300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens?

[Gaz Shilton]

I have been fighting 2 demons over the last 12 months or so.
Which prime to get, 500 or 600.
I have had many responses to a previous thread on this matter with mixed results, all helpful.
However having just spent a week walking around Spurn (quite warm at times) I am starting to re-think my photographic lens requirements.
Lugging a 500 plus tripod and all the rest, in the heat, seems a bit too much, for me.

Would I be better off with the 300 f2.8 hanging off my shoulder, ready to take a shot at a moments notice?

An example of this: I walked past a bush and out pops a Lesser Whitethroat.
With a 500 on a tripod I would have to set it down etc, re-position the camera/lens then try and get the shot, whereas with the shorter/lighter 300 I could swing it round off my shoulder and get into position a lot faster and having a better chance of getting such a good shot close up.

Would the 300 f2.8 with 1.4x converter attached be a better option as I do like to walk/bird and photograph as I go.
A 500 lens over my shoulder on a tripod walking around for a few hours would make it that bit more difficult to do this IMO.

I know there are other lens options out there, but, I really like the 300 f2.8

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

[Neil]

Use a monopod . I use one with my 500/4 90% of the time. I have it extended so that it's about 1 ft off the ground when over my shoulder. I bend my knees slightly and then it's easy to stand it up and swing the lens around onto the subject. One thing I have noticed with the 500/4 that many birds are spooked when the large "eye" swings around on them. I rarely get the same reaction when digiscoping or using a 300/4. Neil.

[rioja]

I have a 300mmf2.8 and a 500mmf4. If one had to go it would be the latter.
What the 300 lacks in reach can be compensated in flexibility. The 500 is hand holdable, but not for long ( well, not by me anyway). I'm struggling with BIF with the 500, the 300is superb. You'll always want more reach if you get the 300mm, but you will if you get the 500 too....and the 600 no doubt !

Then there's the cost.
The 300mm is a lot,lot cheaper.

More portable


and better in poor light.

[GYRob]

Mono pod here too easy to carry over the sholder and always ready for the grab shots with my 500f4isL
Rob.

[Overread]

I know several wildlife/bird photographers who use a 300mm f2.8 with and without teleconverters as well as other longer lenses (500mm, 60mm ones) and they generally all say that the 300mm is the walkaround lens. Sure the longer lenses can work as walkaround and with a monopod are not that impossible to use, but the thing is they are far heavier - and if your trekking around that weight gets to be quite a lot by the end of the day.
The 300mm f2.8 is no light lens itself, but compartivly its a lot lighter than the others and it takes telconverters well giving an excelent 300mm, a very good 400mm and a decent 600mm. Its a cheaper and lighter setup - ok so you have to change parts to get those extra lengths true, but chances are you will stick to one setup for most of the time.

[Highcountry]

Might want to consider the 400mm f4 DO lens as well. It is about 1.3 lbs lighter than the 300mm f2.8 and gives you add'l 100mm over the 300mm and I understand takes the 1.4x well.

[hollis_f]

When I wanted a new lens to augment/replace my 100-400 I knew that the 500 was not an option. Just like Gaz, I prefer to be able to take shots at a moment's notice and I prefer to shoot handheld. Also, there are many places I go to where a scope is essential and there's no way I could carry that along with a 500 plus tripod plus gimbal.

So I went for the 300 2.8 and have never regretted it. The scope and tripod are in a Mulepack on my back and the 300 (normally with a 1.4x) on a long strap over my shoulder where I can easily whip it round and be shooting within a second or two. If I do need a tripod then I can remove the Mulepack, swap scope and camera and hope that the bird is still there.

[Gaz Shilton]

When I wanted a new lens to augment/replace my 100-400 I knew that the 500 was not an option. Just like Gaz, I prefer to be able to take shots at a moment's notice and I prefer to shoot handheld. Also, there are many places I go to where a scope is essential and there's no way I could carry that along with a 500 plus tripod plus gimbal.

So I went for the 300 2.8 and have never regretted it. The scope and tripod are in a Mulepack on my back and the 300 (normally with a 1.4x) on a long strap over my shoulder where I can easily whip it round and be shooting within a second or two. If I do need a tripod then I can remove the Mulepack, swap scope and camera and hope that the bird is still there.

That's exactly what I do.
Bino's, scope + tripod, camera over my shoulder (anticipating the shot).
To carry all of these and a 500 for a day out in the field seems nigh on impossible.
Using the 300 in a hide off a bean bag with a 1.4x or a 2x seems like a better option (to me at least).

Not to mention it will cost a LOT less. (which would please the wife no end).

Thanks hollis_f

[Jaff]

Sounds to me like you've made your decision Gaz. I'm sure you and you're new lens will be very happy together. :t:

[Sandpiper]

Gaz,

Being the proud owner of a 300 2.8 I would say without hesitation, go for it. It is a very versatile lens and takes both 1.4x or 2x TC's well. I have also achieved perfectly acceptable shots with stacked TC's too.

Mike

[farmdogfan]

Gaz,

Being the proud owner of a 300 2.8 I would say without hesitation, go for it. It is a very versatile lens and takes both 1.4x or 2x TC's well. I have also achieved perfectly acceptable shots with stacked TC's too.

Mike
+1
regards per

[goodallian]

Hi Gaz,
I have been very fortunate over the last three years to have owned the 100-400, 300F4 IS, 400F5.6, and 300F2.8. I'm in agreement with most of the Forum but even though the latter is a cracking lens and very portable, I realised after a while that "reach" was probably the most important factor in my decision to sell it in the end, in order to get the 500F4. I am sure that sometime in the future you will have the same issue to face.
I had to budget for a sturdier tripod and Gimbal head but after several months I got used to the extra weight. I have kept the 400F5.6 for BIFs mainly and for the occasions when I knew there would be a long hike. There can be no argument with both these lenses producing stunning images and I have no regrets (except the big increase in price) in choosing the 500 even though I was sad to see the 300 F2.8 go.

Good luck with your choice,
Ian

[Nikon Kid]

I think the 300mm 2.8 could be my next lens of cause when I win some money from somewhere.
I noticed in the thread that most have there lens/camera 400/50d on there shoulder, I have mine
over my neck sitting in front of me ready for action and my bins are over my shoulder and my mini trekker on my back.

[hollis_f]

I noticed in the thread that most have there lens/camera 400/50d on there shoulder, I have mine
over my neck sitting in front of me ready for action and my bins are over my shoulder and my mini trekker on my back.

I have my bins around my neck (because that's where my hands instinctively go - even if I'm not wearing them) and my camera with 300 f2.8 on my shoulder. The Canon strap that comes with the lens is long enough so that even a large person like me can easily carry the setup over the shoulder and bring the camera up to my eye without having to remove the strap from my shoulder.

While I'm walking along I hold onto the tripod foot with my left hand behind my back. This stops the camera from swinging about and also stops the strap from falling off my right shoulder.

[tjsimonsen]

I have my bins around my neck (because that's where my hands instinctively go - even if I'm not wearing them)

Man, do I know that feeling :-O
I carry my camera (40D+100-400) over the shoulder and stick the tripod attachment in my belt. That eases the strain on the lens mount and the camera strap.

Frank have you tried a 2xTC on the 300/2.8? If so, how does it compare to the 100-400 with respect to QI and AF? I too am considering to add this lens to my holdings.

Thomas

[temmie]

Why on earth should you want a 300mm 2.8 for some instant shots.
IMHO, either you want a big lens (500mm and more), take your time, learn the behaviour of a bird, and get that perfect shot.
Or you want a portable lens, so get a 300mm F4 and take those (more than fine and very satisfying) record shots. But for just a bird that pops out, 300mm F2.8 is a lot of money and weight!

300mm F2.8 is nearly as heavy as 500mm, it's a brilliant lens to use with a 1.4 and even 2x converter, perfect for stunning flight pictures, but not a walkaround lens (unless you are kind of walking around your car).
I would definitely go for 500mm with monopod, and 300mm F4 for the longer walks.

[stevo]

Heres my two pennies worth a friend of mine has the 300mm f2.8 & although flexible in that you can add convertors the 1.4x being the best I found it heavy to use.Now someone else I know has just bought the f4 400mm DO & that felt much lighter & easier to use plus put a 1.4x tc on you still have AF & over 500mm of lens to use.

Steve.

[MarkEvan]

Got to say I agree with Temmie, why lug the 300 2.8 around if you think the 500 is too heavy......there isn`t that much difference in the long run. A better walk about lens would be the 300 f4 or even the 400 5.6 if you wanted the extra reach (though the lack of IS concerns some unless you are shooting in poor light you should be able to keep the shutter speed up)....much better for your neck and arms.......also bear in mind that any quick movements are likely to scare the birds anyway.

[Nikon Kid]

Heres my two pennies worth a friend of mine has the 300mm f2.8 & although flexible in that you can add convertors the 1.4x being the best I found it heavy to use.Now someone else I know has just bought the f4 400mm DO & that felt much lighter & easier to use plus put a 1.4x tc on you still have AF & over 500mm of lens to use.

Steve.

That sounds like a good option, 400mm f4 + 1.4 still got IS and AF at 560mm. What do you end up with f5.6, f7.1 or f8 and how fast is the AF with the 1.4

[hollis_f]

Got to say I agree with Temmie, why lug the 300 2.8 around if you think the 500 is too heavy......there isn`t that much difference in the long run. A better walk about lens would be the 300 f4 or even the 400 5.6 if you wanted the extra reach (though the lack of IS concerns some unless you are shooting in poor light you should be able to keep the shutter speed up)....much better for your neck and arms.......also bear in mind that any quick movements are likely to scare the birds anyway.

The 500mm is a full 50% heavier than the 300 f2.8 (3.87 kg vs 2.55 kg). When you add in the weight of a decent tripod (1.5 kg) and a gimbal head (1.5 kg) then you're looking at 2.7 times the weight. That's a lot of difference.

For me the 300 f2.8 is just about the maximum I can comfortably carry around all day. Yes, a 300 f4 would be lighter. But the 2.8 is a better quality (especially with a 1.4x converter).

The 400 f5.6 is also lighter. but there's no IS.

