Think I'm ditching the zoom. Does anyone go out in the woods with a 500pf and 300pf?

[joe43]

I have used 300mm f4 and 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 lenses as macro lenses with extension tubes. All such shots have been taken on tripods that are very stable with a top of the line ball head or gimbal head. I have done this with DSLRs and film cameras. Many of the subjects were nature related: dragon flies; frogs, snakes; large spiders etc.

 

[EricBowles]

Will that be impossible whereas with the 300pf it would be more of a possible shot?
And is a 300pf macro shot going to be sharper and more inspiring than one from a 500pf + 1.4 TC?

You can use teleconverters with the 300mm lens options as well. I find for close subjects, a long lens can require you to back up too far to be comfortable. With a minimum focus distance of 10 feet, you would need to be thoughtful about finding a place to stand and composing the desired background. With half that distance it becomes pretty easy. For example, a recent photo I made of a butterfly on a flower with blue sky in the background worked with 300mm and simply going to one knee. The same angle might not have been possible at a 10 foot distance.

It's easy to try the TC on the 500mm PF and see what you think. These F-mount lenses are very cost effective and work well if the base lens is good.

 

[EricBowles]

One more thing in response to your other question. It's very hard to hold a highly magnified scene at or near macro distances. Close ups - the range we were talking about initially - is very reasonable. But at macro magnification the entire frame is less than 1.5 inches across so a movement of 0.5mm would show obvious blur and be a discard. With IBIS, you can remove a lot of concern about movement, but it still requires very good technique.