Canon 300 f2.8 on a 40D. (1 Viewer)

[Peter Ericsson]

I agree with, there are some super Images taken with the 300 f2.8 + 2x TC & some are handheld, thanks for the link Peter..

Theres nothing to hold me back now from buying It, It seems that everyone has something positive to say about this lens, the only negative I can see Is the price, which to be fair, you get what you pay for In this world. So all In all Its not that expensive....

Sean.

In the end I don't think it is only a question of being able to afford it or not.
It is also a question of consciousness and what the end purpose is.
It is very easy to get greedy and overly materialistic. I live in a country where the cost of one lens equals 2 years salary for an average worker. I find it a bit hard to justify such lavish spending in my situation.
I don't think I have exhausted the potential of my present gear (400F5.6) and could probably improve my images a lot by enhancing my field crafts.
Still, I am human and that desire for 'more' is always there!

 

[hollis_f]

Ingo is a birder who brings his camera along where ever he goes.

And that, for me, is the reason why I went for a 300 without even thinking about the 500. There is absolutely no way that I could carry a 500mm lens and a tripod around all day. But the 300 and a couple of TCs is dead easy to carry.
The weather looks like it might be quite good today - so I'm planning to go out to try the 2x TC in nicer weather. I might even try swapping lenses with Didi so I can do a direct comparison of the 300 vs 500.

 

[desmo-kid]

Wow, I guess that site with all of the 300 2.8 + TC images puts to rest any image problem questions when using the 2x TC. If I did not own the lens and had not recently seen some great results I would almost wonder if those shots really could be with the TC!

All of us would rather avoid a TC but the reality is that with a truly portable lens that is easily hand-held and has good reach it's going to come down to the 300 2.8 or 400 DO and most times a TC is going to be glued to it. I am curious to see what I'll be missing with the 300 2.8 + 2X TC so I'll run the test against the 500 4.0, but it will still be a bit of a moot point.....for long hikes, or most travel it will be the 300 2.8.

Another thing that site should point out is that paying attention to the craft is more important than fixating on the optics, especially when the optics are up at this level.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

Wow. Now I'm no expert here but that has got to be as good as a 500 f4 and about 2000 quid cheaper. you would have to be happy with those results.

 

[Jaff]

Wow. Now I'm no expert here but that has got to be as good as a 500 f4 and about 2000 quid cheaper. you would have to be happy with those results.

£2000? Try doing your sums again bro.

I've just noticed the price on warehouse for the 300mm is over £50 cheaper compared with a few weeks back. £2874.99 down from about £2938 I think it was.

I wonder if that's cos of the 15% VAT?

 

[TobiasK]

Hi,
i went through the same considerations: after selling my 100-400 i wanted to buy a 500/4. But then, my wife probably would have killed me (and the lens) :-O

Of course, if there had been plenty of money, i would have bought a 500/4 but on the downside, using a 500/4 also limits the shots in some way
You can't make a 500/4 any shorter, but you can make a 300/2,8 longer
Using a 300/2,8 in the zoo is great: due to 2,8 you get very nice backgrounds

Like someone said before: my 2x extender is also glued to the 300/2,8 and i can't complain about the quality

Image is taken out of my car, so no tripod, the lens lay on the window
40D, F6,3 Iso 160, 1/320

Bye
Tobias

 

[mjobling]

Out of interest Tobias, how much of a crop was that image? How far away was the buzzard?

Lovely picture, by the way.

 

[TobiasK]

Hi
the buzzard sat right behind my car, i'd say about 25 feet away
the pic is no crop, it is fullframe

I wanted to change to the 1,4 extender, but then the buzzard was gone

Bye
Tobias

 

[macshark]

One of these days, Canon will introduce a 600mm f/5.6L IS (hopefully at a price comparable to the 300 f/2.8L IS) and solve this dilemma for many of us...

3

 

[Roy C]

One of these days, Canon will introduce a 600mm f/5.6L IS (hopefully at a price comparable to the 300 f/2.8L IS) and solve this dilemma for many of us...

3

Even a 500/5.6 would be nice :t:

 

[Cashie]

Seàn

The 300 2.8 L is absolutely excellent I have tried a friends and now I want one too.

With a TC I would stick with a 1.4X & you will have one of the best 400mm f4 lenses around, easily as good as the DO.
I think a 2X would be pushing it a little for hand holding IMO.

 

[TobiasK]

Hi,
here one more pic of the same buzzard
it is a 50% crop of the original image

bye
Tobias

 

[barnstormer]

I hope you got your lens cos it's £3699 on warehouse express now.........how can they justify the price increase ?. Is there much difference quality wise between the canon 300 2.8 and the sigma 300 2.8 considering there's over £2000 difference.

 

[hollis_f]

I hope you got your lens cos it's £3699 on warehouse express now.........how can they justify the price increase ?

Because the Pound has dropped 40% against the Yen. All lenses are going up in a similar fashion.

 

[canonman77]

Ive just seen the prices go up at WEX, unbelievable Isnt It. The Sigma equivalent doesnt have IS or OS, but Is It like on a monopod, because I might be tempted to get the Sigma 300mm f2.8 Instead as the prices of the Canons are shot up. I would be very Interested to see a comparison test of the Canon v's Sigma (300mm f2.8 lenses) & with their own TC's....

Regards.
Sean..

 

[tjsimonsen]

Even a 500/5.6 would be nice :t:

True, but what may trip the scale for me when (and if) I can afford either a 500/4 or a 300/2.8 are:

1) Size: the 300/2.8 and a couple of converters is probably much easier to travel with than a 500.
2) That the 300/2.8 is exactly that: an extremely good medium tele with native f2.8!

Over the years I have been shooting a fair bit in dark places: rain forests in central America, Australia and SE Asia, dark forests elsewhere and so on. In such places a 300/2.8 would have been MUCH better than the 300-400/5.6s I've used. And if you can get an excellent 420/4 and a very good 600/5.6 just by adding converters, well then there is a real dilemma.

Thomas

 

[Sandpiper]

I use a Canon 300/2.8 with 1.4x/2x/1.4x+2x TC's. The combo is light enough to carry round in a backpack all day along with my scope and tripod on one shoulder. The lens with choice of TC's I find to be ideal for my type of photography on the move.

 

[JohnZ]

Sean, Apparently the 120-300mm zoom is sharper than the 300mm prime lens. Food for thought ?

 

[Jaff]

Sean, Apparently the 120-300mm zoom is sharper than the 300mm prime lens. Food for thought ?

I have it on good authority that this is, to use his exact words, 'utter tosh'.

And when you think about it then it makes sense, primes are sharper than zooms because zooms are always built with some form of compromises to accommodate the different focal lengths and invariably will have more glass inside.

 

[JohnZ]

To use whose exact words Jaff ?
In most cases I would most certainly agree with everything you have said regarding prime lenses and zoom lenses.