The 2.8 also has the advantage of being one stop faster than the 300 f4 or (with the 1.4x on the f2.8) than the 400. It can also take the 2x converter to get 600 mm and still AF on my camera.

Yes, I agree that it's not as good as the 500mm. But I've been out with a friend that uses a 500mm a lot and I know I couldn't carry it all day. Indeed, she's now so envious of my 300 2.8 and how easy it is to use that she's bought one for herself. Now she plans to use the 500 only when we're doing stuff close to where we can park.

So I'm not saying that the 300 f2.8 is the ideal birding lens for everybody, but it is the ideal lens for me when I'm out and about.

[mike nesbitt]

Gaz,
I would go for 300 f 2.8.
I've owned both the 300 f4 and the 400 f 5.6. Good as they are, they are simply not in the same league as the 300 f 2.8. I have no experience of the 400 f4 DO though.
I don't have a problem carrying the 300 2.8, I can manage it quite easily on an all day yomp. I recently used it with the 2X convertor (all handheld) and can honestly recommend it big style.
See: www.pbase.com/mikenimages
Algarve section for examples of the lens' "walkabout" capabilities.
Good luck, Mike.

[miketoll]

That sounds like a good option, 400mm f4 + 1.4 still got IS and AF at 560mm. What do you end up with f5.6, f7.1 or f8 and how fast is the AF with the 1.4

400 DO plus 1.4 converter is f5.6 which focuses very quickly. Expensive though which is why I got mine second hand.

[Roy C]

I have been following this thread with interest as I to have been looking for more reach for some time now. The 500/4 is definitely out for me because of the weight/bulk factor (I tend to walk miles and get my shots as and when an opportunity arises).
At the moment I am using a 400/5.6, very often with a 1.4tc but to get quality shots with this combo I have to use a good quality tripod/gimbal head and also need good light. I keep coming back to the 300/2.8 but to gain any reach advantage I would have to use it with a 2x tc most of the time and it just does not seem right to have to use a tc all the time - I keep on reading that if you have to use a tc then you have the wrong lens.
Mike has some nice shots there with the 300/2.8 and 2xtc which looks about on par with the 400/5.6 and 1.4tc IQ wise but of course you have good AF, handhold ability and a full stop advantage with the 300 - is this worth £2.5k extra. decisions - decisions!!|!|

[john-henry]

Roy, I've been thinking along the same lines as you for ages. Agree it is difficult to come to a decision but the weight, ease of use with TC's, having IS and price comparisons with other alternatives is gradually swaying me to take the plunge.

I'm also considering I might not need my 400 5.6 as the 300 + 1.4TC could take its place, IQ wise it seems a possibility. It's coming down to just how good a quality can be obtained with the 2xTC, I've seen some good shots but also quite a few not quite so good.
Whoever said "if you have to use a TC then you have the wrong lens" was obviously wealthy enough to buy any lens they wanted, unlike most of us!

Best price I've found so far is from Ace Cameras, if you've found anything better I'd be pleased to hear about it, providing the've more than one in stock of course :-O

Regards

John

[Nikon Kid]

So Roy you are not tempted to go 400 DO +1.4

[Nikon Kid]

Onestop Digital has the 300 f2.8 for £3105 they will price match and pay any import duty, just bought a kenko 2x for
my Sigma 150 Macro from them seamless transaction, they do have a good name, As far as I can see goggle them they look OK.......

[Roy C]

So Roy you are not tempted to go 400 DO +1.4
Yes, I am tempted Terry but reviews seem to vary and you are paying a big premium for the DO technology. Having said that I have seen some very nice shots on BF taken with this lens.
I do not think that a 300/2.8 + 2x or 400 DO + 1.4 will be a lot better than the 400/5.6 + 1.4 from an IQ point of view so for me it is just figuring out if IS and a stop of light is worth the big bucks.
I am a little concerned about carrying the 300/2.8 for long periods as it is double the weight of my current lens and still as heavy as the 400/5.6 plus tripod and gimbal head. Weight wise the 400 DO wins it of course.

Another option I have been looking at is getting a 1D3 which would give me AF at f8 on the centre point with my current set-up.

Then again the more you read the more you come back to the 500/4 8-P

I have had the cash burning a hole in my pocket for some time now but just cannot decide and it is driving me nuts :-O

[Gaz Shilton]

Gaz,
I would go for 300 f 2.8.
I've owned both the 300 f4 and the 400 f 5.6. Good as they are, they are simply not in the same league as the 300 f 2.8. I have no experience of the 400 f4 DO though.
I don't have a problem carrying the 300 2.8, I can manage it quite easily on an all day yomp. I recently used it with the 2X convertor (all handheld) and can honestly recommend it big style.
See: www.pbase.com/mikenimages
Algarve section for examples of the lens' "walkabout" capabilities.
Good luck, Mike.

Mike,
Fantastic images.
The 300 f2.8 is at the top of my list so far.
Price wise, compared to the 500 f4 and the 400 DO, it's nearly a 2K saving.
Plus, I am not getting any younger.
Do I want to carry around the weight of a big lens and all that goes with it later on in life?
Sure, the 300 f2.8 is no light weight, but, it's a compromise worth thinking about I reckon.

[paul goode]

Another option I have been looking at is getting a 1D3 which would give me AF at f8 on the centre point with my current set-up.



Roy, If you go down that route and want a s/h 1d mkIII pm me ;)

[Nikon Kid]

Another option I have been looking at is getting a 1D3 which would give me AF at f8 on the centre point with my current set-up.



Now I did not know that, thats a option which is a expensive one, but still only 10mil pix and and the screen
is only 250000 pix. Maybe worth waiting for the spec on the new 60d/7d maybe they will give AF at f8 with t/c ?

[hollis_f]

Maybe worth waiting for the spec on the new 60d/7d maybe they will give AF at f8 with t/c ?

Doubt it enormously. AF at f8 is one of the main things that separate the 1D series from the xxD series. Adding it to the cheaper range might hit sales of the expensive stuff.

You could do what I'm doing - waiting for the 1D MkIV.

[MarkEvan]

The 500mm is a full 50% heavier than the 300 f2.8 (3.87 kg vs 2.55 kg). When you add in the weight of a decent tripod (1.5 kg) and a gimbal head (1.5 kg) then you're looking at 2.7 times the weight. That's a lot of difference.

For me the 300 f2.8 is just about the maximum I can comfortably carry around all day. Yes, a 300 f4 would be lighter. But the 2.8 is a better quality (especially with a 1.4x converter).

Fair enough (what I meant by 'in the long run' was that at the end of a hard days work with that lens your arms are still likely to ache) but if you can carry that then go for it.

The 400 f5.6 is also lighter. but there's no IS.

The 2.8 also has the advantage of being one stop faster than the 300 f4 or (with the 1.4x on the f2.8) than the 400. It can also take the 2x converter to get 600 mm and still AF on my camera.

Yes, I agree that it's not as good as the 500mm. But I've been out with a friend that uses a 500mm a lot and I know I couldn't carry it all day. Indeed, she's now so envious of my 300 2.8 and how easy it is to use that she's bought one for herself. Now she plans to use the 500 only when we're doing stuff close to where we can park.

So I'm not saying that the 300 f2.8 is the ideal birding lens for everybody, but it is the ideal lens for me when I'm out and about.


I'm not saying the 300 2.8 is a bad birding lens I believe its a bloody good one but in my mind its heavy enough to fall into the catagory of 'only to be used when the place you are going aint far from the car'....as your friend put it. Still that said if you can use it through the day then I say go for it, I was just trying to provide a few lighter alternatives ;) (actually that smiley looks like its got a nervouse twitch )

[Helios]

Gaz,

You'll have your reasons for moving to Canon, but I think it's worth mentioning that if you stay with Nikon you'll get one more option for this lens with the 1.7 teleconverter.

[Gaz Shilton]

Gaz,

You'll have your reasons for moving to Canon, but I think it's worth mentioning that if you stay with Nikon you'll get one more option for this lens with the 1.7 teleconverter.

So would my D200 with the Nikon 300 f2.8 and the 1.7x converter be as good as the Canon 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x on, say, the 40D?

[Stephen Fletcher]

I have been following peoples comments for a while now, and am a bit perplexed, for a few reasons.
1. It depends what body you are going to use on a 300/2.8, a 1 series for example will make the whole caboodle about the same weight as a 500/f4 with a 50D.
2. Why do people feel it ok to use a 300/2.8 with a 1.4 or 2x converter without support but say that a 500/f4 needs a tripod ? A 500/f4 is perfectly capable of being used handheld, it just takes practise.
3. I carry my 500/f4 on the lens strap, over my shoulder, walking up to 10km everyday with it like this, and have no problems at all, even with a Zeiss 85 and tripod on my back in a Scopac, and converters in my pockets.
4. The Northwest guys will know a famous photographer there who carries a 500 on one shoulder and a 600 on the other, actually thats not right, as he now has an 800 too, so probably carries the 800 and 600 now.

[rioja]

So would my D200 with the Nikon 300 f2.8 and the 1.7x converter be as good as the Canon 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x on, say, the 40D?
Didn't realise you had a D200. I would imagine that the 1.7TC wont be as sharp as the 1.4/40D combo but would be sharper and give better AF than the 2.0xTC on either model.
I have some photo's on my gallery you can take a look at to give you an idea of what a novice can achieve with this lens.

[Nikon Kid]

I have been following peoples comments for a while now, and am a bit perplexed, for a few reasons.
1. It depends what body you are going to use on a 300/2.8, a 1 series for example will make the whole caboodle about the same weight as a 500/f4 with a 50D.
2. Why do people feel it ok to use a 300/2.8 with a 1.4 or 2x converter without support but say that a 500/f4 needs a tripod ? A 500/f4 is perfectly capable of being used handheld, it just takes practise.
3. I carry my 500/f4 on the lens strap, over my shoulder, walking up to 10km everyday with it like this, and have no problems at all, even with a Zeiss 85 and tripod on my back in a Scopac, and converters in my pockets.
4. The Northwest guys will know a famous photographer there who carries a 500 on one shoulder and a 600 on the other, actually thats not right, as he now has an 800 too, so probably carries the 800 and 600 now.

