Lens comparisons @ 300mm & 400mm

[dharden]

Cheers Doug!

I agree completely about IS. I wouldn't be without it but it isn't a complete solution in itself. It HELPS you to get there rather than doing it all for you and of course it can never match a wide aperture lens for freezing motion - that's why you pay more for 'em of course...

I'd have liked to see the owl sat on my head too! Certainly felt it!

Great tip about using the "motordrive" setting. I'd never even considered that - always been a "one shot" person up to now but i'll definitely give it a go! Unfortunately when I went out the other morning there wasn't a Deer to be seen at Chatsworth (if i'd left the cameras at home there'd have been hundreds right next to the road!), but I did end up finding a pair of Grey Wagtails that I nearly (but not nearly enough) got a good shot of - i'll just have to go back next week now!

cheers

Dave

PS I've finally started to get around your galleries now - excellent stuff it is too!

[tim32225]

The main advantage of the 300 f2.8 over the 300 f4 is speed. In applications such as sports, where shutter speed is critical, the f2.8 model is the tool of choice because it can deliver double the shutter speed of the f4 in the same conditions. Aside from that you have slightly sharper optics by most accounts, and added features such as focus preset, which is very handy for sports.

I think the f4 is probably adequate for most non-sports applications, but you'll always appreciate the extra shutter speed that's possible with the f2.8. In additon to that, you can add a 1.4x or 2x extender to the f2.8 and retain autofocus even in the non 1-series bodies. An additonal feature is the f2.8 model takes advantage of the higher precision autofocus sensors that exist in some camera bodies.

I have the 300 f2.8, and the 100-400L IS, but have never shot with the f4 version of the 300mm lens. I can say that the 300 f2.8 is a joy to use, a simply amazing lens. The image quality with the 1.4x extender attached is indistinguishable from that of the lens without it. With the 2x extender attached, you can detect a slight degrade in crispness in the photos but they are still pretty good. I have actually stacked both converters on the 300 f2.8, and the 1-series bodies will still autofocus, although not as quickly, and not very well unless you are in good light. This is somthing that I would rarely do. Keep in mind that if you stack teleconverters, the Canon system only recognizes the one that is conected to the lens (not the other one that is between the 1st TC and the camera body. So exif data is incorrect when stacking teleconverters. You may need to manually adjust exposure comp if you stack the TCs.

Some folks say the downside of this lens is it's weight. I've heard people say that the 300 f2.8 is too heavy to hand-hold, but I'm able to do that without any problems. I normally have it mounted on a 1D Mark IIN body with a 580 flash and better beamer attached for nature photos. This rig weighs just over 10 pounds, including all the batteries. For sports, I have the 300 and sometimes a TC mounted with a 1D MarkIIN on a monopod (no flash). The 300 f2.8 lens weights 6 pounds by itself, which is half the weight of the 400 f2.8 lens. This is one reason I chose it over the 400 f2.8. The same rig with the 400 f2.8 would weigh over 16 lbs.

Here are a few sample photos shot with the 300 f2.8 lens. The Sharapova photo was made with the 300 2.8 alone, the burrowing owl was made with the 300 2.8 and 1.4x extender, and the grackle was made using the 2x extender on the 300 f2.8.

More examples can be seen here: http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

Happy Shooting!
Tim Rucci

Maria Sharapova at the Bausch and Lomb Championship - MkIIN & 300 f2.8:


Burrowing Owl (Brian Piccolo Park) - MkIIN & 300 f2.8 with 1.4x extender added:


Female Grackle - MkIIN & 300 f2.8 with 2x extender added:

[dharden]

Hi Tim

Great shots! The 300 2.8 is indeed a fantastic lens. If I could even dream of affording it then it's the one i'd go for. One advantage that the f4 certainly has though is it's price - about 1/3 of the 2.8's required outlay!Still, I can dream.....

I'm pretty impressed with the 300 f4 and 1.4x converter combination. You can see from Doug's tests that it's not as good as the 2.8 but the photos i've got with it so far have shown lots of fine detail and good contrast even in flat light, so I'm happy!

Should have another test for the f4 on Monday - i'm booked on a boat to the Farnes (islands off England's NE coast that are home to thousands of seabirds and quite a few Seals, for those who don't know) at 10am and I'm very keen to try and get a shot of the Puffins. 'course it'll probably chuck it down with rain!

I couldn't agree more that you'd struggle doing sport in poor light on the f4 lens - especially fast moving stuff. I think your statement about it being best for "non sport" subjects is probably about right. One thing I have noticed since getting it is that more people come and chat to you cos you've got this white thing on the front of the camera which must mean you're a pro or something . I don't mind though cos I love meeting new people and chatting (you'd never guess eh?)