BIG GLASS QUESTION

[rickyd]

4 days in Yellowstone national park with my terrific new 1ds mk2 left me less than satisfied with my Canon 100-400 F4,5.6 lens ! it was totally soft on the 400 end and with extender - forget it. I also shoot amateur and pro motocross and some auto racing so I need a sharp big lens. I've been advised to get the 300 f2.8 prime or the 400 f2.8 prime . Size and weight are a factor on outdoor tracks.

So please-----how about some experienced recommendations ? Thanks
Rickyd

[GenEOS]

The 400 is heavy for trekking. I have the 300 and it gets heavy after many trips up and down the flat terrain of a football field. A good friend has a 400 and it is a beast. Optically, the 300 performs excellent with either converters.

I can tell you, if you get the 300 you will want the 400. But after lugging the 400 a while you will wish it was a 300. You can hand hold the 300, the 400 will be tough to hand hold for more than a shot or two.

[rickyd]

Thanks GenEos.
Sounds like your preference is for the 300 f2.8 which I have read is the sharpest available anywhere. But does it retain its sharpness with the 1.4 tele?
Rickyd

[GenEOS]

This gallery was shot with my Mark II and the 300, with the 1.4 & 2 stacked, hand held.
Distance to subject, about 55 feet.
It is tack sharp with either converter. You loose a lot when you stack them like the book says you are not supposed to do.
http://www.tunstall.cc/galleries/Cedars/index.htm

Don't get me wrong. The 400 is awesome. It is just heavy. No other combo will give you the amazing quality of the 400. But you can get pretty darned close with just a small loss of f-stop. The 300 with the 1.4x is tack sharp.

[rickyd]

Very Nice!. Thanks for all the help, GenEos, Looks like I'm in the market for a 300 f2.8.

[robertwgross]

4 days in Yellowstone national park with my terrific new 1ds mk2 left me less than satisfied with my Canon 100-400 F4,5.6 lens ! it was totally soft on the 400 end and with extender - forget it.

Which extender?

How was it out to about 350mm?

---Bob Gross---

[friscomgm]

The 400 2.8L IS is absolutely incredible for motorsports.

Gallery here:

http://www.friscomix.com/images/US_DRIFT_2005/index.html

[Dr Bird]

As A wildlife photographer the choice is the 500f4.0 I S this lens tips the scales
@ 8.5 pounds vs the 400 2.8 I S it can get tireing @ 11.7 pounds , the other
400 lens you might consider is the 400 4.0 I S D.O. ( Diffractve Optics ) this is
A whole new design of lens ( it weighs only 4.3 pounds ) you might go for this
one . It is NOT cheap B-H price $ 5299 but you are paying for A lightweight lens .

[rickyd]

Dr Bird - do I understand you right? The 500 f4is is lighter than the 400 f2.8 by almost 4 lbs? These relative sizes are something that dont always show up on a spec sheet !

With regard to the 400 DO, I am not willing to sacrifice image quality, although the size issue is a factor my overriding need is the best possible image with my 1dsmk2.

Rickyd

[KennyG]

I own a 300 2.8IS and a 500 4IS and my vote goes for the 300 without a doubt. It is the best of the longer primes and is excellent with either the 1.4 or 2.0 TC. With the two TC's it makes it very flexible and I use it as my main lens, as do a lot of other motosport photographers in the UK. I often refer to it as the Swiss Army Knife of big primes.

This was taken with my 1D MK-I with a mere 4mp, 300 2.8IS and x2 TC. The shot started life in RAW (as all mine do), processed by C1 Pro and no additional sharpening. If you want to see another example with the 1D MK-II, just ask. It not only demonstrates the superb performance of the 300 2.8IS, but also shows just what you can get out of 4mp.

Original:
http://www.motorpix.co.uk/misc/600-t1.jpg

100% crop:
http://www.motorpix.co.uk/misc/600-t2.jpg

[Adam Hicks]

I've been very happy with the 100-400, but I've found that to get the images as sharp as I want them, it's best to shoot at the ole' f7.1-f8 range. For the price I don't think it can be beat.

See here for my last IRL race worth... http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60920&highlight=adam12hicks

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes the 500mm is much lighter than the 400mm f/2.8

The 400mm f/2.8 is in fact almost identical in weight to the 600mm... it is of cours because of that fast f/2.8

Most wildlife shooters end up with either the 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4..

