Lens choice?

Sam · March 10, 2009

I have a friend who thinks I am the photo guru. I didn't say he was real bright, I just said he is my friend.

But I do want to get him the best info I can.

He wants to shoot wildlife, and to date he isn't getting the images he wants. He has the 70 - 300, and the results are not satisfactory.

I would like to know if anyone has real life experience with any of the following lenses:

100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 IS $1460.00
400 mm 5.6 $1140.00
300 mm 4.0 IS $1210.00
300 mm 2.8L IS $4100.00

I know the 300 mm 2.8 is an exceptional Len's, and I do understand the advantage of fast glass but one question I have is if shooting at say f5.6-f8 how well will the 300 mm 4.0 quality compare to the 300 mm 2.8L at f5.6-f8?

Obviously there is a big difference in price, but if one were willing to give up some low light shots I am wondering just how good the quality of the less costly 300 mm 4.0 would be.

Also how sharp is the 300 mm 4.0 wide open?

WE have also talked about renting to get an idea of how they perform.

Any thoughts, or samples will be most welcome.

Thanks,

Sam

du8die · March 10, 2009

Here's some samples from the 300 f/4 wide open. Some cropping. Was a cloudy-overcast day - messed with the glare from the helmets. Hope these are helpful.

One More - Taken with the 300 and 2x TC @ F/8. Some cropping.

pyry · March 10, 2009

Sam wrote:

He wants to shoot wildlife, and to date he isn't getting the images he wants. He has the 70 - 300, and the results are not satisfactory.

I would like to know if anyone has real life experience with any of the following lenses:

100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 IS $1460.00

I've shot with the 70-300 and then ate porridge for several months and bought the 100-400. The option I considered was the 300/4 + 1.4 TC, but I went for the versatility of the zoom.

I wasn't getting the images I wanted either. I started getting them pretty quickly though after the trombone arrived

Here's a few samples:

This lens works

It is a tiny bit soft wide open at full zoom (usable though!), but a stop down or 100mm back and it's tack sharp again.

davev · March 10, 2009

Sam wrote:

I have a friend who thinks I am the photo guru. I didn't say he was real bright, I just said he is my friend.

But I do want to get him the best info I can.

He wants to shoot wildlife, and to date he isn't getting the images he wants. He has the 70 - 300, and the results are not satisfactory.

I would like to know if anyone has real life experience with any of the following lenses:

100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 IS $1460.00
400 mm 5.6 $1140.00
300 mm 4.0 IS $1210.00
300 mm 2.8L IS $4100.00

I know the 300 mm 2.8 is an exceptional Len's, and I do understand the advantage of fast glass but one question I have is if shooting at say f5.6-f8 how well will the 300 mm 4.0 quality compare to the 300 mm 2.8L at f5.6-f8?

Obviously there is a big difference in price, but if one were willing to give up some low light shots I am wondering just how good the quality of the less costly 300 mm 4.0 would be.

Also how sharp is the 300 mm 4.0 wide open?

WE have also talked about renting to get an idea of how they perform.

Any thoughts, or samples will be most welcome.

Thanks,

Sam

First big question is: What camera is he using?

If it's a full framer, buy a 50D with 15 megapixels. It will give them more pixels for cropping.
If it's a crop camera, but say a 20 or 30D, once again, a 50D will give them more cropping room.

If it's a newer crop camera, a 300 f4 really isn't going to give you much over what they already have.
Yes you can add a 1.4X tc, but with the added cost of the tc, and the loss of a stop, you may as well get the 100-400.
The 400 f5.6 is a fantastic lens. Mine is sharp as a tack wide open, but again, on a crop camera, it doesn't like tc's, and no i.s.
I also have a 300 f2.8 that I use with a Canon 2X tc. The shots come out very well with this set up, and it is
my preferred setup for wildlife on my XSi or 5DMKII.

As sharp as my 400 f5.6 is, it can't compare to the 300 f2.8.
The 2.8 is sharp wide open, loves using tc's, it's color and contrast is great, and it can still be hand held.

If you rent the 300 f2.8, and any of the other lenses listed here, after you get the shots to the computer, you'll see why that lens is so popular.

Now get out there and stimulate that economy.:D

One other lens not listed would be the 500 f4. (I know, more money)
This is the birders lens of choice. I would have liked to have gotten one, but I don't think I would have
been able to hand hold my shots the way I can with the 300 f2.8.

Good luck.

Cygnus Studios · March 10, 2009

One option that isn't on your list is the Bigma. It is big and heavy and a tad slow at a range from F4 to F6.3 but in good light, it is as sharp as you could ask for.

Tee Why · March 10, 2009

First of all, what's wrong with the images from the 70-300? Is it a 70-300mm IS or the 70-300mm DO? Both are pretty good lenses, especially the 70-300IS. He may want to see if technique is a factor in which simply changing to a more expensive lens probably won't change things much.

As for the lenses, I have the 400mm f5.6 and have tried the 100-400 and the 300mm f4L. I think if he is a relative newbie, the versatility of the zoom and the IS may help. If he is some dedicated birder or something like that, then a prime may be better. As for the difference between the two 300mm versions, I can't really say, except to get the focal length that he needs rather than a shorter lens with a TC. Having said that the 300mm's are great lenses and should do well with a 1.4x TC. All the lenses you mentioned are great lenses, just have to find the one that fits his needs the best.

David L. Megahey · March 10, 2009

Which one?????

Thanks Sam and everyone else. I'll work on this, I'm not in a "gota have-it now" mode. I will have to go to top ramen for 6 months....or...wait for that big stimulus check. I'll get some glass instead of paying my mortgage.

20DNoob · March 11, 2009

I've rented the 100-400 and was a bit disappointed with it's softness, apparently the issue has since been sorted out.

Lots of birders love the 400 but the general consensus is your gonna need good light for it to shine.

I thought of the 300 f/4 and decided to opt for the 2.8 version so I'd be able to retain AF on my xxD series with a 2x TC. That and I always knew that if I went with the f/4 I'd be kicking myself for it later on. If you can swing the high price tag for it go for it, you won't be disappointed. On the other hand if it's to much loot(I'm still unable to justify mine), never rent one, you'll be hooked and that'll be the end of that.

Good luck, you've got some tough choices ahead.

pyry · March 11, 2009

Tee Why wrote:

First of all, what's wrong with the images from the 70-300? Is it a 70-300mm IS or the 70-300mm DO? Both are pretty good lenses, especially the 70-300IS. He may want to see if technique is a factor in which simply changing to a more expensive lens probably won't change things much.

Good point. The lens I was referring to was 70-300/4-5.6 mark III which actually isn't very good.

Lens choice?

Comments