Which lens? (1 Viewer)

Adey Baker · Feb 14, 2007

One other lens to consider is the Tamron 200-500mm which is well regarded in both test results and by users, especially at the 500mm end of the range where many other lenses tend to drop-off in resolving power.

A general point on t/cs - they should be regarded as a useful extra rather than a main lens unless you've got a very high quality lens to start with. A 300mm with a 2x t/c will give similar coverage to a 600mm lens but - assuming both lenses have the same resolving power - it will only have half the definition. If the 300mm is capable of delivering twice the resolution of the sensor/film, then it will be OK.

Andy Bright · Feb 14, 2007

Roy C said:
By all the accounts that I have read this is The lens as you say Keith. Very tempted myself but a bit worried about the weight (with a tc) for hand holding - my 400mm f5.6 is fairly light but this baby is exactly double the weight. Have you heard of people handholding for long periods Keith.
Cheers
Roy

I can hold it up to the eye for a couple of minutes (with a 1Ds), then the arms start aching... but despite the weight and perceived impossibility of using these lenses as walk-arounds, they really don't pose much of a problem for most types of photography, as you are having plenty of recovery time between any action.

cheers,
Andy

Here's a 100% crop from canon 300/2.8 + 2x (no sharpening, iso640, jpg artifacts creeping in)

Keith Reeder · Feb 14, 2007

Thanks all - everything is clear now..!

The Canon 300mm f/2.8 + converter(s) is still my fantasy lens set-up, and I've got no qualms about its potential to be used handheld - I think I've mentioned before that it's pretty much the walkaround set-up of choice on POTN.

You've got to be prepared to suffer for your art, Roy!

As Andy says, in reality, youll simply be carrying the lens a lot more than you'll actually be pointing it at birds.

malc1 · Feb 14, 2007

Hands up

Roy C said:
Must admit I am a bit confused on this one - Malc started off by quoting a Sigma 300 f2.8 which I assumed must be a prime, later on he quoted a 70-300 f2.8 but you are talking about a 120-300 f2.8 - Its getting late I must be missing something.
Cheers
Roy

Sorry Roy, I did mean the 120-300. I hadn't considered this zoom as I thought the 300 + 2x was the "cleanest" solution. Postcardcv interestingly suggests the 120-300 zoom and both converters, whereas if going for the zoom and 2x I'd have thought the 1.4 to be superfluous. If considering cost alone the fact that the 500 zooms report to the camera as 5.6 is really useful to know. I know how postcardcv feels with battling the urge and can assure him its as bad battling the urge to buy the prime 300mm. All thats holding me back is the fact that just maybe the 300mm + 2x STILL isn't long enough. I'm really appreciating everyone's input.

postcardcv · Feb 15, 2007

malc1 said:
Sorry Roy, I did mean the 120-300. I hadn't considered this zoom as I thought the 300 + 2x was the "cleanest" solution. Postcardcv interestingly suggests the 120-300 zoom and both converters, whereas if going for the zoom and 2x I'd have thought the 1.4 to be superfluous. If considering cost alone the fact that the 500 zooms report to the camera as 5.6 is really useful to know. I know how postcardcv feels with battling the urge and can assure him its as bad battling the urge to buy the prime 300mm. All thats holding me back is the fact that just maybe the 300mm + 2x STILL isn't long enough. I'm really appreciating everyone's input.

Hi Malc

I think that there is an advantage to buying the 1.4x tc as well as the 2x if you go for the zoom - the 1.4x will give you a 420 f4 which in low light could be a lot more useful than a 600 f5.6.

I can understand why you are concerned about reach but you'll struggle to get longer than 600mm with AF unless you spend a lot more money. The only way to get more reach is to go for a longer fast prime, but these cost a good deal more. A 500mm prime with a 1.4x will only give you 700mm, but will cost a lot more and will be much bigger and heavier to lug about. The only way to get more would be to go for the 600 f4 or the 400 f2.8, but these are both £5k+ lenses...

Adey Baker · Feb 15, 2007

malc1 said:
All thats holding me back is the fact that just maybe the 300mm + 2x STILL isn't long enough.

There are a couple of quite expensive 800mm lenses, a prime and a zoom, made by Sigma, but when you get much beyond 600mm you're going into an area where getting everything rock steady becomes an issue, without considering the effects of atmospheric haze at distances, etc.

If 600mm is still not enough you probably need to change your technique or try digiscoping

malc1 · Feb 15, 2007

Limitations

postcardcv said:
Hi Malc

I think that there is an advantage to buying the 1.4x tc as well as the 2x if you go for the zoom - the 1.4x will give you a 420 f4 which in low light could be a lot more useful than a 600 f5.6.

