p.1 #1 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
Some people have said the Canon RF 100-300 2.8 is not a wildlife lens, this lens is turning into my favorite lens, and I am currently in Uganda leading a Safari, and didn't bother bringing the 600mm....will I regret it? I am using the 100-300 more than anything in Yellowstone (I spend almost all of summer and fall there) and here are some examples.
Most of the Yellowstone pics are with the R5 for the ability to crop, I brought two R52's to Uganda and have only photographed an Agama lizard with the 100-300 + 2x, but it does look pretty sharp.
p.1 #2 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
Nice series. I agree that the 100-300mm is a killer lens. I have had it since release. My RF 400mm is my fav but like you this is becoming my favorite lens. Combined with the extenders it becomes an amazing travel lens. 100mm to 600mm in one package. I mainly use mine with the R3 but just recent picked up the R5 II and am very pleased with the results of this lens on it. Congrats and happy shooting.
p.1 #8 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
Beautiful set! Looking forward to see what you bring back from your safari.
I'm tempted to rent this lens next year for my Yellowstone trip. Would certainly be easier to transport than my 500 II.
p.1 #9 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
It is so hard to leave the big white primes at home when traveling to a photo location, but after enjoying the flexibility of 100-300 on my recent Alaska trip, I am thinking of leaving the 400mm behind during an upcoming trip to alaska and only going with 100-300 + 2x (and 24-105).
Oh canon, Oh canon, pretty please, give us that mythical 1x-2x extender. I swap the extenders in field, but more than once it has cost me dearly as most of my shooting conditions have rain / moisture around.
p.1 #10 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
Love the variety of image both close and the animals in their environments. So often on the forums it seems to be all about reach and pixel density; lenses are never long enough. Maybe it's more a birding thing.
thedutt wrote:
Oh canon, Oh canon, pretty please, give us that mythical 1x-2x extender. I swap the extenders in field, but more than once it has cost me dearly as most of my shooting conditions have rain / moisture around.
Lack of internal 1.4x is the only complaint I had about the 100-300 when I tried it for sports for the reasons you mentioned - working in poor weather conditions and limited time between plays. I ended up leaving the 2x on it most of the time to avoid TC swaps.
How many here would trade their 100-300 for the mythical 200-500/4?
p.1 #11 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
rscheffler wrote:
Love the variety of image both close and the animals in their environments. So often on the forums it seems to be all about reach and pixel density; lenses are never long enough. Maybe it's more a birding thing.
Lack of internal 1.4x is the only complaint I had about the 100-300 when I tried it for sports for the reasons you mentioned - working in poor weather conditions and limited time between plays. I ended up leaving the 2x on it most of the time to avoid TC swaps.
How many here would trade their 100-300 for the mythical 200-500/4?
If the 1x-2x is a no show, which most are indicating for that to be the case, I would switch to 200-500 from 100-300 for wildlife. I end up running 200-600 right now anyways most of the time.
p.1 #14 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
thedutt wrote:
If the 1x-2x is a no show, which most are indicating for that to be the case, I would switch to 200-500 from 100-300 for wildlife. I end up running 200-600 right now anyways most of the time.
Not to be a downer or anything, but the rumored variable teleconverter has only shown credible drawings for a 1.4x/2x selectable type. The 1.0 thing and the continuous zoom thing are only in our dreams. That being said, the 100-300 would be a good candidate for use with such a TC, even.
p.1 #15 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
Excellent photos Jason!
You must be able to get extremely close to your subjects. I take it when you're getting these shots, you're on individual hikes or staying far away from the crowds and rangers?
p.1 #17 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
thedutt wrote:
It is so hard to leave the big white primes at home when traveling to a photo location, but after enjoying the flexibility of 100-300 on my recent Alaska trip, I am thinking of leaving the 400mm behind during an upcoming trip to alaska and only going with 100-300 + 2x (and 24-105).
Oh canon, Oh canon, pretty please, give us that mythical 1x-2x extender. I swap the extenders in field, but more than once it has cost me dearly as most of my shooting conditions have rain / moisture around.
Part of the reason I didn't keep the 400 2.8 is because the focal length is kinda close to each other and the 100-300 is more versatile. Unless I really cared about birds on that alaska trip, i'd probably just take what you planned....24-105, 100-300 + extenders.
I am not sure what I will do for the India tour I lead in the spring, I love all the bird life and sometimes the 600+ extender(s) do help out.
p.1 #18 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
lighthound wrote:
As much as I want to join the current conversation, I'll refrain out of respect for others as this thread is cross posted to N&W presentation board.
Go for it, as the assistant to the regional manager, i give you permission
p.1 #19 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
rscheffler wrote:
Love the variety of image both close and the animals in their environments. So often on the forums it seems to be all about reach and pixel density; lenses are never long enough. Maybe it's more a birding thing.
Lack of internal 1.4x is the only complaint I had about the 100-300 when I tried it for sports for the reasons you mentioned - working in poor weather conditions and limited time between plays. I ended up leaving the 2x on it most of the time to avoid TC swaps.
How many here would trade their 100-300 for the mythical 200-500/4?
I am not sure i see myself selling the 100-300 when the 200-500 f/4 is released, i could see myself selling my 600 f/4. I took the 100-300 2.8 to a wedding this weekend and absolutely loved the versatility of zooming in for tighter shots and zooming out and getting full body pics....
p.1 #20 · The Canon RF 100-300 2.8 does Yellowstone
nmerc_photos wrote:
Excellent photos Jason!
You must be able to get extremely close to your subjects. I take it when you're getting these shots, you're on individual hikes or staying far away from the crowds and rangers?
Right place right time on the up close bear pics, and they were out of the vehicle. I spend 6 months there and you can learn the behaviors of specific bears and have a good guess of where they are going to show up and about what time.