Sports shooters end up with 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8

It is safe to say that the f/4s with there longer focal length vs. the f/2.8s are better choices for wildlife in most case,. Likewise,. the f/2.8s are better for sports.

If weight is a factor in this decision look to the 300mm f/2.8 if you primary focus is on sports.. and the 500mm f/4 if wildlife is a larger concern.

[Adam Hicks]

You know, I suppose this will straighten itself out with experience and time, but I'm a little curious on using the 400mm 2.8 for a lot of these motorsports events. I would think that at 2.8 with any appreciable ambient light, the DoF of the image is going to be thin enough to make focusing on your exact intended point difficult with anything in motion. Even a fast tracking camera is going to be tracking faster than you can point to a very specific part of a vehicle and perfectly track it at 200mph.

I guess what I'm getting at is why would anyone use the 2.8 aperture in full light in a motorsports event? You're not going to be close enough to the subject (generally) to get a ton of bokeh, and you want to show what's going on around the shot, so I wouldn't imagine it's a bokeh thing.

The only advantage I can really see for daytime shooting (and it's a HUGE one) is the performance of TCs on the prime vs. zoom. Otherwise I've gotten every shot I wanted with my 100-400, and have ended up with 80% keepers at the last few races (shooting Av at 7.1-8 most of the time.) I can't ask for much more than an 80% keeper ratio!

Just thinking out loud here...

Adam

[Mark Kemp]

I am quite happy with my 100-400 personally, sharpness falls off a bit at the long end especially wide open, but all lenses do that and mine is still acceptable as far as I am concerned. I wonder if you would miss the versatility of a zoom. I have shot motocross a few times and I find the 100-400 can be zoomed to cope with both near and far action and even so I keep a shorter zoom on a spare body for very close work. Would a prime be a bit limited by comparison? Would you end up with the subject too close to shoot or so much space around it that you lose what you gain in quality when you crop to get a decent composition?

[Cadwell]

You know, I suppose this will straighten itself out with experience and time, but I'm a little curious on using the 400mm 2.8 for a lot of these motorsports events. I would think that at 2.8 with any appreciable ambient light, the DoF of the image is going to be thin enough to make focusing on your exact intended point difficult with anything in motion. Even a fast tracking camera is going to be tracking faster than you can point to a very specific part of a vehicle and perfectly track it at 200mph.

I guess what I'm getting at is why would anyone use the 2.8 aperture in full light in a motorsports event? You're not going to be close enough to the subject (generally) to get a ton of bokeh, and you want to show what's going on around the shot, so I wouldn't imagine it's a bokeh thing.

The only advantage I can really see for daytime shooting (and it's a HUGE one) is the performance of TCs on the prime vs. zoom. Otherwise I've gotten every shot I wanted with my 100-400, and have ended up with 80% keepers at the last few races (shooting Av at 7.1-8 most of the time.) I can't ask for much more than an 80% keeper ratio!

Just thinking out loud here...

Adam


Well certainly in my and Ken's case f/2.8 for motorsport isn't a luxury, it's a near necessity. Whilst I would dearly love to shoot my motorsport in light that would allow me to stay at f/8 all day long, I live in Britain and that just isn't gonna happen. At spring and autumn meetings when it's overcast and rainy I've seen myself never get above f/4 and towards the end of the day I can run out of light entirely. I have the 100-400L and it's a great lens, but if that was the fastest telephoto I had I wouldn't be able to shoot at about 1/3rd of the races I go to during the season. As for focus problems at f/2.8 I never had any particular issues, even with the 10D.

[rickyd]

Thanks for the in depth discussion guys.
Despite the other opinions, the 100-400 is not giving me what I want in sharpness. Didnt notice the softness with the D60 and 10D but its there on my 1dsmk2.

Since motorsports is more of an interest to me than wildlife ( love photographing both but two big lenses are more than i want to spend) I am going with the 300 f2.8 Any body know a good source for used lenses?

Rickyd

[KennyG]

Ricky, you won't be disappointed with the 300 2.8 and I have seen some good deals on the older non-IS model which also has outstanding optics. As Cadwell said, we need wide apertures here in the UK as our season runs into late fall with very poor light to work with.

In good light with speeds of 1/320 to 1/500 for head-on shots, you will get apertures small enough to give you enough DOF to accomodate a complete car/bike. You always have 'factor 3' to play with of course, the ISO. Just crank it up to get more DOF. Noise won't be an issue for you with your camera.