Funny thing, I meet a guy who was called the Wolfman, had Red Indian background a pro I think, he had a 800 600 and 500 and wheel barrow that he wheeled up lax hill over to the hides on Rutland Water looking to take pics of the ospreys, he was keen ...................

[Overread]

he was rich - once ;)
honestly though do you see enough difference betwen 500mm and 600mm to really warrent carrying both lenses to a hide? It just seems a lot of weight for little real gain.

[Stephen Fletcher]

he was rich - once ;)
honestly though do you see enough difference betwen 500mm and 600mm to really warrent carrying both lenses to a hide? It just seems a lot of weight for little real gain.

It depends what body you use on them. He uses a 1D in the 500 for flight shots, and a 50D with 1.4 0n the 600 ( now 800 probably ) for birds perched or in water, makes sense to me. If you ever get to see any of his photos im sure you will agree as to his methodology.

[Overread]

ahh camera body differences make sense yes and will certainly give a difference to the captured image.

[mike nesbitt]

Gaz.
I didn't know you were a Nikon guy already
If I had a Nikon D200, I would not change to a Canon 40D (not that there's much wrong with it)
Just buy the Nikon 300 f2.8 and you have a set up that is just as good, maybe marginally better. I believe the Nikon lens is cheaper too.
Mike.

[Keith Reeder]

With all due respect the the Nikon guys, the D200 isn't in the same league as a 40D (I went from D200 to 30D to 40D, and it's night and day).

Gaz, the Canon 300mm f/2.8 is on my radar for the same purposes as you describe.

I asked Nigel Blake to take some pictures with his 300mm f/2.8 and a 2x: he sent me a full res Coal Tit head shot (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelblake/3386359491/) (this is the crunched-down Flickr version) that was spectacularly sharp and detailed - more than enough to persuade me that this lens, and 1.4x and 2x TCs, is the way to go for me.

You too, by the sound of it.

[john-henry]

Onestop Digital has the 300 f2.8 for £3105 they will price match and pay any import duty, just bought a kenko 2x for
my Sigma 150 Macro from them seamless transaction, they do have a good name, As far as I can see goggle them they look OK.......

Thanks for that Terry,

I'll check it out.

The only thing that concerns me with buying from HK is if you get an international guarantee with it.

Regards

John

[Highcountry]

Gaz.
Just buy the Nikon 300 f2.8 and you have a set up that is just as good, maybe marginally better. I believe the Nikon lens is cheaper too.
Mike.

Mike, here in the US, B&H sells the Nikon 300mm f2.8 for $5300 USD and the Canon version for $4100 USD which is one of the main reasons that I switched from Nikon to Canon.

[Jim Lundberg]

Mike,
Fantastic images.
The 300 f2.8 is at the top of my list so far.
Price wise, compared to the 500 f4 and the 400 DO, it's nearly a 2K saving.
Plus, I am not getting any younger.
Do I want to carry around the weight of a big lens and all that goes with it later on in life?
Sure, the 300 f2.8 is no light weight, but, it's a compromise worth thinking about I reckon.

I own the 300f2.8. I mount it on a monopod/ballhead. I have a pad attached just below the ballhead that rests on my shoulder with the lens cocked back over my shoulder like an open shotgun. It is a comfortable setup and easy to swing off and set up for quick shots. I swap shoulders now and again and have hiked for 6 hours like this.
I use the bare lens when proximity allows such as in my backyard blind. The bare lens in good light allows flexibility with the settings.
I use the 1.4x walking around in the woods. The 2x convertor slows the autofocus somewhat except in good light. My brother owns the 300f4. Our recent birding adventure, my brother expressed frustration with focus speed of his f4. He used my f2.8 and was impressed with its autofocus speed even with the 2x attached. I have grown accustomed and expect quick focus from the 2.8.
There are times I want more reach than the 300/2x convertor offers.

Regards, Jim

[rioja]

With all due respect the the Nikon guys, the D200 isn't in the same league as a 40D (I went from D200 to 30D to 40D, and it's night and day).
.

But if budget is part of the equation then not having to buy a new body is a big saving. If he has the money for a body as well I would invest in a D300 before a 40 or 50D which is not only a superb body it saves other lenses that might also need replacing ?
I understand that anyone who has committed themselves to Canon equipment might think that it is the best route but in the last couple of years Nikon can more than match when it comes to top end equipment. OK, as yet Nikon don't have the middle of the range 400 f5.6 but once you start looking at 300mm f2.8's you have moved into a new league of prices and options. From here on you are probably only looking at 4,5 and 600mm f2.8-f4 lenses ( OK you might even consider a 800mm but that is very very specialised) so really there is little to choose between the two manufacturers other than current prices, the equipment you already own that might need replacing and your appraisal of which company will prove the better in the long term and as for the latter, it's any one's guess.
PS To stick with the original thread, the 300f2.8 is a brilliant walkabout lens. It's very aircraft friendly too for foreign travel.When you first pick one up it seems pretty huge but very soon it shrinks and replying to the usual comments which are either "how much does it magnify" or "you've got a big one" become tedious !

[postcardcv]

Now I did not know that, thats a option which is a expensive one, but still only 10mil pix and and the screen
is only 250000 pix. Maybe worth waiting for the spec on the new 60d/7d maybe they will give AF at f8 with t/c ?

Surely 10mp is enough for almost anything you'd want to use it for, I've just got some big prints done of shots taken with my 10mp 40D and they look spot on. As for the res of the LCD, I don't see why this is an issue at all as you be looking through the viewfinder most of the time.

[tjsimonsen]

Surely 10mp is enough for almost anything you'd want to use it for, I've just got some big prints done of shots taken with my 10mp 40D and they look spot on. As for the res of the LCD, I don't see why this is an issue at all as you be looking through the viewfinder most of the time.

Agree 100% with that.
And thanks for the link to Nigel's picture, Kieth. That answers my question. The reasons I am looking at the 300/2.8 as an alternative to the 500/4 is not that I consider the 300+2xtc to be easier to hand hold or carry around. But that the former setup is way more flexible: a formidable 300/2.8, a great 420/4, and a very good 600/5.6 all in one go. The super fast 300 and fast 420 options are quite important as I sometimes find myself in situations where speed is more important than reach. Also, the setup is cheaper than the 500/4 and especially the 600/4 (this is important to an amateur like me), and it is probably considerably easier to travel with (on planes) than either of the longer monsters.

Thomas

[Nikon Kid]

Surely 10mp is enough for almost anything you'd want to use it for, I've just got some big prints done of shots taken with my 10mp 40D and they look spot on. As for the res of the LCD, I don't see why this is an issue at all as you be looking through the viewfinder most of the time.

I did not think it was much of a issue, till I got the 50d and that almost 1,000,000 pix make a difference in checking your shots, well it does for me.

At the Franes to-day was talking to alot of guys with the big 500 f4 and I must say alot of them were also singing the praise of the 300 f2.8, when mentioning this lens.....

[Gaz Shilton]

Didn't realise you had a D200. I would imagine that the 1.7TC wont be as sharp as the 1.4/40D combo but would be sharper and give better AF than the 2.0xTC on either model.
I have some photo's on my gallery you can take a look at to give you an idea of what a novice can achieve with this lens.

Looking on Warehouse Express as a reference point and came up with this:

Nikon
D300
300 f2.8
1.7x converter
£5355.98

Canon
40D
300 f2.8
1.4x
2x
£4966.96

So, budget wise, to me, this is still a no-brainer.....Canon it is. And all that for less than the price of a 500 f4. Gotta be worth doing some serious thinking don't you reckon?

[Claymore]

Looking on Warehouse Express as a reference point and came up with this:

Nikon
D300
300 f2.8
1.7x converter
£5355.98

Canon
40D
300 f2.8
1.4x
2x
£4966.96

So, budget wise, to me, this is still a no-brainer.....Canon it is. And all that for less than the price of a 500 f4. Gotta be worth doing some serious thinking don't you reckon?
Canon set-up certainly looks a good deal to me but i'd always use a carbon monopod with it, not much more weight but does save your arms from aching.
Brian

[rioja]

Looking on Warehouse Express as a reference point and came up with this:

Nikon
D300
300 f2.8
1.7x converter
£5355.98

Canon
40D
300 f2.8
1.4x
2x
£4966.96

So, budget wise, to me, this is still a no-brainer.....Canon it is. And all that for less than the price of a 500 f4. Gotta be worth doing some serious thinking don't you reckon?

But if you already have a D200 shouldn't it read under £4500 with TWO Nikon TC's.
The D200 is equal to the 40D so why would you swop ?

[Helios]

The 40D is a more recent camera, and so has a larger display with more resolution, a faster processor, better buffer, better noise control, etc.

However, it does have the dreaded scene selection dial.

I have the Nikon D300 and an old D80, and to be honest, for image quality I can't tell the difference between them on the 150K image files I post on BF.

[GlynH]

the 40d is more on a par with the d200 than the d300 so the price comparison is not a fair one. You would need to compare the 50d with the d300 to have an equal playing field. The 50d has a faster fps, higher iso ratings,and a better processor allowing for in camera sharpening of the images, not a feature the 40d posseses.

[AC/DC]

The 50d has a faster fps, higher iso ratings,and a better processor allowing for in camera sharpening of the images, not a feature the 40d posseses.
Are you comparing that to the 40D? The 40D actually has a faster fps rate, and higher iso ratings mean nothing if the camera cannot handle them. Moreover, the 40d will allow in camera sharpening - even the basic processor in my 400d can do that. Even so, it's far better to do sharpening on the computer IMO.

[GlynH]

I personally use Nikon and can only go by what mates who use canon tell me.
So is the 40d a better camera than the 50d? seems strange that canon would take a step backwards in their developments and charge more for it. Mates who have the 40d do a batch sharpening on their pics but mates who have the 50d dont. Is there a feature in the 40d that needs switching on to allow in camera sharpening,
im not playing devils advocate here or trying to start a mines better than yours discussion. Just trying to point out the 50d may be better than the 40d if compared against a d300, in terms of price and features.

