Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2009 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

mt2mt2
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

I am looking at the same choices as the OP (have the 400/5.6- love it in good light!!). Looking at the 300/2.8 with TC vs Sigma 500/4.5 (can't afford the Canon 500) Any thoughts on IQ and focus speed between these two choices? Also, with the 300/2.8, are stacked 1.4's better than a 2? Looking for the best "bang for buck".

Thanks!

Mike

Nov 21, 2009 at 07:04 PM

skid00skid00
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

The 300 2.8 a better BIF lens than the 400 5.6

Maybe if you shoot bats...

At midnight...

On a moonless night!

Seriously, it'd be better to get an older 1D or 1Ds, the 400, and a 1.4x TC, IMHO.
I have no problems with AF with that setup, and I can get good images even around sundown, handheld (with the "noisy" 1Ds).

Nov 21, 2009 at 07:59 PM

Velu01
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

DocsPics wrote:
Has anyone ever regretted buying a 300/2.8? What usually happens is that they regret not having bought it sooner.

I did regret not buying it any sooner !!!!!

Great lens !

Rgds
Velu

Nov 21, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Dawei Ye
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

PetKal wrote:
Dawei Ye wrote:
I just ordered a 200 f/2L...though I regret not getting a 300 f/2.8L

Congratulations Dawei.

You are gettin' a perfect BIF lens (and much more)....if you can get close enough to them, that is.

haha thanks, you helped push me over the edge!

Nov 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

OwlsEyes
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

I sold a 400 f5.6 years ago in favor of the 300 f2.8IS. It is the sharpest lens I own and the first one out of the bag. I use the lens for landscape, flowers, wildlife, abstracts and portraits. The lens is now mated to my 1DIII (use to be on my 1DII). I shoot it with 1.4x and 2x converters. The 1.4x has little if any negative impact on sharpness and detail, while the 2x makes it about as sharp as the 100-400L at 400mm. In good light, the 2x shines... in marginal light it is soft.

Visit my website and hit the Cost Rica Link... the quetzals and sloths were all made w/ the 300 f2.8 + 2x converter on a 40D at ISO 400.

BTW... good luck finding a clean one for $3000! The new prices are up to $4600. I bought mine for $3000 two years ago before the price hike and it had a fair number of battle scars (and more now, given my travels). In the end, this lens does take a lickin' and keeps on tickin'...

check out my web images... you'll want one!
http://www.btleventhal.com
cheers,
bruce

Nov 22, 2009 at 03:55 PM

ChrisDar
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

PetKal wrote:
Lars got that right. I know of a number of wildlife photographers who ended up using their 300 f/2.8 lens merely as a transient point to the 500mm or longer lenses.
The 300 f/2.8 lens might be a perfect solution for some sports or perhaps something else too where 300mm is ideal. But generally for birds it is not.

I have the 300 and 500 and love them both. The majority of my work is Wildlife where both shine but for rodeo's, air shows and any other closer in action sports the 300 is primo even with extenders.

I wouldn't part with either and am just waiting for the 800 to drop to around 10 grand and I'll have what I think is the holy grail of lens combos...300, 500 and 800 (be still my heart)..

Nov 22, 2009 at 04:44 PM

rwalkernm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Chris,

I started using a 300 2.8 IS this year, moving "up" from my 100-400 zoom. I'm shooting soccer, wildlife, birds. I got the 300 over a 500 because I wanted to be able to travel with it, and figured the 300 + TC's was going to be much easier than a longer lens.

Here's a shot of a white-winged dove at 600mm, wide open, from about 30 ft away. Little or no cropping of the image.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

All my soccer shots this year used the 300 + 1.4x, except at night, where I need the wider aperture on poorly lit fields.

I may escalate to a longer lens some day, but for traveling, I'll always want to bring the 300. Best lens ever for me.

You can see lots of photos at my pbase gallery --
http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm (sports or nature galleries)

Bob Walker

Nov 22, 2009 at 11:52 PM

Schlotkins
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Bob-

Thanks for posting this information. Your 100-400 IS is similar to my 400, although you have a little IS. Your images at 600 look really good - similar to my 400 with an extender. I can imagine the small increase in focal length (560 -> 600) would probably make up for the slight difference. Plus being able to use all autofocus points as well as IS would be huge plus.