I can understand why you are concerned about reach but you'll struggle to get longer than 600mm with AF unless you spend a lot more money. The only way to get more reach is to go for a longer fast prime, but these cost a good deal more. A 500mm prime with a 1.4x will only give you 700mm, but will cost a lot more and will be much bigger and heavier to lug about. The only way to get more would be to go for the 600 f4 or the 400 f2.8, but these are both £5k+ lenses...

I am pretty sure that a 400mm has insufficient reach. It's okay for the birdfeeder at Potteric Carr from the hide for Woodpecker sized birds. I think the 500mm sigma prime would be good but it really is too much money. The 300 prime or zoom with a convertor is useful for birds but not without, I don't think haze is a problem because the distances are not great, it's just that the subjects are so small. For me the Sigma 300 2.8 plus convertor is just affordable, I'm just trying to decide whether I'll be happy with them. I take the point about having the 1.4 convertor as well as the 2x but I'd definately get the 2x first. Perhaps I'll try to hire one the next time I have a birding week.

postcardcv · Feb 20, 2007

malc1 said:
For me the Sigma 300 2.8 plus convertor is just affordable, I'm just trying to decide whether I'll be happy with them. I take the point about having the 1.4 convertor as well as the 2x but I'd definately get the 2x first. Perhaps I'll try to hire one the next time I have a birding week.

there's a 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x tc for sale one here, might be worth a look...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=78801

GYRob · Feb 20, 2007

if your rich like me

and own the 500f4isL And the 300f2.8isL and the 1.4 -2xtc thats the way to go - However if i could only have one then the 300f2.8isL+ the tc's is the way to go as you get a few top class combo's that cover more normal type shooting and the 600mm reach with the 2x's is almost as sharp as the 500mm .
Rob.

malc1 · Mar 24, 2007

and the next problem!!

GYRob said:
if your rich like me and own the 500f4isL And the 300f2.8isL and the 1.4 -2xtc thats the way to go - However if i could only have one then the 300f2.8isL+ the tc's is the way to go as you get a few top class combo's that cover more normal type shooting and the 600mm reach with the 2x's is almost as sharp as the 500mm .
Rob.

I've taken a plunge and bought the 120-300mm 2.8 + 2x TC. The next thing is a bag to put it all in. I'd like to keep it all assembled to keep muck off the sensor. Warehouse express in their Lowepro info advise against keeping large telephotos and cameras together. Has anyone any comments?

postcardcv · Mar 24, 2007

malc1 said:
I've taken a plunge and bought the 120-300mm 2.8 + 2x TC. The next thing is a bag to put it all in. I'd like to keep it all assembled to keep muck off the sensor. Warehouse express in their Lowepro info advise against keeping large telephotos and cameras together. Has anyone any comments?

A nice set up I'm sure you'll enjoy using it... I'd never heard the advice to not carry a lens attached to the camera. Personally I keep my camera on my 500mm lens in a Lowepro Photo Trekker, cracking bag, holds all I need for a day out. I would think that with the 120-300 you'd be able to get away with one of the slightly smaller bags.

malc1 · Mar 24, 2007

Re- trekker

postcardcv said:
A nice set up I'm sure you'll enjoy using it... I'd never heard the advice to not carry a lens attached to the camera. Personally I keep my camera on my 500mm lens in a Lowepro Photo Trekker, cracking bag, holds all I need for a day out. I would think that with the 120-300 you'd be able to get away with one of the slightly smaller bags.

It was the AW Photo Trekker I was looking at on Warehouse express site. I went to "more info" and the advice was in there. It is better though to get feedback from people who use the equipment, thanks for that.

Ceejay2000 · Mar 25, 2007

malc1 said:
I've taken a plunge and bought the 120-300mm 2.8 + 2x TC. The next thing is a bag to put it all in. I'd like to keep it all assembled to keep muck off the sensor. Warehouse express in their Lowepro info advise against keeping large telephotos and cameras together. Has anyone any comments?

Hi, Interesting to see that comment under "Further Info"

Take a look at the pictures I think you will see all the camera bodies

attached to lenses.

What I think they mean is if you are travelling by Air or similar.

ie. Baggage Handlers if that is what they are called !!!

Just dont throw the loaded bag around.

Regards Charles

Which lens? (1 Viewer)

More options

Adey Baker

Member

Andy Bright

Administrator

Attachments

Keith Reeder

Watch the birdie...

malc1

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Adey Baker

Member

malc1

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

GYRob

Well-known member

malc1

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

malc1

Well-known member

Ceejay2000

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread