300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens? (2 Viewers)

[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 (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

 

[Dave Williams]

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

 

[Dave Williams]

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.

 

[stevetb]

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.

 

[stevetb]

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