Could you comment on the focus speed with the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders on compared to your 100-400? I don't know if that zoom has equivalent AF speed as my lens, but it would be good to know.

Thanks,
Chris

Nov 23, 2009 at 04:49 AM

rwalkernm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Chris,

The 100-400 is not a fast focuser (nor is my copy particularly accurate unless there is plenty of light). The 300 + 2x TC is easily faster. The 300mm seems faster to me than the 135 F2 lens, and it is very accurate.

I know I saw some specs somewhere about how much the focusing speed is reduced with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC's, but it still Feels "fast" to me. Wikipedia says with the 1.4x attached, AF speed is cut in half, and with the 2.0x it's cut to a fourth of normal. I just can't remember where it was I saw actual timings in msec.

How the 300mm + TC compares to the 400mm + TC probably just scales with the basic AF speed of the native lens.

If I stack the TC's, (2.0x on the 300mm, then 1.4x on the camera), it will still try to focus on the 1DMkIII, but tends to oscillate focus on it's way to finding where it wants to be. If I start off too far from being in focus, it will not even try to focus.

Maybe someone else has better specs -- these are mostly the "feel" of the lenses.

Bob

Nov 23, 2009 at 06:06 AM

darryn patch
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Of the 10s of thousands of posts, have you ever read one that said my pre IS lens does not work anymore?

I've never seen one and I doubt I'll see one for years to come??

My grandad still drives his 1940s ford From Sydney to Brisbane, about 1000kms

If cash is tight I'd pick up a 500/4.5 in a heart beat.

Nov 23, 2009 at 06:56 AM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

rwalkernm wrote:
Chris,

The 100-400 is not a fast focuser (nor is my copy particularly accurate unless there is plenty of light). The 300 + 2x TC is easily faster. The 300mm seems faster to me than the 135 F2 lens, and it is very accurate.

I know I saw some specs somewhere about how much the focusing speed is reduced with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC's, but it still Feels "fast" to me. Wikipedia says with the 1.4x attached, AF speed is cut in half, and with the 2.0x it's cut to a fourth of normal. I just can't remember where it was I saw actual timings in msec.

How the 300mm + TC compares to the 400mm + TC probably just scales with the basic AF speed of the native lens.

If I stack the TC's, (2.0x on the 300mm, then 1.4x on the camera), it will still try to focus on the 1DMkIII, but tends to oscillate focus on it's way to finding where it wants to be. If I start off too far from being in focus, it will not even try to focus.

Maybe someone else has better specs -- these are mostly the "feel" of the lenses.

Bob

I've seen Canon specs on it, just that can not remember where. Either way, 1.4xTC supposedly cuts the AF drive speed to 2/3 and 2xTC reduces the lens AF drive speed to 1/2 of its native value.

However, Canon likes to express the AF drive speed in terms of AF group travel time which makes more practical sense.

Therefore, when it comes to 300 f/2.8 IS, I believe its AF drive speed is 0.4 sec (probably a bit better too.) Therefore, with the 1.4xTC the combo, the speed would be 0.6 sec which starts to get a bit sluggish and it is in the range of 500 f/4.5L and 200 f/1.8. Add 2xTC to the lens, and now we have 0.8 sec AF drive speed which is not very good for fast action at all.

Just for another reference point, Canon quotes the AF drive speed for 85L MkII as 1 sec.

Nov 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM

rwalkernm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Chris/PetKal,

I did locate one Canon document that quotes the 1/2 (1.4x) and (1/4) 2.0x speed numbers -- see footnotes at the bottom of page 3 --

EF Lens Workbook 2006

But I still cannot find any data for AF group travel times. Will keep looking,

Bob W

Nov 23, 2009 at 02:57 PM

milmoejoe
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

I think folks are driving you a bit far off topic.

The 300/2.8 IS is probably the most versatile lens there is- not only for bird and wildlife photography, but also for landscapes, sports, people, pets, etc.

Don't get too caught up in what others think is best for BIF, and so forth. The 100-400, 400/5.6, and 300/2.8 are all great lenses for such.

