lucky and find somewhere that rents equipment, too.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), January 21, 2002.

When you can buy option a, option b would seem foolish. Get the brilliant Canon 1.4X TC as well as the 2X, and that will give you the option of 420mm F4. Of course, b would be much better for hand- holding, as the F2.8 lens is heavy.

I would guess that, as an MF shooter, you're very used to using tripods, so use a decent tripod, and the 300 F2.8 with whichever TC, and you should be happy.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

No question about it the 300mm f2.8! Incredible lens plus is compatable with old technology higher speed film. {ha ha} Seriously If given the chance any one of us {in most cases} would want the best quality optic. Normally it is hard for one to get the more expensive lenses so we settle. In your case if you go with the better lens you can always supplement it {if needed} or sell it to one of us.

Hope this helps

-- john (mr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), January 22, 2002.

The 300 f/2.8L IS with 1.4x and 2x Canon EF extenders is the way to go for wildlife. The ONLY shortcomings of this is the size and weight of the lens and the initial cost of the equipment. With 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 & 600 f/5.6, you can do well with most medium size and larger mammels.

Birds, however, are different. I use option b)--400mm f/5.6L with a Canon EF 1.4x for 560mm. It's too short for most songbirds. Your set up with the 300+2x is only 40mm longer--still on the short side. Most serious bird photographers use 500 f/4 and 600 f/4 lenses with extenders and sometimes stack extenders for small birds. There is no substitute for focal length.

I would still choose the 300+ extenders and stack them if necessary for small birds. There's only one thing worse than a slightly soft photo--NO photo.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 22, 2002.

Oh my gosh, if you can afford the first option, why even consider the other ones? Another option for the type of stuff you're shooting is the 500 4.5L, since it has about the same light gathering power. If you're always shooting on the long end anyway, the quality of a lens alone is better than adding teleconverters to reach the same focal length.

-- Ming Kuo (mtkuo@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Hi Emanuele!

I own Eos 1n, 2.8/300L, 1.4TC and 2.0TC. I can tell you that this combination works very well and you will get fantastic results even with the 2.0TC. ´The lens is very sharp and very neutral in color. I only replaced my Version I 2.0TC with the new Version II because of better optical performance. I've shot a lot of wildlife (e.g. birds) in the Alps in Austria (not to far away from you). From my experience when shooting flying birds IS helps nothing and you have to switch it off (I have IS on my 4/300L IS lens). So don't worry about buying the non IS version. Take a monopod always with you, this is very heavy equipment.

-- Martin (uboot67@yahoo.com), January 26, 2002.