OntheRez Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I found 810 images in my Lr catalog taken with the 300mm f/4L non-IS. (20+ years old.) They cover everything from birds to landscape to people to flowers to baseball. I suppose a newer IS would be nice but then the thing would weight 2X and retail at ~$2000 based on recent Canon pricing. I consider my copy the second sharpest lens I have (after the 24mm f/3.5L TSE II).
This is a truly fine lens. It does exactly what it was designed to do: provide excellent telephoto in a light package at a reasonable price. I don't understand the incessant demand on the part of some people to remake every lens into the latest/greatest/priceyest thing around. Yes, I miss plenty of shots with this lens (and more with the 400mm f/5.6) simply because of camera movement. Shooting at long FL takes real practice and an absolute awareness of technique.
Attached are a bird, a ball, and a poppy: low rent JPEGs SOOC. All handheld. I have some superb tripod based landscape and wildlife, but that puts things in a separate category. This is a d*mn fine lens. I hope Canon leaves it, the 400, the 135mm f/2.0L and a few other similar lenses alone. They work. Why muck with them?
Robert
© rsorrels 2014
A ball.
© rsorrels 2014
A bird (actually 3 Sandhill cranes).
© rsorrels 2014
A poppy.
|