300mm f/4L, anything else to consider?

robscomputerrobscomputer Registered Users Posts: 326 Major grins
edited December 20, 2005 in Cameras
Currently with my 70-200mm f/2.8L I keep running into the lens being too short for my photography. In fact the 1.4x tc is almost always kept on the camera while using this lens. I was wondering if someone could give me an idea of the focusing speed of the 300mm compared to the 70-200mm? Also is there any other lens in the 300mm range that would be similar for the price?

Thanks,
Rob
Enjoying photography since 1980.

Comments

  • Steve CaviglianoSteve Cavigliano Super Moderators Posts: 3,599 moderator
    edited December 20, 2005
    Rob,
    I don't know how much more reach you need but another lens worth considering is the 400mm F5.6L. It's lighter and less expensive than the 300mm F4, extremely fast focusing, sharp wide open and works very well and still focuses quickly when used with a 1.4X TC (even the $80 Tamron) Not to mention that this combo will get you out to almost 900mms on a 1.6X camera iloveyou.gif

    Here's a 100% crop of a quick shot I fired off the other day. I was focusing on the seagull's eye. 20D, 400mm F5.6L and Tamron 1.4X TC. Converted from RAW with no sharpening during conversion.

    http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/48980261-O.jpg

    Here's what it looks like with some sharpening

    http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/48980256-O.jpg

    So far I am very impressed with this lens. It is everything I heard it was. And I heard it from some pretty decent wildlife/bird shooters.

    I have nothing negative to say about the 300mm L. It is a sweet lens. But if you're like me, you crave more reach out in the field :D


    Steve
    SmugMug Support Hero
  • robscomputerrobscomputer Registered Users Posts: 326 Major grins
    edited December 20, 2005
    Thanks Steve for your comments.

    I must say I did consider the 400mm f/5.6 but what bothered me was the slightly slower speed and the lack of any IS mode. Doing a quick search for the lens I found some interesting articles.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

    The image quality compared with the 100-400mm is amazing difference. I tend to take pictures in nicer weather so maybe I can overcome the problem of a stop slower and no IS. Will have to read more about this lens tonight and check some samples.

    BTW I would be using this lens for nature and motorsports photography. I'm really not sure if a 300mm f/4 with my 1.4x tc would be best or just going for the 400mm?

    Rob
    Enjoying photography since 1980.
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited December 20, 2005
    John Mueller, right now, he has my old 300 for sale at a good price, right here on this thread/forum/whatever.

    http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24470

    It was great.

    I do birds, a book author said for birds I should have a 400, that I would be happier. For elk, I would be happier with a 300, and that is what I know about that. Something about compression, perspective or something, even with extenders.

    I loved my 300, often did use the extender, 1.4 Canon, but I liked it and was reluctant to let it go. John said that if I was not happy with the 400mm, we could trade back. I am very happy with the 400 and the lack of IS, well it is not a problem for me.

    One thing, I don't think you would want to follow a speeding car with the IS on. Otherwise.......................

    Anyway, this is just a plug for my old lens. John said it has a few nicks on the body of the lens. I honestly didn't notice them. Also, I kept a filter on the lens the whole time. As he said the lens is clean.

    I think if you didn't like it, you could sell it and get your money back. Look for John Mueller's thread here. I saw it this AM, he has some Canon things for sale, and that is somewhat how the subj line reads.

    ginger
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
Sign In or Register to comment.