Best value telephoto (300mm) prime??!!

NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
edited July 11, 2010 in Accessories
Ideally I'd like to pick up a 2nd hand Canon 300mm f4L IS USM for half new price - I can dream, can't I? But that might happen later than sooner! So, more realistically, I am trying to get an idea of what the best alternative might be. I don't have much of a clue right now, so would appreciate hearing your opinions!

Neil
"Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

http://www.behance.net/brosepix

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited July 6, 2010
    How did you come to choose the 300mm, f4L?

    What application?
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    How did you come to choose the 300mm, f4L?

    What application?

    Birds, and other wildlife. I have the 70-200 f4L IS and its a dream! But too short. So really need a 300mm at least, and I think I'd prefer the prime, but that's not set concrete. But oh my! the cost of those buggers! - (sorry, Australian slang, don't take it literally!)

    By alternatives, I meant other manufacturers, sorry that wasn't clear. I have been a 100% Canon gear guy, but this might just be the motivation for me to explore other brand offerings of something comparable (better?) than the Canon 300mm f4L IS USM.

    Thanks, Ziggy.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited July 7, 2010
    Hey Neil,

    It does get pricey at that length and beyond (300 won't be enough once you have it). A couple of suggestions: 1) get a 1.4x teleconverter for your 70-200. This will give you 280mm f/5.6 and is the cheapest next step. 2) a Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3 goes for about 900 USD new and is reputed to be quite sharp till about 450 mm. Your 70-200 is going to be hard act to follow in terms of image quality, and neither of these solutions is likely to be quite as good. I use a Canon 1.4x on my 70-200 f/4L and there is a slight loss of sharpness wide open. You might want to rent something first to see whether it measures up--I suspect you're a somewhat picky customer. mwink.gif.
    My Pics
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited July 7, 2010
    Richard wrote: »
    Hey Neil,

    It does get pricey at that length and beyond (300 won't be enough once you have it). A couple of suggestions: 1) get a 1.4x teleconverter for your 70-200. This will give you 280mm f/5.6 and is the cheapest next step. 2) a Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3 goes for about 900 USD new and is reputed to be quite sharp till about 450 mm. Your 70-200 is going to be hard act to follow in terms of image quality, and neither of these solutions is likely to be quite as good. I use a Canon 1.4x on my 70-200 f/4L and there is a slight loss of sharpness wide open. You might want to rent something first to see whether it measures up--I suspect you're a somewhat picky customer. mwink.gif.

    15524779-Ti.gif I agree with Richard. The combination of 70-200mm, f4L and EF 1.4x converter is pretty good. For birds it may not be long enough however. The EF 400mm, f5.6L USM is a very popular bird lens and works fairly well with any Canon camera. On a 1D body you can also use that 400mm with the 1.4x converter for some serious reach. (Of course you can also manual focus on a subordinate body.)

    Edit: I corrected myself above from the 500mm to the 400mm, f5.6L. Sorry for any confusion.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    NeilL wrote: »
    Ideally I'd like to pick up a 2nd hand Canon 300mm f4L IS USM for half new price - I can dream, can't I?

    That was my first prime lens. Really changed how I looked at gear. It is an excellent lens...but as mentioned it will NOT be long enough...I guarantee it.


    I used mine with the 1.4 for quite some time...it did just fine. Without the tc the shots are sweet.

    Now...I find the 100-400 on a 7D my favorite combo for birding. Add the crop factor of the body and 18mp and you have some serious effective reach due to the ability to zoom more with the crop in post.

    Too bad you live downunder...mine has a slight crack in the glass (don't know how that happened) that doesn't effect the image on a crop camera, that I'd sell cheap. With cracks you never know...may last forever or one day. I haven't looked into repair cost.
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    I use the 300 prime with a 1.4 TC. It is an awesome lens. On a crop body that is almost 700 mm. Keep looking and saving.
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    dlplumer wrote: »
    I use the 300 prime with a 1.4 TC. It is an awesome lens. On a crop body that is almost 700 mm. Keep looking and saving.

    My experience is that the 100-400 is better at 400 than the 300+tc is at 420. Add the flexibility of the zoom and it's a no-brainer IMO.
  • 20DNoob20DNoob Registered Users Posts: 318 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    I'd try and find a 2nd hand 400mmL, the general consensus I've seen elsewhere is it's the lens to go birding with until one steps up to the 500L or Sigmonster.
    Christian.

    5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    20DNoob wrote: »
    I'd try and find a 2nd hand 400mmL, the general consensus I've seen elsewhere is it's the lens to go birding with until one steps up to the 500L or Sigmonster.