[AC/DC]

I personally use Nikon and can only go by what mates who use canon tell me.
So is the 40d a better camera than the 50d?

The jury's still out on this one, and as I'm sure you are aware, ISO range, fps and in camera sharpening are nowhere near enough factors to judge a camera on, in order to make such a decision.

The frame rate is only very slightly faster - 6.5 vs. 6.3, and I suspect they are the same in reality. Consider though that the 50D is 15mp vs the 40d's 10mp, and that the buffer and frame rate are similar or better with this increase, then it's quite a step forward - there is far more data for the 50d to deal with. Noise levels haven't gone up really either. I'm pretty sure the screen is a good improvement too, but it's just whether or not these things (+ micro adjustment I suppose) warrant the higher price tag.

As for the in camera sharpening, on the 400d I can do it by selecting my own picture style, which is applied to jpgs, but seeing as I shoot in RAW and heed no attention to picture style, it doesn't really affect me.

[GlynH]

If i was Gaz and already had a d200 then i would go Nikon again. He must have some accessories that would need changing if he went with the Canon option, so the price differential would be less when he came to include changing these also,if price is the only consideration.
Though if he went for the 50D then the price difference is only £300 between the Nikon and the Canon setup not a lot when you consider the outlay needed to buy either options.

[Neil]

The fact that this thread still has legs indicates the common issues being raised which we all wrestle with every day.
I have the Nikon 500/4 AFS, 300/2.8 AFS and the 300/4 AFS and use them all with the Nikon 1.4x tele . I use the 300/4 50% of the time ( I use a DSLR 50% of my time and digiscope the other 50% ), the 500/4 45% of the time and the 300/2.8 only 5 %.
The reason I like the 300/4 is that it's much easier to carry with one hand. This is very important in hides when you have the camera beside you while you use bins/scope. The 300/2.8 needs two hands to pick it up and you have to be much more careful when putting it down on shelf/bench ground/rock. When picking it up by the strap you run the risk of it's weight getting the best of you and smashing into something (often your knee). The quality from it is amazing though so if you can find a way to get closer to birds (feeders/water/calls/parks) then you can't beat the results. I find this difficult here in Hong Kong and most serious bird photographers here shoot with 500/600/800s ( or aspire to them )
Neil.

Hong Kong,
China.
June 2009

[Whopper]

Hi,

I'm currently going through the same nightmare of selecting the next lens.
I'm looking for a lens that is good for BIF and wildlife. During my internet research, it became clear that i'm not alone in trying to find the best option out there. The lens options that i'm considering are the Canon 500/f4, 300/f2.8 and 400/f5.6. So, today i went to my local dealer and had a chat with him. The end result is that i most likely go for the 300/f2.8 with converters.

Why?. Well, the 500 is very nice but it is heavy for walking around and it has a minimum focus distance of 4.5m. The 400/f5.6 is sharp and fast focussing, but already a f/5.6 lens and a minimum focus distance of 3.5m. This leaves the 300/f2.8 which i can use bare or with a 1.4x for BIF and for wildlife with a 2x.

But i'm not buying yet, because i'm waiting for what Canon has to offer in August/September when they normally announce new things. This could be good or bad news for me.

Hope i could help.

Regards,

Rob

[lmans66]

I have the 300 4L and would love the 2.8 but the money is a pretty big issue on this one. A difference of a few thousand. I don't shoot for National Geo so having a $4000 lens is something I have to justify as opposed to having a $1200 lens ! Something to consider

[Helios]

I'm interested on how a 300/2.8 lens would perform with say a 1.4 tele. for fast BIF like terns. I would imagine it would be very good. My current setup - 300/4afs with 1.4 tele. and D300, just isn't doing it for me. For some reason the camera just refuses to focus on a small white bird, and my hit rate is extremely low.

[lmans66]

I'm interested on how a 300/2.8 lens would perform with say a 1.4 tele. for fast BIF like terns. I would imagine it would be very good. My current setup - 300/4afs with 1.4 tele. and D300, just isn't doing it for me. For some reason the camera just refuses to focus on a small white bird, and my hit rate is extremely low.

I wonder if it is the white coloration to begin with, like black too....the lens might focus but the angle of the sun casting light has an impact on focusing? Anyone think that is true?

[stevo]

I wonder if it is the white coloration to begin with, like black too....the lens might focus but the angle of the sun casting light has an impact on focusing? Anyone think that is true?


Just a theory but as the bird is white it might be lacking contrast & as most DSLR`s work on contrast detection that could be the problem:t::t:

Steve.

[lmans66]

Would a polarization lens help in contrast? jim

[Helios]

Thanks for your comments. They make a lot of sense.

[Nikon Kid]

I have the 300 4L and would love the 2.8 but the money is a pretty big issue on this one. A difference of a few thousand. I don't shoot for National Geo so having a $4000 lens is something I have to justify as opposed to having a $1200 lens ! Something to consider

You wont have to wait long, as in August the Photo competition is giving away prizes.
The 1st is 600mm f4, 2nd is 500 f4, 3rd is 300 f2.8, hold on the wife just woke me up, of cause you also got to get into the prizes. :king:3:-)

[lmans66]

You wont have to wait long, as in August the Photo competition is giving away prizes.
The 1st is 600mm f4, 2nd is 500 f4, 3rd is 300 f2.8, hold on the wife just woke me up, of cause you also got to get into the prizes. :king:3:-)

OO la la.....worth a shot!

[Whopper]

Hi,

The end result is that i most likely go for the 300/f2.8 with converters.

Why?. Well, the 500 is very nice but it is heavy for walking around and it has a minimum focus distance of 4.5m. The 400/f5.6 is sharp and fast focussing, but already a f/5.6 lens and a minimum focus distance of 3.5m. This leaves the 300/f2.8 which i can use bare or with a 1.4x for BIF and for wildlife with a 2x.


Walking around with either, would be a pain (no pun intended) for me. I tried my friends Nikon 300/f2.8 AFS + 1.7x and 500/f4 AFI and both would be heavy to walk around with. Both these lenses are heavier than the current Canon options by about 500gr for the 300 and 700gr for the 500. Don't know if that makes a lot of difference, but i better find out before i buy.
However, what i did notice was that the 500 was easier to handhold than the 300.
So, considering this experience, i might be better of with a 400/5.6 and don't have the burden of a heavy weight on my shoulder. But i would like to give the f/2.8 a try before i decide.

Regards,

Robert

[citrinella]

The lens options that i'm considering are the Canon 500/f4, 300/f2.8 and 400/f5.6.

SNIP

But i'm not buying yet, because i'm waiting for what Canon has to offer in August/September when they normally announce new things.

What are you waiting for ? Higher prices ?

I'd be amazed if any of those three lenses are updated. The only regular moan is no IS on the 400 f5.6. To the marketing men at Canon this must be a no-brainer. The lens as it is offers a perfect option for those with thin wallets. If folk want IS, what the h... is wrong with the 400 DO ? Producing a 5.6 IS to compete with a 4 IS would be economic madness.

Mike.

[Whopper]

What are you waiting for ? Higher prices ?

I'd be amazed if any of those three lenses are updated. The only regular moan is no IS on the 400 f5.6. To the marketing men at Canon this must be a no-brainer. The lens as it is offers a perfect option for those with thin wallets. If folk want IS, what the h... is wrong with the 400 DO ? Producing a 5.6 IS to compete with a 4 IS would be economic madness.

Mike.

If a new lens mean a higher price, so be it. I'll be a happy man. I used my Minolta 300/f4 for 15 years and sold it a little bit earlier as planned, but i'm still sticking to my plan of buying after August/September. Not going to wait until PMA'10.
There are two things wrong with the 400 DO. It is a DO and very expensive. If it would have been a 400/f4L, i'll bought it already.

Regards,

Robert

[Roy C]

There are two things wrong with the 400 DO. It is a DO and very expensive. If it would have been a 400/f4L, i'll bought it already.

Regards,

Robert
Strange that the 400 DO is not designated a 'L ' as it is the only current Canon prime of 200mm and up that is not an L as far as I can see. Must be something to do with the 'DO' technology I guess.

[jdj]

Strange that the 400 DO is not designated a 'L ' as it is the only current Canon prime of 200mm and up that is not an L as far as I can see. Must be something to do with the 'DO' technology I guess.

L designation is because of the type of glass, and that glass is not used in DO lenses.

I'm not sure why Whopper considers DO to be a negative, particularly in a thread about walkabout lenses.

I suppose it will be the oft-repeated comments about lack of sharpness and contrast and bad bokeh, as demonstrated here (taken wide open): http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3305366270/

[Roy C]

L designation is because of the type of glass, and that glass is not used in DO lenses.

I'm not sure why Whopper considers DO to be a negative, particularly in a thread about walkabout lenses.

I suppose it will be the oft-repeated comments about lack of sharpness and contrast and bad bokeh, as demonstrated here (taken wide open): http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3305366270/
I agree about the DO, I have seen some great shots from it and it is mega lightweight for a 400/4 but the price seems a bit much when you consider it comes in at about the same as the 500/4 (and considerable more than the 300/2.8). At the right price I am sure the 400 DO would sell well.

[HokkaidoStu]

but the price seems a bit much when you consider it comes in at about the same as the 500/4 (and considerable more than the 300/2.8) .

In Japan (where bizarrely Canon prices are higher than in the US) the 300 F2.8 is between ¥500-550,000, the 400 F4 is just over ¥600,000 and the 500 F4 is over ¥800,000 (the Sigma 500 F4.5 is less than half the price of this).

So call it $5K for the 300, $6K for the 400 and $8K for the 500.

All of them too expensive for me I'm sorry to say.

I'd say the 400 DO would be a much better walkaround lens than the 300 F2.8. Whether it's a better lens or not is a different matter.

If I had money to spend I'd go for the 400 DO as I wouldn't want to carry a tripod round with me all the time (which you'd need with the 500 and possibly the 300 too).

[Nikon Kid]

You can put a extension tube in the 400mm f5.6 to bring down the minium focus

[Whopper]

L designation is because of the type of glass, and that glass is not used in DO lenses.

I'm not sure why Whopper considers DO to be a negative, particularly in a thread about walkabout lenses.

