aCuria wrote:
How close were you to those whales? Wouldn’t a 600mm be better?
The whales go where they like, for better or for worse. I usually have two bodies, one with a 100-400and the other with a 35…sometimes they get close enough to touch.while the 100-400 is great for flexibility, when the whales do something dramatic and sudden, having a lightning fast prime is often key.
Grenache wrote:
The whales go where they like, for better or for worse. I usually have two bodies, one with a 100-400and the other with a 35…sometimes they get close enough to touch.while the 100-400 is great for flexibility, when the whales do something dramatic and sudden, having a lightning fast prime is often key.
The whales, yes. Monterey Bay, Northern California. Tours leave from either Monterey Harbor (larger boats with longer time to get to whale areas) or Moss Landing (smaller boats more sensitive to waves but shorter cruise to the whales).
Elephant seals were from land at Ano Nuevo, a wildlife sanctuary.
Mark Smith photography posted a new video today on this 300 2.8GM and loves it . He has ordered his copy...stay tuned for his part 2 video where he tests the lens with 1.4 and 2x teleconverters ( hint- Mark stated they work great together!)
Yes, Mark is the second professional wildlife photographer I personally know who has tried the 300 GM with and without teleconverters with great results. Also, look at the recent images by Marlon du Toit (@marlondutoit) on Instagram using the 300 GM - he has been trying it out in South Africa and recommended the lens to me when I saw him.
If it's as good with the 2x TC as Mark states, I may pick one up early next year. I can see myself with the 70-200GM 2.8 mkii, along with the 300GM 2.8 and both 1.4x & 2x TCs. A very versatile combo . Would I prefer the 400 2.8 or 600F4? Probably ,but they are also twice the cost and much heavier!
Jonathantuba wrote:
Yes, Mark is the second professional wildlife photographer I personally know who has tried the 300 GM with and without teleconverters with great results. Also, look at the recent images by Marlon du Toit (@marlondutoit) on Instagram using the 300 GM - he has been trying it out in South Africa and recommended the lens to me when I saw him.
Maxxus46 wrote:
If it's as good with the 2x TC as Mark states, I may pick one up early next year. I can see myself with the 70-200GM 2.8 mkii, along with the 300GM 2.8 and both 1.4x & 2x TCs. A very versatile combo . Would I prefer the 400 2.8 or 600F4? Probably ,but they are also twice the cost and much heavier!
The available sharp FL's available with those 2 lenses and the 2 TC's in different configurations, combined with the size/weight of the items, is pretty incredible IMO. If the reports are accurate about IQ, $6k gets you a small 300 2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6.
gocolts wrote:
The available sharp FL's available with those 2 lenses and the 2 TC's in different configurations, combined with the size/weight of the items, is pretty incredible IMO. If the reports are accurate about IQ, $6k gets you a small 300 2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6.
Add $1k and change for the extenders. Still incredible.
gocolts wrote:
The available sharp FL's available with those 2 lenses and the 2 TC's in different configurations, combined with the size/weight of the items, is pretty incredible IMO. If the reports are accurate about IQ, $6k gets you a small 300 2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6.
I’m thinking of a less expensive way to get to 600 with a telephoto lens. I already have the 200-600mm. The images I have seen online seem sharp, but is the lens still fast focusing with a 2x TC if I’m shooting BIF, or am I better using the 200-60?
I’m thinking of a less expensive way to get to 600 with a telephoto lens. I already have the 200-600mm. The images I have seen online seem sharp, but is the lens still fast focusing with a 2x TC if I’m shooting BIF, or am I better using the 200-60?
Grenache wrote:
The whales go where they like, for better or for worse. I usually have two bodies, one with a 100-400and the other with a 35…sometimes they get close enough to touch.while the 100-400 is great for flexibility, when the whales do something dramatic and sudden, having a lightning fast prime is often key.
hatch1921 wrote:
@DouglasL ... pick one up... let us know how it is...and I'll buy one based off your review or not if it doesn't pan out at 600mm
Hatch
Will see. My 200-600 is pretty sharp already. I would like shorter MFD and better bokeh for shooting hummingbirds in my yard. I have the 600 GM but its MFD is a no go for me for this particular application.
Douglas L wrote:
Jim, that shot of the whale breaching is to die for. Got to be incredibly quick and lucky to capture a moment like that.
If the 300 GM+2X TC is demonstrably sharper than the 200-600 at 600MM, based on more than a few reviewers, I may pick one up to shoot hummingbirds.
Thank you. What I wish I could have shown was the shot I lost on a different outing due to slime on the electrical contacts of a rented 300. There was a double decker whale watching boat that had a humpback breach on the left, and as it was coming down, another breached on the right. Once in many life times kind of moment. THAT is why I want my own 300 that I can be assured of the performance.
Douglas L wrote:
Will see. My 200-600 is pretty sharp already. I would like shorter MFD and better bokeh for shooting hummingbirds in my yard. I have the 600 GM but its MFD is a no go for me for this particular application.
Same with the 200-600... a sharp copy. I like to use the 100-400 for the hummingbird shots, I think it does a better job all around than the 200-600.
Let us/me know if you buy one and how it performs
Hatch
Maxxus46 wrote:
100% agree with you here Geoff. AF acquisition will degrade, no question.
But if you don't know how the AF acquisition compares between the two bare lenses, how would you know if the AF acquisition of the 300 + 2x TC is worse than the bare 200-800