The 300/2.8 is particularly useful for shooting with the 2x, @ 600mm. Stopped down to f/11, you can't tell the IQ apart from the 500mm. Sharpness and saturation are top notch.

The 300/2.8 is also particularly nice because of it's packing size. I've got friends who've taken it on biking tours across country. You simply can't do this with a 500 or larger.

Yes, people often find themselves on a quest for more focal length, later upgrading to the 500, but the 300/2.8 is a lens that folks want to keep to compliment their other lenses. This one is not a "stepping stone" IMO.

Many great bird shots you see are staged or set up, and 300, 420 or 600mm is PLENTY. Numerous other (great) BIF photographers use the 300/2.8 for extremely fast AF acquisition, sharpness, saturation and handhold-ability.

You can't go wrong with the lens.

Nov 23, 2009 at 03:21 PM

jxsq
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Here is my personal experience on AF speed,

1. + EF 1.4x II

Still very fast, very close if not at 135L and 400L level.

2. + EF 2x II

slowdown quite a bit, definitely slower than 100-400L bare, especially both on 1 series bodies. On xxD, xxxd, the difference is smaller. (100-400 gain more AF speed on 1 series bodies)

but again it definitely much, much faster than 85L II, the difference is, well, day and night.

3. + kenko pro DG 300 1.4x + kenko pro DG 300 1.4x ( two kenko stacked)

speed now is about 100-400L! still not good for SIF (sparrows in flight, or swallows in flight) but probably enough for other type of BIFs.

stacked Canon and Kenko is slightly slower.

stacked 1.4x IQ-wise is little bit worse than EF 2x II.

4. when stack 1.4x and 2x, it is better to use EF 2xII and Kenko pro 1.4x. on xD series (1d, 1d2, and 5d2 etc), the speed is ok and usable. stacked Canon TCs is not usable in my opinion.

Hope this helps.

Nov 23, 2009 at 03:23 PM

jxsq
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Agreed!

milmoejoe wrote:
I think folks are driving you a bit far off topic.

The 300/2.8 IS is probably the most versatile lens there is- not only for bird and wildlife photography, but also for landscapes, sports, people, pets, etc.

Don't get too caught up in what others think is best for BIF, and so forth. The 100-400, 400/5.6, and 300/2.8 are all great lenses for such.

The 300/2.8 is particularly useful for shooting with the 2x, @ 600mm. Stopped down to f/11, you can't tell the IQ apart from the 500mm. Sharpness and saturation are top notch.

The 300/2.8 is also particularly nice because of it's packing size. I've got friends who've taken it on biking tours across country. You simply can't do this with a 500 or larger.

Yes, people often find themselves on a quest for more focal length, later upgrading to the 500, but the 300/2.8 is a lens that folks want to keep to compliment their other lenses. This one is not a "stepping stone" IMO.

Many great bird shots you see are staged or set up, and 300, 420 or 600mm is PLENTY. Numerous other (great) BIF photographers use the 300/2.8 for extremely fast AF acquisition, sharpness, saturation and handhold-ability.

You can't go wrong with the lens.

Nov 23, 2009 at 03:24 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

jxsq wrote:
Here is my personal experience on AF speed,

1. + EF 1.4x II

Still very fast, very close if not at 135L and 400L level.

Based on several years of fast action photography with both, I can tell you that bare 300 f/2.8 IS is not as fast to focus as 135L, let alone with the 1.4xTC.

300 f/2.8 IS with 1.4xTC is slower to focus than 400 f/5.6 in decent light.

When it comes to any BIF, except the largest and slowest of all birds, the 100-400 is not a very good choice at all.

Edited on Nov 23, 2009 at 04:27 PM · View previous versions

Nov 23, 2009 at 04:17 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

milmoejoe wrote:
The 300/2.8 is particularly useful for shooting with the 2x, @ 600mm. Stopped down to f/11, you can't tell the IQ apart from the 500mm. Sharpness and saturation are top notch.

If I was shooting moving birds at f/11, "sharpness" would be my least concern compared to severe high ISO noise degradation of the image.