    That's an excellent choice as long as you have good light and keep the shutter speed up...but since it lacks IS it is not as hand-holdable as the other two options that have IS. If the 400 had IS...I would buy one in a second.:D
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    Richard wrote: »
    Hey Neil,

    It does get pricey at that length and beyond (300 won't be enough once you have it). A couple of suggestions: 1) get a 1.4x teleconverter for your 70-200. This will give you 280mm f/5.6 and is the cheapest next step. 2) a Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3 goes for about 900 USD new and is reputed to be quite sharp till about 450 mm. Your 70-200 is going to be hard act to follow in terms of image quality, and neither of these solutions is likely to be quite as good. I use a Canon 1.4x on my 70-200 f/4L and there is a slight loss of sharpness wide open. You might want to rent something first to see whether it measures up--I suspect you're a somewhat picky customer. mwink.gif.

    Thanks for the very helpful comments, R. I don't know about "picky", after all beggars can't be choosers, but I am very sensitive to "state of mind", and if I thought a tc or a non-Canon lens didn't have the right stuff it would cramp my style, if you know what I mean!?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    15524779-Ti.gif I agree with Richard. The combination of 70-200mm, f4L and EF 1.4x converter is pretty good. For birds it may not be long enough however. The EF 400mm, f5.6L USM is a very popular bird lens and works fairly well with any Canon camera. On a 1D body you can also use that 400mm with the 1.4x converter for some serious reach. (Of course you can also manual focus on a subordinate body.)

    Edit: I corrected myself above from the 500mm to the 400mm, f5.6L. Sorry for any confusion.

    Yes, good info, Ziggy, thanks. My experience with the 70-200mm f4L IS (and also the 24-105mm f4L IS) is that f4 combined with IS is very useful in quite low light, and I'm not really missing too much by not having faster in the situations I use these lenses. For me, the IS and no slower than f4, is a workable and affordable compromise. Those reasons make the 300mm f4L IS so attractive to me. I can't imagine myself using a long lens without IS, and I can work within the limitations of f4.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    Ric Grupe wrote: »
    That's an excellent choice as long as you have good light and keep the shutter speed up...but since it lacks IS it is not as hand-holdable as the other two options that have IS. If the 400 had IS...I would buy one in a second.:D

    All your comments make very interesting reading, Ric, thanks.

    I know the 100-400mm with IS is a very desirable lens. I, however, have four lenses which 100mm figures in, including two very good zooms, the 24-105mm f4L IS USM and the 70-200mm f4L IS USM. I think you can understand that I am not shining to the prospect of another zoom traveling much the same territory (and I wouldn't part with the 70-200). The 400mm prime is not IS, as you have said, and as I remarked to Ziggy, I can't imagine myself using such a long lens hand held without it. But in any case its cost, new or used, is outside by present budget.

    All these things considered fixes the spotlight pretty centered on the 300mm. I will never be a dedicated birder, so the unsatisfied lust for 400, 500 and beyond is not likely to make me waste away!

    If you are interested in selling your 300, then I am interested to discuss that with you. Would you like to PM me with some ideas? Thanks.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    dlplumer wrote: »
    I use the 300 prime with a 1.4 TC. It is an awesome lens. On a crop body that is almost 700 mm. Keep looking and saving.

    Thanks, Dan. As you can see I am of the same opinion that the 300 is the one for me.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    20DNoob wrote: »
    I'd try and find a 2nd hand 400mmL, the general consensus I've seen elsewhere is it's the lens to go birding with until one steps up to the 500L or Sigmonster.

    Thanks for your comment, Christian, much appreciated.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    Just for fun
    Driving along tonight after sunset, so dark I had stopped looking out for photo opps. Out of the corner of my eye caught sight of two swans in the bay, silhouetted against the very, very last reflection of the light in the sky. Just for the fun of it I pulled over, got out 40D and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, walked back. Less light than even a few minutes before, I could barely see these birds. Camera and lens gave me immediate AF on them, and I took this handheld at f4, 200mm, 1/6 sec, 800 ISO. SOC after RAW conversion in Capture One 5 with minimal sharpening and NR only.

    927592170_TGeaS-L.jpg

    Am I naive to be so impressed by this gear?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2010
    Very nice Neil. thumb.gif Now I'd like to see it processed.mwink.gif
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • 20DNoob20DNoob Registered Users Posts: 318 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2010
    Ric Grupe wrote: »
    That's an excellent choice as long as you have good light and keep the shutter speed up...but since it lacks IS it is not as hand-holdable as the other two options that have IS. If the 400 had IS...I would buy one in a second.:D

    Hey, but your 400 does have IS! rolleyes1.gif

    No doubt if the 5.6 came in a IS version, that's if the stores could ever keep enough in stock for the first 2-3 months.

    IS is nice to have but I've only got it on two of my lenses(300 2.8 and 100-400), heck my newest lens doesn't even AF let alone IS. headscratch.gif
    Christian.

    5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
  • 20DNoob20DNoob Registered Users Posts: 318 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2010
    NeilL wrote: »

    Am I naive to be so impressed by this gear?

    Neil

    Nope, all I've ever heard of the lens is great things.
    Christian.

    5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2010
    20DNoob wrote: »
    Hey, but your 400 does have IS

    Yes...but the wieght and image quality plus built-in hood of the 5.6 make it very desirable. With the right light...THE best image IQ at 400mm.
Sign In or Register to comment.