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

[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.

 

[screaming piha]

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

 

[screaming piha]

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