Please convince me to buy the 300/f4L IS
Jekyll & Hyde
Registered Users Posts: 170 Major grins
J: Hi all. I'm trying to do my part to jump-start the economy here. :deal
H: I'd really like a lens to walk around the park with (I've got a 30D). I have the 400/f5.6 for a long lens (which I absolutely love).
J: But I find that it's just a tad too long for the (more approachable) varieties that hang out along the shores (ducks, gulls, geese, etc). The much shorter min focus distance of the 300 would be very welcome.
H: I'd also love the extra Stop in shutter speed for those close-in BIF. That plus the IS would also give me an extra 10 minutes of shooting at dawn/dusk. It looks like this lens would be a good fit.
J: However, my concern is over the (purported) decreased flare resistance vs. my non-stabilized 400. I shoot across and into the sun a lot, and especially into bright skies. Contrast and color can suffer sometimes.
H: Can anyone tell me if this really isn't a big issue? I won't be using a teleconverter. And I almost never need a "protective" filter. My lens hood is used religiously.
J: My real fear is insidious Veiling Glare. I realize that it can't be avoided when shooting with the sun in the frame, but still I'd like to keep it minimized.
H: Thanks for your input. Please don't hesitate to comment freely.
J&H
ps. Here's a couple of shots of the type that I typically like to take down at the park...
Cheers, J&H
H: I'd really like a lens to walk around the park with (I've got a 30D). I have the 400/f5.6 for a long lens (which I absolutely love).
J: But I find that it's just a tad too long for the (more approachable) varieties that hang out along the shores (ducks, gulls, geese, etc). The much shorter min focus distance of the 300 would be very welcome.
H: I'd also love the extra Stop in shutter speed for those close-in BIF. That plus the IS would also give me an extra 10 minutes of shooting at dawn/dusk. It looks like this lens would be a good fit.
J: However, my concern is over the (purported) decreased flare resistance vs. my non-stabilized 400. I shoot across and into the sun a lot, and especially into bright skies. Contrast and color can suffer sometimes.
H: Can anyone tell me if this really isn't a big issue? I won't be using a teleconverter. And I almost never need a "protective" filter. My lens hood is used religiously.
J: My real fear is insidious Veiling Glare. I realize that it can't be avoided when shooting with the sun in the frame, but still I'd like to keep it minimized.
H: Thanks for your input. Please don't hesitate to comment freely.
J&H
ps. Here's a couple of shots of the type that I typically like to take down at the park...
Cheers, J&H
0
Comments
I would only buy the 300mm/4.0 L IS if you
needed the IS. The focal lengths are very
similar and I dont't think the small difference
is worth the extra 1400$. Maybe the 70-200mm/2.8 L
(IS or non-IS) would be a better alternative?
The zoom also takes 1.4x Extenders well resulting
in a 112-280mm/4.0 (IS or non-IS) lens.
I own the 70-200/2.8L and would buy the 400mm/5.6
over the 300mm/4.0 simply because the difference
in focal length is not that much between 200 and 300mm.
The difference between 400 and 300mm will be even
smaller. (with respect to the angle of view)
― Edward Weston
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I agree with Manfr3d. The 70-200 F2.8 IS is a great lens for low light and walk-about "tele-zoom" lens. I think that is good enough to fill the gap for the 400mm.
There are some comments that the TC is not so good to go with zoom lens. I use the 2X and found the image is a bit loose. No sure about 1.4X.
Carry a 400mm and another 300 mm IS seems to be too heavy to walk around the park. The smaller zoom give you more flexibility.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
I had the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) and upgraded to the IS model which I love and use 3-4x more often than the non-IS version.
I also have the 300mm f/4L IS and the 400mm f/5.6L and a 1.4x TC.
I obtained the 300mm and 400mm "L" primes from a friend who is still shooting professionally. He got a contract to shoot some night sports and needed some faster glass. I obtained the two lenses for about the price I would have paid for the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L zoom.
I don't think any of my lenses are redundant and since I have three 1.6x bodies, it is like using a 70-400mm zoom with great IQ and autofocus.
One thing that I noticed recently while shooting with my 300mm f/4L IS lens next to a photographer using a 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS zoom. The extra stop I had at 300mm was really helpful.
To tell you the truth, while I have used my 1.4x TC on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens with good results, I have not really tried it with the 300mm f/4L IS. I am going to do some testing this week because I plan to take the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 300mm f/4L IS lenses along with the 1.4x TC and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens to Alaska this summer.
In reality, the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS lens would probably be a better choice for a trip like that thinking about the weight for airline luggage. The 100-400mm lens could probably replace both the 70-200mm f/4L IS AND the 300mm f/4L IS lenses along with the 1.4x TC. That would be quite a weight savings.