I suppose it will be the oft-repeated comments about lack of sharpness and contrast and bad bokeh, as demonstrated here (taken wide open): http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3305366270/

I agree that those shots look just brilliant, but why does a DO have to be even more expensive than a 300/f2.8. And yes, the bad reports from early lenses do play a roll. Yes, the 400 DO is lighter than the 300/2.8 or 500/f4, but very heavy on the wallet compared to an even lighter 400/f5.6L.

Regards,

Robert

[jdj]

Thanks Whopper

My secondhand early copy (yes, that's an early DO from the dark days of awful IQ!) was a similar cost to a 300 2.8, but that was a couple of years ago before prices went mad. I agree that all the big white lenses are terribly expensive and difficult to justify.

The DO's bokeh can be a bit crazy when a bright backlit

www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3545804758/

or reflective

www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3286733768/

busy background comes into play. The gull was against pale pebbles at midday in Madeira, so about as pronounced as it is possible to get, and the heron was against wet rocks in equatorial sun. I like it on these shots, but maybe other people would not...

John

[Whopper]

Thanks Whopper

My secondhand early copy (yes, that's an early DO from the dark days of awful IQ!) was a similar cost to a 300 2.8, but that was a couple of years ago before prices went mad. I agree that all the big white lenses are terribly expensive and difficult to justify.

The DO's bokeh can be a bit crazy when a bright backlit

www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3545804758/

or reflective

www.flickr.com/photos/jjbirder/3286733768/

busy background comes into play. The gull was against pale pebbles at midday in Madeira, so about as pronounced as it is possible to get, and the heron was against wet rocks in equatorial sun. I like it on these shots, but maybe other people would not...

John

G'day John,

Those shots are nice and very sharp, but the bokeh reminds me of a Mirror lens. But, those shots would even be hard with a normal lens.

Regards,

Robert

[Carlton]

At the start of this thread, Gaz asked if the 500mm or a 300mm lens would be easier to use if a whitethroat popped up in a nearby bush. Attached is a thumbnail of a whitethroat popping up in a nearby bramble patch, taken with a 300mm f/4 + 1.4tc. This is such a sweet combo to walk around with.
Mike

[Roy C]

I got a similar shot of Whitethroat last week with the 400/5.6 and 1.4tc, even at 560mm it is a heavy crop but the lens lets you crop heavy (even 100%) and still get good IQ for web use.

[Gaz Shilton]

These lenses take cracking shots.
The reason I am thinking the 300 f2.8 is, in the UK, we don't get bright sunny days every day of the week.
I was just thinking of the good old British low light weather conditions.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree with this lens.....or just barking?

Nice Whitethroats Gents

[AC/DC]

I got a similar shot of Whitethroat last week with the 400/5.6 and 1.4tc, even at 560mm it is a heavy crop but the lens lets you crop heavy (even 100%) and still get good IQ for web use.
That's a nice shot Roy, fab little birds.

[a.dancy]

These lenses take cracking shots.
The reason I am thinking the 300 f2.8 is, in the UK, we don't get bright sunny days every day of the week.
I was just thinking of the good old British low light weather conditions.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree with this lens.....or just barking?

Nice Whitethroats Gents


You not barking mad. In fact your suggestion demonstrates practical thinking.

[Neil]

These lenses take cracking shots.
The reason I am thinking the 300 f2.8 is, in the UK, we don't get bright sunny days every day of the week.
I was just thinking of the good old British low light weather conditions.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree with this lens.....or just barking?

Nice Whitethroats Gents

You don't have to worry too much about the light conditions when choosing a lens these days as the modern DSLR cameras are very good at shooting at high iso without Noise. All should be good at iso 400, some at iso 800 and a few even at iso 1600 ( eg Nikon D3).
The speed of the lens does play a part in bird flight photography though. If you want to photograph ducks in flight then the faster the lens the better. But you'll find that most of the time you'll have a 1.4x tele on so you'll be at least at f4. The only time I use a straight 300 mm lens is for egrets and herons. The closer you get to a bird the faster they move , so longer is better.
Neil.

[Carlton]

This is kind of tangential to the thread but is it possible that a 'faster' lens, i.e. one with a greater maximum aperture, isn't always the best choice?

A 'faster' lens, e.g f/2.8 rather than f/4, is inevitably bigger, heavier and more expensive and with the aperture fully open will have a shallower depth of field than the 'slower' lens. Image quality, particularly of moving subjects, might then depend on how light, mobile and stable the lens is when used in the hand and on how much of the subject is in focus across the field of view.
I'd be interested in people's views, particularly with regard to depth of field. I'm here to learn, not just have my prejudices confirmed.

Mike

[Whopper]

This is kind of tangential to the thread but is it possible that a 'faster' lens, i.e. one with a greater maximum aperture, isn't always the best choice?

A 'faster' lens, e.g f/2.8 rather than f/4, is inevitably bigger, heavier and more expensive and with the aperture fully open will have a shallower depth of field than the 'slower' lens. Image quality, particularly of moving subjects, might then depend on how light, mobile and stable the lens is when used in the hand and on how much of the subject is in focus across the field of view.
I'd be interested in people's views, particularly with regard to depth of field. I'm here to learn, not just have my prejudices confirmed.

Mike


Hi,

I use f/2.8 on my 70-200 IS, but only for static birds which can work out very nice. But, for BIF i will use f/5.6 because you need more DOF to keep the bird in focus.

I'm a fool for shallow DOF, so i keep thinking of the 300/f2.8, but it is heavy to walk around with.


Regards,

Rob

[tdodd]

@ Mike....

You can focus with an f/2.8 lens faster and more accurately than with a slower lens. You'll also have a brighter viewfinder and may find manual focus easier too. There is nothing to say you can't stop down for the shot itself. DOF aside, if the light is low you have options on shutter speed and/or ISO that an f/5.6 lens does not afford you.

A 300/2.8 can serve many purposes other than a dedicated birding/wildlife lens. It could have a place at weddings and sports events, for example. The ability to open up wide to f/2.8 give you the choice to purposely have a shallow DOF.

At relatively low incremental cost you can turn that 300/2.8 into quite a flexible package with the addition of a couple of teleconverters - a 420/4 or a 600/5.6 and still under £4k for all those options. If you were to buy a 500/4 or 600/4 it would cost you a sh!tload more money. It might be the master of one trade but it might be of limited use for those of us who do shoot things other than birds. Of course, you can add telecons to those too and get even more reach, especially if shooting with a 1 series, but I think really it is horses for courses. Would you find 300-600/2.8-5.6 a better range the 500-700/4-5.6 etc.?

As for the weight thing, up to a point more mass means more inertia and more inertia means less shake. I hear people can handhold a 500/4 but a tripod is probably better, so at those lengths you're probably into tripod territory anyway. If 300 is too short you have options to extend or crop. If 500 is too long then you will have to ask the bird to hang on while you take a few steps back, or take a panorama series and stitch them together (Joke!).

I have to say I was thinking a 500/4 might be my next lens, but at the moment, if I was forced to make a choice today, it would be the 300/2.8. I think I will continue to feel that way but I'm not willing to pay today's prices so the point is currently moot. I'll wait till exchange rates move back in our favour.

[Carlton]

Thanks for the interesting replies. My budget doesn't stretch to £3.5K for the 300mm f/2.8 when I have so many other outgoings - wife, kids, nice bikes...
I guess my point was that a one stop slower lens, e.g. the 300mm f/4, has the advantages of considerably less expense and, being much lighter, is easier to hand hold. The extra stop can be regained by pushing up the ISO by a single point, which is hardly noticeable in reasonable light.. Is the extra stop really worth the extra cost, particularly when it also reduces the depth of field?
Perhaps there isn't a right answer but it makes for an interesting discussion.
Mike

[Roy C]

Thanks for the interesting replies. My budget doesn't stretch to £3.5K for the 300mm f/2.8 when I have so many other outgoings - wife, kids, nice bikes...
I guess my point was that a one stop slower lens, e.g. the 300mm f/4, has the advantages of considerably less expense and, being much lighter, is easier to hand hold. The extra stop can be regained by pushing up the ISO by a single point, which is hardly noticeable in reasonable light.. Is the extra stop really worth the extra cost, particularly when it also reduces the depth of field?
Perhaps there isn't a right answer but it makes for an interesting discussion.
Mike
Mike, I think a lot of bird photographers are intrested in the lens because you can get to 600mm at f5.6 which still gives you AF on a 1.6 crop camera. whereas with the f4 you can only get to 420mm. In general the lens takes converters possibly better than any other Canon telephoto. Also one stop means that you are getting twice the amount of light which can be very handy in low light.

[tdodd]

Pushing up the ISO can't make an f/4 lens focus like an f/2.8 lens. f/2.8 is a significant cutoff point in AF speed and accuracy. According to documentation I've seen, at f/2.8 and faster a camera should be able to focus to within 1/3 DOF. Slower than f/2.8 the AF is only specced to an accuracy of "somewhere" within the DOF.

At a distance of 20m a 300mm f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 will give you a DOF of +/-23cm. The focus accuracy should be off by no more than 7-8cm, pretty much guaranteeing a sharp subject and a safe margin both in front of and behind the focused point.

At a distance of 20m a 300mm f/4 lens at f/4 will give you a DOF of +/-33cm. Your focus could be off by as much as 33cm, meaning a significant portion of your subject may be completely outside the DOF, even if the area you focused on is still within the DOF.

If you used the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4 you would gain the f/2.8 AF precision of +/- 7cm and still benefit from the larger DOF of +/-33cm that f/4 offers.

[Whopper]

If you used the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4 you would gain the f/2.8 AF precision of +/- 7cm and still benefit from the larger DOF of +/-33cm that f/4 offers.

G'day Tim,

Thanks for this interesting explanation. But how does this work if you put a 1.4 or 2x converter on a 300/f2.8?.

Regards,

Robert

[tdodd]

Adding a teleconverter negates the advantage since the longer focal length loses you a stop (or two) of aperture. However, an f/2.8 lens plus a 2X still keeps you at the next magical aperture value of f/5.6, which means you retain AF on all bodies. Stick the 2X onto an f/4 lens and you'll end up at f/8, which is well outside spec for all but the 1 series bodies, and even with them you are limited to centre point AF only. I imagine the expansion points are also disabled at f/8.

