Nikon Kid
Love them Sula Bassana
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 ?
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gaz Shilton
- Start date
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
Occasional bird snapper
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 )
Last edited:
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.
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
Occasional bird snapper
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
Occasional bird snapper
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.
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
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? |
|
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
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 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? |
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.
Attachments
Jaff
Registered Member
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
Well-known member
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!
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
Occasional bird snapper
LOL :-O I think a lot are with you on that Marcus.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I guess by the same logic an 600/4 + 2xtc is a mega bargain when compared to the 1200/5.6 at $99,000Canon 600 f4 - £7338.99
Canon 300mmf2.8 + 2xTC (600mm f5.6) - £4074.99
I think that's how a lot of people justify it.
Jaff
Registered Member
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).
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).
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
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3
Sorry off topic.. back to 300/2.8
Last edited:
tdodd
Just call me Tim
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/
http://blog.wolffmyren.com/2008/09/30/canon-5200mm-f14-lens/
What about this....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2676643433/
ok its not real but just imagine wedging that through the window of the local hide.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2676643433/
ok its not real but just imagine wedging that through the window of the local hide.
Gaz Shilton
Well-known member
I think I will stick to my original plan of the 300/2.8 with tc's. Although it is tempting LOL