Get that lens!
And I get deeper and deeper
The more I see the more I fall no place to hide
You better take the call I get deeper and deeper...The Fixx
H: Good lens. I do plan on getting that one in the future, but for different applications. Thanks.
J&H
H: I have wondered how well the 70-200 takes a T/C.
J&H
H: True. I'd just take the 300, and use it for shooting the "wildlife" in the park. The ducks, geese, and gulls are pretty approachable. In fact, they often get too close for the 400's min focusing distance.
Thanks for the input 'Skip.
J&H
H: The 400 is a wonderful birding lens, but the 300 is really a different beast. It should fit well in my intended application. My big concern is its flare resistance (add'l lens elements).
Thanks,
J&H
H: That's definitely one of the benefits I was looking for.
J: Have you noticed much difference in color/contrast between the 300 and 400 when shooting against a bright sky? Many of my shots would be against quite bright backgrounds (sky, water, sunsets).
H: I'd agree. I know of folks who have done Alaska with the 100-400 and it has worked out very well for them.
J: If you have any more input regarding the 300 vs 400, please holler when you can.
H: Much appreciated,
J&H
H: Maybe that's the approach I should take! :ivar
J&H
I would suggest against using the 70-200 in any of it's forms with a TC, you will not be happy with it.
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
The reason I suggested the 70-200 is I took some shots at a lake recently. I was using the Canon 300 4 with a 1.4 X and I was tracking a family of geese. They kept getting closer to me so I had to take the 1.4 off. They got closer and I had to use my nikon with the 80-200 2.8, as the light was getting bad as well. The 300 allowed for some close up pictures of the goslings, but I couldn't get the parents in the shot because they didn't fit in the frame. The difference between 300 and 400 in this situation was not great, but having the 80-200 2.8 in low light did make a difference.
However, you may find having the 300 with a 1.4 converter being more flexible than the 400 you have now. Most the time I have the 300 on with a converter and take off when the light gets bad or the subjects get closer.
H: I decided to go with the 300/f4 IS, and have been down at the park with it a couple of times now. It fits my style perfectly!
J: Right on. The faster aperture and IS allowed me to shoot where my 400 wouldn't even dream about going. I can handhold the 400 to about 1/125th sec before the keeper ratio drops precipitously, but the 300 let me shoot to about 1/30 sec, and it also really helped out with the faster aperture.
H: Plus I was regularly shooting in the 5' - 10' range, something I couldn't do with the 400 (min 11').
J: Of course with normal birding and BIF's, the 400/f5.6 still clearly held the edge. A larger image, a slight edge in AF speed, and the 300 seemed to hunt just a bit more in lower light/contrast.
H: I couldn't be happier though. Both seem about equal in sharpness (haven't done any real tests), and each sure has its distinct place.
J: Now to save up for that 70-200/2.8...
H: Thanks for the insight Nick. It certainly helped.
J&H
Canon 1D Mark II
Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS
Canon EF 2x Extender.
The 300mm f/4L IS lens, especially with the addition of a 1.4x TC, is really a close focusing lens. While it certainly is not "true macro" it does give you a nice image size with small subjects. Using the 300mm and 1.4x TC on a 1.4x camera, you end up with a close focusing equivalent 672mm lens with IS.
Since you already have the 400 F5.6 the 300 does seem a bit redundant.
I bought my 300 to use while kayaking. I figured the $1200 risk was easier to handle than a $5000 risk. One nice feature of the 300 is it has a macro feature which ended up being a bonus for me.
For photographing birds like gulls and terns where you can get fairly close to them the 70-200 is awesome. It also gives you some room to be creative with zoom blurs and such. Also I believe this lens focuses faster than the 300.
As for flare I haven't experimented with the 300 in that way.
Also there is a huge difference in IQ between the 1.4xTC and the 2xTC. I have both and I only use the 2x in certain conditions, where I use the 1.4 about 75% of the time.
Good luck with your choice!
My website | NANPA Member
It sounds like you have pretty much made up your mind. I think you will love the lens. I have not noticed any flare problems, and Of course you know it has the built in hood which is very convenient. Good luck, and enjoy. :ivar
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
H: Macros/Close-ups are one of my true loves.
J&H
H: Very true! The thought has crossed my mind more than once.
J: Yes. Something I plan on using quite a bit! That close focusing has come in handy many times already.
H: Yeah, I'll just have to do my own shooting and see if it ever becomes problem. None noticed so far.
J: Thanks for that. I'll probably use the 1.4x pretty sparingly since I'll likely just throw on the 400 when I need to reach out more.
H: I may have to stack teleconverters to shoot the moon though!
Thanks,
J&H
H: Nice shooting.
J&H