[Gaz Shilton]

All of this information is invaluable for decision making.
It seems my mind is made up with this lens.
Take the plunge and forget about the 'what ifs'.
The 300 f2.8 is the way to go...for me anyway.

Thank you

[temmie]

I took some shots today of cyclists. Yes, cyclists! To be more accurate, it was a time trial. Riders were approaching at around 30 mph. I had a 300mm F4 IS lens on a monopod and Canon 400D body.
I got about 5 very good sharp shots out of 300. The reason was that the focus was lagging behind, and that the 400D is only capable of 3 frames/second on servo focus. The ISO was 800.

This kept me thinking. How much would a good body improve the quality of the pictures, and how much would a good lens improve them?

For the lens, winning 1 F-stop could mean getting back to ISO400, which would result of 4 times sharper pixels. Or I could just get a faster focus (sometimes it was too slow, especially when riders were very close and I was panning). Or I could have half the shutter time.

For the body, if I had a 50D, I could reach 6fps, which is double. So when in focus, the camera would take the shot double as fast as with the 400D. Since riders were approaching me with around 15m/second, 0.18 seconds results in the focus lagging about 2.5 meters behind. That is more than the depth of field I had at F4. Also, the 50D has more pixels (15MP) and better algorithms to keep noise to a low level, and higher ISO values are possible.

What would improve the most? New lens or new body?
I think the best would be a new body. A new lens would only be a real improvement if combined with a good body!

Any comment about my thinkings is welcome ;-)

here are the pictures:
http://appelflap.ocp-s.tudelft.nl/gallery/index.php/Wielrennen/WTOS/(2009-06-24)%20WTOS%2010km
All of them are downloadable JPG and not photoshopped.

[tdodd]

Temmie, I would think that out of a rather modest entry level body and an "L" grade prime lens with lighter glassware than the 300/2.8 it is more than likely that the body is holding you back more than the glass. Having used neither one I am unable to be sure, but it seems a strong bet to me. By the way, when Canon was describing the focus improvements in the 40D over the 30D in the 40D White Paper they picked the 300/2.8 as their lens of choice for their example, which, if I may quote, said....

Compared to the EOS 30D, the EOS 40D’s focusing calculation speed is 1.3 times faster, and the AF data-processing time is shorter. Predictive AF can track a subject approaching at 50 kph/31 mph up to about 26.2 ft./8m away with an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens.Now, they chose to cite the f/2.8 version, but I imagine the f/4 is no slouch either. In fact, the f/4 lens may possibly be able to focus faster, due to lighter glassware, (immesnsely specualtive there) but the f/4 aperture means the camera has less solid data to work with than with the f/2.8 lens, and thus in practice the f/2.8 lens turns in finer results.

If we look at the comments made in DP Reviews review of the 400D, regarding the 400D's AF system, they said....

Nine-point Auto Focus sensor
One criticism of the EOS 300D/350D was auto-focus, Canon has decided to bite the bullet and simply installed the considerably better nine point AF sensor from the EOS 30D in the EOS 400D. This affords both faster, more accurate focusing as well as center point AF which is compatible with F2.8 lenses.So from thse two quotes one can easily infer that the 40D has an AF system 1.3X faster than the 400D and with superior AF performance at the outer focus points with lenses of f/5.6 and faster.

However, I have recently come to learn just how critical it is to track a moving target accurately when attempting BIF with my 50D and it is simply not good enough to wave the camera close to the subject. I look at some of your images and see that you have cropped them, so it is impossible to tell the original composition or where your focus point(s?) might be. When shooting with a shallow DOF I imagine it makes a significant difference to the results depending on whereabouts on the rider you have your focus point. It is also worth noting that, even with the 1D3, Canon's advice is to track your subject for around one second to let the AI Servogets its predictive focusing homed in accurately. I imagine a Rebel would benefit from at least as long. Apart from accuracy of aim there is also the matter of what you aim at, how well lit it is and how contrasty.

Before spending money it may be worth trying to borrow a body from the 40D/50D or 1 series range. Alternatively, if you can practice just shooting moving vehicles maybe you can determine whether the kit does have the capability but, unfortunately, you need to work on your targetting skills. e.g. if we take a look at this image....

http://appelflap.ocp-s.tudelft.nl/gallery/index.php/Wielrennen/WTOS/(2009-06-24)%20WTOS%2010km/10km2009june010.JPG (http://appelflap.ocp-s.tudelft.nl/gallery/index.php/Wielrennen/WTOS/%282009-06-24%29%20WTOS%2010km/10km2009june010.JPG)

I can see the potential for quite different results depending on whether the focus point was over the hands, the upper arms, or the deep black abyss of the torso, which would have had any AF sustem completely lost, I would think.

So, my advice would be to check out your technique first of all, since without that a "better" body may not help that much, but if your technique is solid I guess you would reap benefits from a body upgrade.

EDIT : I just tried searching for "Canon's fastest focusing lens" and came across this post on POTN - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=176616&postcount=5. It's an old post but interesting that the 300/4 is claimed to be slower to focus than the 400/5.6, yet the 300/2.8 is the fastest lens in Canon's lineup. That mixes things up a bit. Nonetheless, I suspect you should tackle the issue in this sequence....

- Check/improve technique (free);
- Upgrade body (not monstrously expensive);
- Upgrade lens (but to what, and at what cost?)

[Nikon Kid]

Pushing up the ISO can't make an f/4 lens focus like an f/2.8 lens. f/2.8 is a significant cutoff point in AF speed and accuracy. According to documentation I've seen, at f/2.8 and faster a camera should be able to focus to within 1/3 DOF. Slower than f/2.8 the AF is only specced to an accuracy of "somewhere" within the DOF.

At a distance of 20m a 300mm f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 will give you a DOF of +/-23cm. The focus accuracy should be off by no more than 7-8cm, pretty much guaranteeing a sharp subject and a safe margin both in front of and behind the focused point.

At a distance of 20m a 300mm f/4 lens at f/4 will give you a DOF of +/-33cm. Your focus could be off by as much as 33cm, meaning a significant portion of your subject may be completely outside the DOF, even if the area you focused on is still within the DOF.

If you used the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4 you would gain the f/2.8 AF precision of +/- 7cm and still benefit from the larger DOF of +/-33cm that f/4 offers.

DOF is quite an interesting subject and reading through the posts you do learn a little each time. I found these two websites that might be useful to
others as well as me on DOF, its got a DOF calculator for camera type, aperture, lens focal length and Focus distance. which is very handy.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[Neil]

Some good info here.
The upgrade to a pro body and the quality of the backgrounds will make the biggest difference to your number of "keepers". Busy, dark backgrounds tend to confuse the AF on even the best camera. Hazy, low light has a similar effect. I get many more "keepers" in winter, due to the quality of the light , than in summer. My upgrade from D2x to D3 improved the "quality" of my action photos more than any other change I've made.
If you can only do one thing, upgrade your body, as f4 to f2.8 is not as big a deal.
Neil.

[silverfox4242]

Having bought the 300mm 2.8 last year, I found that last winter I got shots in low light that I could never have got with my 100/400 is 5.6 zoom.

[Roy C]

If you can only do one thing, upgrade your body, as f4 to f2.8 is not as big a deal.
Neil.
I assume your are thinking about the better AF sytem on Pro bodies Neil, don't know about Nikon but on Canon's it seems that the AF sytem is one of the main reasons to upgrade to a pro body as far as the bird photographer is concerned.

Mind you I would have thought that a f2.8 lens should help quite a bit with AF as it lets in twice as much light as a f4, trouble is that using a converter (especially a 2x) on the 300/2.8 would negate this advantage if you are only using a 1.4tc on the f4 lens.

All this is just an assumption on my part as I do not own a Pro body or a f2.8 telephoto lens :C

[Nikon Kid]

All this is just an assumption on my part as I do not own a Pro body or a f2.8 telephoto lens :C

Yes Roy, but what about that money thats burning a hole in your pocket just buy both and let us know the improvement but which lens 500 f4 or 300 f2.8 ?

[Roy C]

Yes Roy, but what about that money thats burning a hole in your pocket just buy both and let us know the improvement but which lens 500 f4 or 300 f2.8 ?
LOL, I could end up getting a good quality Video camera yet - canon do some good ones at around 3K.

As for a New lens, I am waiting for a costing on a 300/2.8 but still have not made up my mind. My heart (and weakling body) keeps coming back to a 300/2.8 but my head says I should be getting a 500/4 (just need a sherpa to carry it for me :-O )

[Neil]

I assume your are thinking about the better AF sytem on Pro bodies Neil, don't know about Nikon but on Canon's it seems that the AF sytem is one of the main reasons to upgrade to a pro body as far as the bird photographer is concerned.

Mind you I would have thought that a f2.8 lens should help quite a bit with AF as it lets in twice as much light as a f4, trouble is that using a converter (especially a 2x) on the 300/2.8 would negate this advantage if you are only using a 1.4tc on the f4 lens.

All this is just an assumption on my part as I do not own a Pro body or a f2.8 telephoto lens :C

I find that I have to use the 1.4x on a 300 mm lens (f2.8 or f4 ) anyway most of the time. There are very few situations where 300 mm is enough for bird photography ( in egret rookeries it can be too much ). The 500/4 and a monpod is my travel lens now.
Neil.

[MarkEvan]

I was wondering, a lot of the positive coments regards the 300 2.8 is that at 2.8 it will let in twice the amount of light as f4 which is a huge plus especially in low light situations, but using 2.8 also means that there is a probability that some if not a lot of the bird will be oof. How many times therefore are you likely to use 2.8? Most of my images tend to be around f4-f8 so as to keep the entire bird in focus. Is it not more likely then that a 2.8 lens is going to be used more at f4 and onwards negating the point of having the 2.8and 2x more light?

