• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens? (1 Viewer)

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!!|!|
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.......
 
Last edited:
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,
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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 )
 
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,

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ...................
 
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.
 
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.
 
ahh camera body differences make sense yes and will certainly give a difference to the captured image.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top