ok, so i asked about the 200mm 2.8 II vs the 70-200 f4 IS
at the same time, i was looking at the 300mm 2.8 IS but i just cant justify that lens (at least for the price), i dont think i would be using that focal length that much.
then i realized that there is a 300mm f/4 IS at a fraction of the cost. basically same as the 70-200 f4 IS
It did, was my first BIF lens...fast AF. Shoot mostly Nikon now but I used the 300 and 400 f5.6L a lot as they were
so easy to handhold in the field. It would complement the 70-200 f4L IS along with the 24-105 f4L IS. Heck of
a kit with a fast prime thrown in.
BenV wrote:
hey trenchmonkey, I know its off topic, but im curious, how much money have you spend on camera gear since you've started photography? lol
If I had to guess $40K in 40 years...pretty cheap hobby methinks as I could sell what I'm holding
for over $20,000. 'monkeyglass IS my savings account.
trenchmonkey wrote:
If I had to guess $40K in 40 years...pretty cheap hobby methinks as I could sell what I'm holding
for over $20,000. 'monkeyglass IS my savings account.
I would sell the investment glass and get yourself some bundled mortgages. I have a good feeling about them
yeah, right! Why pick on the 'monkey?...I'm a lightweight compared to many here.
Method to my madness...I buy, try, and eventually let fly. Hands on always beats reviews
and pictures of brick walls/focus charts. Learn a hell of a lot more in the process. Now that
I'm fluent in Canon, I'm taking on Nikon to further my education. Can't put a price on it,
well maybe some shipping and fees. I buy used and let someone else take the "showroom
floor" depreciation. Apologies, OP...this is so far OT, but "they" started it!
trenchmonkey wrote: yeah, right! Why pick on the 'monkey?...I'm a lightweight compared to many here.
Method to my madness...I buy, try, and eventually let fly. Hands on always beats reviews
and pictures of brick walls/focus charts. Learn a hell of a lot more in the process. Now that
I'm fluent in Canon, I'm taking on Nikon to further my education. Can't put a price on it,
well maybe some shipping and fees. I buy used and let someone else take the "showroom
floor" depreciation. Apologies, OP...this is so far OT, but "they" started it!
Couldn't have said it better, although my investment is quite a bit less. Buy, try, and let fly.
Sure is a lot of fun.
My native tongue has been Nikon and now I'm giving Canon a try.
trenchmonkey wrote:
It did, was my first BIF lens...fast AF. Shoot mostly Nikon now but I used the 300 and 400 f5.6L a lot as they were
so easy to handhold in the field. It would complement the 70-200 f4L IS along with the 24-105 f4L IS. Heck of
a kit with a fast prime thrown in.
Sorry to pick on you again , but I was just wondering if the 300/4 or the 400/5.6 gets more use for birding and other wildlife. Any particular preference towards either lens?
beethoven wrote: Sorry to pick on you again , but I was just wondering if the 300/4 or the 400/5.6 gets more use for birding and other wildlife. Any particular preference towards either lens?
No problem, Tay. For BIF it seems you're never long enough so I'd say the 400 got the call 80% of the time. The
higher ISO capabilities with the newer body's lets you bump it up to maintain fast shutterspeeds during golden light shooting.
Both lenses offer excellent IQ and fast AF so it comes down to how close you can get. Looking back at my days with
the 100-400, I found I was at 400 most of the time and replaced it with the prime. HTH...Will
The 70-200/4 IS lens is so sharp that it does not lose much quality with a 1.4x. I had a 300/4 IS and sold it when I got my 300/2.8 IS which I also sold later. I have used the 70-200/4 IS with 2 1.4x TCs and gotten good results. For BIF I use my 500/4 unless they get really close and/or I want to travel light, then I use the 400/5.6.
The 70-200 f/4 IS with 1.4x is a good cheap way to get IS near 300mm. However, if you can swing it, the 300 f/4 will give you a full stop of aperture and a bit nicer bokeh (the 1.4x deteriorates the bokeh). Still, if you are strapped for cash, it's plenty sharp with the TC, and AF is still pretty quick (though not as fast as without, or as fast as the 300 or 400 primes would be.)
Here's one with mine + 1.4x tracking BIF. Trust me, on the full version, they are quite sharp and dead on in focus. I only had a second to acquire them, wait till the crossed the sun, and shoot.
trenchmonkey wrote:
No problem, Tay. For BIF it seems you're never long enough so I'd say the 400 got the call 80% of the time. The
higher ISO capabilities with the newer body's lets you bump it up to maintain fast shutterspeeds during golden light shooting.
Both lenses offer excellent IQ and fast AF so it comes down to how close you can get. Looking back at my days with
the 100-400, I found I was at 400 most of the time and replaced it with the prime. HTH...Will
Thanks Will! Seems like I'll have to get a new bag if I get the 400/5.6 though. A little OT, but how do you carry it around for wildlife trips? Backpack? Lens case attached to a shoulder bag?
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but here goes. Almost everyone agrees that you have to have a 70-200 in your bag, and the f4 IS is a killer good lens (all four 70-200 lenses are killer good, for that matter). But I find it does not do well with a TC, nor even a protective filter. Otherwise it is a scary good lens for the money. By the way, if you have even a halfway decent ballhead, or if you don't use a tripod, then you do not need the tripod collar, especially for $150. If you insist on having one, though, I will sell you mine. And, finally, this is the only lens I have that I use the IS with, you can shoot at 1/15 second with this lens using good technique.
I can only speak for the non-IS 300 f4. It also is a stellar lens that can be used for far more than most people think. It loves a 1.4 TC, and it has never disappointed me in any way.
If you think you can only have one of these lenses because of $$$, then buy both 70-200 f4 non-IS and 300 f4 non-IS used. Then later down the road you can upgrade without losing any of the money you invest now, and you will have two killer lenses.
Finally, I strongly believe that NOT having IS makes one a better photographer in the long run. Think I'll get beat up for that one?
'monkeyglass IS my savings account. 