[Roy C]

I was wondering, a lot of the positive coments regards the 300 2.8 is that at 2.8 it will let in twice the amount of light as f4 which is a huge plus especially in low light situations, but using 2.8 also means that there is a probability that some if not a lot of the bird will be oof. How many times therefore are you likely to use 2.8? Most of my images tend to be around f4-f8 so as to keep the entire bird in focus. Is it not more likely then that a 2.8 lens is going to be used more at f4 and onwards negating the point of having the 2.8and 2x more light?
You are right about not using at f2.8 Mark, the DOF would be very small. I was referring to the AF which always uses the lens wide open to focus before closing down to your select aperture just before the shutter fires. e.g. even if you dial in,say, f8 it will AF at f2.8 (assuming the bare lens). For AF purposes the advantage is not negated by stopping down. Of course it becomes negated when you start adding tc's.

[Roy C]

I find that I have to use the 1.4x on a 300 mm lens (f2.8 or f4 ) anyway most of the time. There are very few situations where 300 mm is enough for bird photography ( in egret rookeries it can be too much ). The 500/4 and a monpod is my travel lens now.
Neil.
Precisely my fears with the 300/2.8 Neil, to gain any real reach advantage over a 400 lens you would have to use a 2x tc. Although the 300/2.8 probably takes a 2x tc better than most, if not all telephotos it still does not seem right to me to have a 2x glued to the lens for ones primary use - now if I had a frequent use for the lens at 300mm that would be a different story but I cannot think that I would use the bare lens much.

[MarkEvan]

You are right about not using at f2.8 Mark, the DOF would be very small. I was referring to the AF which always uses the lens wide open to focus before closing down to your select aperture just before the shutter fires. e.g. even if you dial in,say, f8 it will AF at f2.8 (assuming the bare lens). For AF purposes the advantage is not negated by stopping down. Of course it becomes negated when you start adding tc's.

Interesting I didn`t realise that the lens focuses at the maximum aperture and the closed down at the last minute........you learn something everyday.


In that case then yes the maximum aperture of the 300 2.8 would be beneficial in lowlight situations


Precisely my fears with the 300/2.8 Neil, to gain any real reach advantage over a 400 lens you would have to use a 2x tc. Although the 300/2.8 probably takes a 2x tc better than most, if not all telephotos it still does not seem right to me to have a 2x glued to the lens for ones primary use - now if I had a frequent use for the lens at 300mm that would be a different story but I cannot think that I would use the bare lens much.



I normally go out shooting with a friend who uses the 300 2.8 with a 2x, the results he gets with the combo are phenomenal considering the 2x there is hardly any drop in IQ. Having said that he does frequently say that the 600mm on a 1.3 crop isn`t enough.......less so on the 1.6 camera`s but he still ocasionally says that he needs more reach.
That said if we are talking walk around with more reach (at an affordable price) you are talking 400mm 5.6.....but to have a tc AF you`re gonna need to tape the pins which slows the AF a touch....and I wouldn`t dare use a 2x on one, which means you only have 560mm.. less than your 300 with 2x which will AF on any body without taping and probably at least as fast as the 400 with 1.4 taped.
So the 300 2.8 is probably best but I still think it would be too heavy as a walkaround..........







......which leaves the 400 f4 DO as the ultimate walkaround able to take the 1.4 on a cropper and both tc`s on a 1D. And still weigh less than the 300 2.8, so maybe if we all chipped in we might have enough to buy one then use it alternate weekends? |:D|

[Roy C]

I normally go out shooting with a friend who uses the 300 2.8 with a 2x, the results he gets with the combo are phenomenal considering the 2x there is hardly any drop in IQ. Having said that he does frequently say that the 600mm on a 1.3 crop isn`t enough.......less so on the 1.6 camera`s but he still ocasionally says that he needs more reach.
That said if we are talking walk around with more reach (at an affordable price) you are talking 400mm 5.6.....but to have a tc AF you`re gonna need to tape the pins which slows the AF a touch....and I wouldn`t dare use a 2x on one, which means you only have 560mm.. less than your 300 with 2x which will AF on any body without taping and probably at least as fast as the 400 with 1.4 taped.
So the 300 2.8 is probably best but I still think it would be too heavy as a walkaround..........
......which leaves the 400 f4 DO as the ultimate walkaround able to take the 1.4 on a cropper and both tc`s on a 1D. And still weigh less than the 300 2.8, so maybe if we all chipped in we might have enough to buy one then use it alternate weekends? |:D|
Nice to know that someone else is impressed with the 300/2.8 and 2x Mark - the more you read on the subject the more divided opinions are, some say there is a big drop in IQ whereas others say not.

I frequently use the 400/5.6 with a taped tc and in general AF speed is lowered more than just a touch, it is considerably slower than the bare lens - I accept the limitations and am quite prepared to manual focus if necessary. With the tc on board I find BIF very difficult because of the slow AF.

Re the 400/5.6 with a 2x tc, IQ is fine but you need good light and good support to shoot 800mm at f11. Attached is one I took last week with an old Teleplus 7mc 2x tc.

[Jaff]

You are right about not using at f2.8 Mark, the DOF would be very small.

But if the light was dismal it's still nice to walk away with something!

Was at Bempton on Saturday and the place was thick with fog! No light to work with and very poor visibility, didn't even attempt to use my 100-400mm but I'm so glad I had my 200mm f2.8.

Even in such tricky conditions I had many keepers and even when the window between sighting a bird and getting a shot was only a few seconds (see the Guillemot in my gallery) it still kept up with me, such is the value of a 2.8 aperture (but I still stopped down to f4 which gave me plenty of shutter speed anyway).
The naked 300mm f2.8 will have focussing so fast and efficient it'll make your head spin and regardless of what some might say there are times when you don't need any more reach than that. Plus it's almost as versatile as a zoom as you do have the option to work at different focal lengths to suit different situatiuons when you need to. Something you don't get with the longer primes.

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

I would love to add the 300 to my kit bag, but at 2.5KG I would struggle to justify it. For me that just isn't a walkabout lens. On a long walk across the moors or up a peak (e.g Carn Ban Moor) I would struggle to carry the 100-400 (at 1.3KG) round my neck and much more likely to pack it on my back in which case I would then just take the 500.

I have seen some walking about with the 300 but they normally have a target in mind take the shot and then go off. I don't think they are walking the length of Spurn with it and bins. Well not regularly anyway.

Anyway I would say it depends how far you walk about for one. Whether you are a birder or photographer first. And also how much benefit you will get shooting at 2.8. For the price and weight I find the 300 2.8 very hard to justify. I am still trying though!

[Roy C]

I find the 300 2.8 very hard to justify. I am still trying though!
LOL :-O I think a lot are with you on that Marcus.

[Jaff]

Canon 600 f4 - £7338.99
Canon 300mmf2.8 + 2xTC (600mm f5.6) - £4074.99

I think that's how a lot of people justify it. ;)

[Roy C]

Canon 600 f4 - £7338.99
Canon 300mmf2.8 + 2xTC (600mm f5.6) - £4074.99

I think that's how a lot of people justify it. ;)
I guess by the same logic an 600/4 + 2xtc is a mega bargain when compared to the 1200/5.6 at $99,000 ;)

[Jaff]

Just had a look at that lens on Canon's website. My god! You'd need three people just to use it!

I think you've just proved that the logic works. How can they be worth that some of money, is it cos of the rarity factor or something (I can easily imagine thery're being less than a hundred in the whole world).

[MarkEvan]

1200/5.6 at $99,000


Pah small fry......

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp

[Ash1456]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!
I want one!

[Ash1456]

not as expensive as the 1200mm but still quite big! (see below)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3

Sorry off topic.. back to 300/2.8

[tdodd]

Why are you guys fannying around with those wide angle tiddlers? Here's what you need....

http://blog.wolffmyren.com/2008/09/30/canon-5200mm-f14-lens/

[Ash1456]

What about this....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42803306@N00/2676643433/
ok its not real but just imagine wedging that through the window of the local hide.

[Gaz Shilton]

Why are you guys fannying around with those wide angle tiddlers? Here's what you need....

http://blog.wolffmyren.com/2008/09/30/canon-5200mm-f14-lens/

I think I will stick to my original plan of the 300/2.8 with tc's. Although it is tempting LOL

[Ash1456]

Sorry about the last few posts, we were a tad off topic.

[Chris B.]

I've been away from this site for quite some time but thought I'd weigh in since I use a 300f2.8L IS with a 2x converter all the time...Although I do own and use a 100-400, the performance of the 300+converters is nothing short of phenomenal. Most of the osprey and eagle shots on my website were made with this combination. But, be forewarned, it's not a lightweight combination... I use mine on either a Wimberley equipped tripod or a monopod.... or on a beanbag from the car. If you need something to lug around in your travels, seriously look at a 400mm f4 DO.


Chris

[Gaz Shilton]

I've been away from this site for quite some time but thought I'd weigh in since I use a 300f2.8L IS with a 2x converter all the time...Although I do own and use a 100-400, the performance of the 300+converters is nothing short of phenomenal. Most of the osprey and eagle shots on my website were made with this combination. But, be forewarned, it's not a lightweight combination... I use mine on either a Wimberley equipped tripod or a monopod.... or on a beanbag from the car. If you need something to lug around in your travels, seriously look at a 400mm f4 DO.


Chris

I have looked at the 400 f/4 DO, but for the price of it you can get the 300/2.8 with converters/ tripod/wimberley sidekick/camera all roughly for the same price as that lens on its own. I know which direction my wife wants me to go with this. The 300/2.8 is the way forward for me I think still. Saw a chap at the weekend with the Nikon equivalent and after chatting to him I still think the Canon version is the better option.

[Gaz Shilton]

With a 1.4x and 2x on a 300/2.8 you get 420mm at f4 and 600mm at f5.6 repectively. Do these not increase with a camera that has a 1.6x cropfactor (40D)? Does the difference show noticeably?