[GenEOS]

I would strongly suggest the IS version. It is worth every penny and allows hand holding this lens at shutter speeds that would normally produce motion blurr from camera shake. You retain IS with both TCs too. I bought mine new from B&H. I am just particular about buying such an expensive lens used to save a few hundred dollars. Plus, the re-sale value is so danged high on them, you will be paying close to new prices for a used lens w/o a warranty. My opinion.

[rickyd]

Yes, IS is the only way to go , especially the 2nd generation! I traded up from a non IS 70-200 f2.8 rather reluctantly (lots more $) after having owned a 28-135 IS (1st gen) that was just 'OK'. My first occasion to use my new 70-200 IS was on a small boat in Puerto Vallarta. Boy did it smooth out the wave motion of the boat!! That along with some hand held MotoX freestyle shots that were razor sharp convinced me that IS is worth the xtra dollars.
Rickyd

[robertwgross]

Rickyd, my questions still stand.

---Bob Gross---

[ron chappel]

One lens you may want to seriously investigate is the sigma 120-300/2.8 .

The canon 300/2.8 is rightly considered one of the best lenses ever made.Oddly i've seen owners comments to the affect that their sigma 120-300 proves to be even sharper!
While this may or may not be entirely true,it does at least say that that particular model sigma is no slouch

[Cadwell]

Mmmm... I have a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX and I love it to bits. It's better than my 100-400L and at least a match for my 70-200mm f/4L in terms of sharpness but but claiming it outperforms the EF 300mm f/2.8L is going a little far ;)

[charlesu]

I vote for the 300 2.8 ISL. I used to own a 500 4 and loved it too but betweent he two, the 300 2.8 rocks.

[rickyd]

Bob- The extender was a Canon 1.4 . I was never at 350mm that I can recall. Either I was shooting geyserscape/landscape with my 24-70L 2.8 (with excellent sharp results) or at full extension (400mm) length + the extender on the 100-400 lens to shoot animals.
Rickyd

[D Boone]

Ok, realize I am a total newbie... So I am gonna ask...
Whats wrong with this lens if it was to be used for landscapes, i.e., taking pictures of a valley, zooming in on houses in said valley? Or for sitting birds, assorted wildlife???

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=29925&bct=t1004%3Bc1022%3Bc914962

[GenEOS]

Ok, realize I am a total newbie... So I am gonna ask...
Whats wrong with this lens if it was to be used for landscapes, i.e., taking pictures of a valley, zooming in on houses in said valley? Or for sitting birds, assorted wildlife???

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=29925&bct=t1004%3Bc1022%3Bc914962

DBoone, this lens you linked to is junk and a waste of 350 hard earned dollars. It is a bit off-topic to discuss it in this thread about Canon primes. But, it is a cheaply contructed 4 element, f9-16 lens, it's a t-mount, manual focus junk. Just my opinion.

RickyD has a Canon 1DsMKII, a $7500 camera. He is looking for primo optics for it. This camera will resolve flaws in cheaper glass that a Drebel won't even pick up. The only combination, in my mind, for a 1DsMKII for long glass should be Canon "L" glass.
Primes, of which, he is trying to decide which is the best bang for his buck and will suit his needs. The 300 f.8 is a well rounded, sharp as a tack lens, for a reasonable price in it's class.

Sigma glass does not perform at the level of the 1DsMKII. Sorry guys, it just doesn't.

[GenEOS]

RickyD,
Did you notice any banding on the left and right side of the images you shot with the 100-400 at the big end? Just wondering. My 1Dmk2 did this with the 100-400 of some shots with a lot of sky shooting high shutter speeds at higher f-stops.

[D Boone]

Sorry, didn't mean to Hijack the thread, just felt stupid opening a new thread about big lens when this one was still up at the top.... I'll butt out now....

[briant]

Rick,
What's with the angst? Just buy both and be sure to drag both along wherever you go. That way you'll get in shape as well as be ready for anything. You better get another 1Ds2 though or you'll still have to decide which one to put on the body! Decisions, decisions!
Brian

[rickyd]

Bob ,
sorry to take so long to answer. The extender was a Canon 1.4. But I dont recall ever shooting at 350mm . Either I was shooting geyserscapes/landscapes with my 24-70L 2.8 (tack sharp) or shooting animals at full 400mm extension often with the extender on.
Rickyd

Note to KennyG:
that 100% crop of the radiator on the vintage Bentley racer is another convincer for me, wow --Im getting the 300F2.8