Nov 23, 2009 at 04:23 PM

Photon
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

rwalkernm wrote:
Chris,

I started using a 300 2.8 IS this year, moving "up" from my 100-400 zoom. I'm shooting soccer, wildlife, birds. I got the 300 over a 500 because I wanted to be able to travel with it, and figured the 300 + TC's was going to be much easier than a longer lens.

Here's a shot of a white-winged dove at 600mm, wide open, from about 30 ft away. Little or no cropping of the image.

All my soccer shots this year used the 300 + 1.4x, except at night, where I need the wider aperture on poorly lit fields.

I may escalate to a longer lens some day, but for traveling, I'll always want to bring the 300. Best lens ever for me.

You can see lots of photos at my pbase gallery --
http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm (sports or nature galleries)

Bob Walker
Nice soccer work in your gallery!
The 300/2.8 would be a great lens to have...

Nov 23, 2009 at 04:39 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

darryn patch wrote:
If cash is tight I'd pick up a 500/4.5 in a heart beat.

Actually, the way I'd put it, if the budget could possibly allow it, one should get 500 f/4.5L on top of any other supertelephoto one might own.

Unless one has used 500 f/4.5L quite a bit, one can not really understand how good and convenient that lens is.

Edited on Nov 24, 2009 at 01:51 AM · View previous versions

Nov 23, 2009 at 05:46 PM

rwalkernm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Jess,

Thanks! And yes, I do like the lens!

Bob

Nice soccer work in your gallery! The 300/2.8 would be a great lens to have...

Nov 23, 2009 at 06:04 PM

jxsq
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

PetKal wrote:
jxsq wrote:
Here is my personal experience on AF speed,

1. + EF 1.4x II

Still very fast, very close if not at 135L and 400L level.

Based on several years of fast action photography with both, I can tell you that bare 300 f/2.8 IS is not as fast to focus as 135L, let alone with the 1.4xTC.

300 f/2.8 IS with 1.4xTC is slower to focus than 400 f/5.6 in decent light.

When it comes to any BIF, except the largest and slowest of all birds, the 100-400 is not a very good choice at all.

You do know that there is a distance switch, and the IS can be turn off, do you?

What i said is also based on many years of experience.

Looks like we two have quite different experiences here.

You seems likes to go extreme when talking about gears, but with all respect, i didn't see you are pushing your gear to extreme.

Of course, 400L will be better than 100-400L on BIF, and 500/600 will be better than 300/2.8 with TCs for birding. But that is not the point of discussion. What the OP and some others are saying is that 300/2.8 with TCs is a very versatile package and can cover large variety of shootings with better than decent results.

back to 100-400L for BIF, are these 'large and slow' birds? Not the best example and i can get better results with 400L and 300/2.8, but if someone can get this kind of BIF shots, the tool is seems to be good enough, at least for me.

Some time we go the the best, sometime we go for 'good enough', these are two different things.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 23, 2009 at 06:09 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #22 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Jxsq, let us not lose sight of my comment above.
Here we go again: When you said that 300 f/2.8 IS +1.4xTC had as fast AF drive as 135L, then that indicated to me that you were lacking sufficient experience with one of those lenses or even both .

Nov 23, 2009 at 06:27 PM

jxsq
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

PetKal wrote:
Jxsq, let us not lose sight of my comment above.
Here we go again: When you said that 300 f/2.8 IS +1.4xTC had as fast AF drive as 135L, then that indicated to me that you were lacking sufficient experience with one of those lenses or even both .

Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I can tell you that i have more experience with both lens than you did.

www.pbase.com/jxsq

Nov 23, 2009 at 06:36 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

jxsq wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Jxsq, let us not lose sight of my comment above.
Here we go again: When you said that 300 f/2.8 IS +1.4xTC had as fast AF drive as 135L, then that indicated to me that you were lacking sufficient experience with one of those lenses or even both .

Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I can tell you that i have more experience with both lens than you did.www.pbase.com/jxsq

No problem, I am still learning and trying to improve a bit every day.

And even when I don't improve any, I am still having fun with whatever little gears I own.

Nov 23, 2009 at 07:02 PM

Rockies Photo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #25 · Probably crazy... 300 2.8 questions

Here are some results, with the 300 + stacked TC's.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/838642/0#7809749

Nov 23, 2009 at 07:13 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end