[Roy C]

With a 1.4x and 2x on a 300/2.8 you get 420mm at f4 and 600mm at f5.6 repectively. Do these not increase with a camera that has a 1.6x cropfactor (40D)? Does the difference show noticeably?
It is field of view and not focal length that changes with a crop camera so with a 300/2.8 + 2x tc on a 1.6 cropper you get a FOV akin to a 960mm lens.
IMO there are advantages to using a 1.6 cropper as it concentrates all the pixels to the part of the image that generally contains the bird. I did see a couple of shots the other day of the same subject with the same lens and distance, one with a 1.6 cropper and one with a 1.3 cropper (1D mkIII) and was surprised how much bigger the bird looked from the 1.6 crop shot. The difference between a 1.6 cropper and a full frame would be greater still. Of course subject size is only one part of it, the 1.3 and full frames will probably give better IQ and high ISO noise performance.

[Gaz Shilton]

Thank you for clearing that up for me Roy C.

[paul goode]

It is field of view and not focal length that changes with a crop camera so with a 300/2.8 + 2x tc on a 1.6 cropper you get a 960mm FOV.


Isn't field of view measured in degrees not mm?

[Gaz Shilton]

Excuse my ignorance, but, I have always thought (probably wrongly) that a 1.6x crop factor on a camera gave your lens more 'reach' than a 1.3x or a full frame camera.
I must have mis-interpreted what I have read on other websites.

[tdodd]

Excuse my ignorance, but, I have always thought (probably wrongly) that a 1.6x crop factor on a camera gave your lens more 'reach' than a 1.3x or a full frame camera.
I must have mis-interpreted what I have read on other websites.
When you stick a 400mm lens on the front of a camera the size of the subject projected onto the sensor is going to be the same, whether the camera is full frame, 1.3X crop or 1.6X crop.

e.g. Take a look at the image here - http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/full-frame-crop-factor.jpg. It's not my image so I won't attach it. Please follow the link. Now, imagine that in the centre of that photo you have your subject - a bird, rabbit, person, whatever. The size of the sensor will make not a scrap of difference to the size of the subject as recorded at the sensor. If the subject occupied 10mm of height on a 40D sensor it would occupy 10mm of height on a 1D3 sensor and 10mm of height on the sensor of a 5D2 as well. There is no extra magnification achieved, or extra reach, through having a smaller sensor. You simply end up recording less of the scene as a whole, which if you are short on focal length is absolutely fine. You save money on the body and end up with smaller files that aren't full of pointless pixels that you will need to crop out later.

So, as far as sensor size is concerned, rather than thinking of the cropped bodies as offering more "reach", think of it as the larger sensor bodies including more of the scene. The actual subject recorded on the sensor is the same physical size (in mm, not pixels) regardless.

Where the difference in "reach" does lie is in pixel density. Quite simply, if the image of your subject projected onto the sensor is the same physical size, regardless of sensor size, then the camera with the highest pixel density will place more pixels onto your subject. If you have more pixels on your subect then you should have more fine detail recorded. Of course, there is no free lunch, and generally it is true that smaller pixels, which cannot gather as much light as larger ones, will each be a litle noisier. But add the pixels together to form the image as a whole (instead of pixel peeping) and you should see more detail in your image.

If you really want to see better IQ then you do need a larger sensor, and longer glass to fill it, so that you project a larger image onto the larger sensor and end up with far more light captured and a superior image all round. Real "reach" comes from using longer glass. For those of us on a budget we have to make up for lack of real reach by having cameras with higher pixel densities.

Even with that said, you may find that due to factors such as blur, shake, noise, misfocus, soft lens etc. that you cannot gain much advantage, if any, from higher pixel densities, because unless your capture is perfect, all they will do is more accurately record the flaws in your image capture.

To put this another way, I find that for BIF I will typically get just as much "reach" from my 1D3 as from my 50D. This is because through combinations of blur/shake/misfocus (even if only by an inch or two), noise and so on, all that the 50D really does is to reveal the softness of the capture unless my photography is perfect, which it mostly isn't. The larger pixels of the 1D3 tend to obscure slight flaws in sharpness, as well as being individually less noisey, and that gives me files that are easier to work with.

But, for perched birds, where I do not need super high shutter speeds, or high ISOs, and when I can nail focus perfectly, and when I can fully control camera shake, the 50D can pick out details that the 1D3 will miss. Thus, in simple terms, I find the 1D3 to be the better camera for things that move fast, or anything in poor light, and the 50D is better for things that barely move, and are bathed in good light. Horses for courses - right tool for the job. If you're on a budget and want something that falls between those two extremes then the 40D seems the ideal compromise. If only it had AF microadjustment.

[Roy C]

Isn't field of view measured in degrees not mm?
Not according to Wikipedia - quote "Although related, FOV is not exactly the same as angle of view; FOV is measured in linear, spatial dimensions (feet, inches, metres, etc) whereas AOV (more properly called the angular field of view) is measured in degrees of arc. FOV increases with distance, whereas AOV does not. FOV changes as the camera rotates, AOV does not. Thus, while AOV is used for lens design specification, FOV is more useful to the photographer "in the field".

p.s. I have edited my original post just for you Paul :t:

[paul goode]

Not according to Wikipedia - quote "Although related, FOV is not exactly the same as angle of view; FOV is measured in linear, spatial dimensions (feet, inches, metres, etc) whereas AOV (more properly called the angular field of view) is measured in degrees of arc. FOV increases with distance, whereas AOV does not. FOV changes as the camera rotates, AOV does not. Thus, while AOV is used for lens design specification, FOV is more useful to the photographer "in the field".

p.s. I have edited my original post just for you Paul :t:

The knowledge base has moved on since I where a lad. It was just fov in degrees when I was wielding a Zenit EM :-O

[tdodd]

My understanding of FOV comes from binocular optics, where you might see the FOV described as 345 feet at 1000 yards for an 8X pair of bins - examples here - http://www.sportoptics.com/Swarovski-Pocket-Binoculars.aspx.

AOV is pretty obviously an angular description. While the two are directly related, they are two very different ways of describing what is effectively the same thing. If I've remembered my trig right, from 30+ years ago,

FOV = 2 x tan(AOV/2) x subject distance

so it is possible to convert directly back and forth between the two methods of expressing the view, should you be so inclined.

To my mind, it is far easier to visualise FOV than AOV. e.g. if the FOV is 345' at 1000 yds then it will be 34.5' at 100 yds and 3.45' at 10yds. Bins of 10X mag have a FOV of 285' per 1000yds, which in very roughly rounded terms is close to 1yd of width for every 10yds of distance, or 1m of width for every 10m of distance. That information easily allows me to judge whether those optics will be suitable for viewing birds, or anything else, of any given size at any given distance. If, on the other hand, you told me my optics had an AOV of 1 degree, 2 degrees, and so on, then I'd have no clue how useful those optics would be to me in practice, without looking up FOV equivalency.

Of course, it follows that if you could memorise the FOV for a given focal length - say 100mm - when coupled to a specific size of sensor, then you could easily derive any other FOV for other focal lengths by simple multiplication/division. e.g. a 400mm lens would have an FOV 1/4 as wide, a 600mm lens would be 1/6th as wide, a 50mm lens would be 2X as wide etc..

[Gaz Shilton]

Tim,
Thank you for putting into words I can understand.
And the link makes the understanding even clearer. As they say, a picture paints a thousand words.
Fantastic

[lmans66]

Would the 300 f2.8 with 1.4x converter attached be a better option as I do like to walk/bird and photograph as I go.
A 500 lens over my shoulder on a tripod walking around for a few hours would make it that bit more difficult to do this IMO.


Now you are thinking....sure, you can do the 500 or 600 thing and have to hire out laborers to haul all of your stuff or you can get the 300 (I have the F4L) and with a TC...or not, you can get about all.

If you work for National Geographic and are doing a photo shoot, go for the 500 or 600mm...otherwise...go for the lighter, easier to handle, no mono or tripod needed....300mm

[Roy C]

Now you are thinking....sure, you can do the 500 or 600 thing and have to hire out laborers to haul all of your stuff or you can get the 300 (I have the F4L) and with a TC...or not, you can get about all.

If you work for National Geographic and are doing a photo shoot, go for the 500 or 600mm...otherwise...go for the lighter, easier to handle, no mono or tripod needed....300mm
Sure the 300/2.8 is lighter than the 500/4 but bringing the 300/4 into the equation is irrelevant - do you realise that the 300/2.8 is more than double the weight of your 300/4?

[jalethbridge]

I have the portability issue, although I already have the lense, and it is awesome. I prefer not to use it with TCs though. It is almost certainly my technique, as I hate tripods, but with the 1.6x, I find it impossible to avoid camera shake and adding tcs seems to be the tipping point. Photos improve immeasurably if you use a tripod though, even with just the bare lense. 3.25kg is actually a lot to hold steady.
One thing I would draw attention to is that the DOF at f2.8 can be measured in fractions of a mm, which in practical terms for bird photograpy where you need to get in close to get something large enough in the frame, means you need you need to stop down to get acceptable results. I find I use my lense at f6.3 or indeed smaller most of the time. This flys in the face of lugging around 2.5kg for the amount of light it lets in. This problem does not exist with the f4 lense, or at least not for me. I am able to use it wide-open most of the time.
The portability issue is one which I struggle with. I am off to Scilly this autumn, and I am birder first, photographer second. I want to have a scope. That means a tripod. Bins go without saying. Then I need food and coffee. And I also want to take photos. I carry the camera and 300 2.8 (hood reversed) in a small lowepro flipside thing, which also takes a flask of coffee in the side and can carry a wide angle, both TCs, and if necessary the small 70-200. This is a lump though. So I would have that, bins round my neck, and a tripod + scope + ball-head (not light) over my shoulder. Personally I don't think I can do a day in the field, walking perhaps 20 miles, with all this. Then again, substituting the f4 for the f2.8 saves less than 1.5kg. This will be noticeable, but hardly substantial over the course of a day. Anyone have any thoughts? Ditch the scope and tripod perhaps? Maybe you just can't bird and take decent photos, and you have to choose one over the other.
I tend to carry the f4 locally, as I have been mugged on my patch, thankfully without camera that time, but I would hate to lose the 2.8. You stand out less, you can bung it in a small, non-obviously photographic bag.
Jonathan

PS, majority of bird photos on the blog were taken with the 2.8. Have a look at some of the ones in the post titled "A trip". Used a tripod for the Black Guillie, I really think it makes a difference.