I think I'm going to sell my 100-400 and buy the 300 2.8

[leftofedge]

I have the 17-55, the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-400. Do you think I would be better off with the 300 2.8 plus converters? I'm buying a blind and I think that will help me in the distance department. I also know the 300 2.8 would be a much better asset to me in the wedding department.

Thoughts? Offers? :lol::lol:

[Bubble]

300 f/2.8 for wedding? you're in the "BIRD" forum area. :)

[leftofedge]

I know where I are! ;p

I make money shooting weddings as a second shooter working towards lead shooter. My passion is photographing birds and wildlife. I bought the 100-400 and I've enjoyed it. I am just starting to think the 300 will serve me better all over.

[TheHoff]

His brides are easily spooked.

[Bubble]

. My passion is photographing birds and wildlife. .

300 is NOT ENOUGH focal lengh for those 2. Add TC? don't even think about it. Result is not the same. Minimum at 400mm to 600mm range.

[leftofedge]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=617963

What is that guy doing then? That thread there kinda pushed me over the top.

[Bubble]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=617963

What is that guy doing then? That thread there kinda pushed me over the top.

If it is a control distance environment then i don't see why not. 300 will be enough for you. :)

I set up some feeders in a marsh area near my house

[leftofedge]

did you EVEN READ his set up? it is a control distance environment



IF you're going to do the same then i don't see why not. 300 will be enough for you. :)

Yup, sure did. That's why I figured even though he has a MKIII and I have 2 40D's I can hopefully get close with the 300 and 1.4 to what he's accomplished. I plan on being in a blind anyhow. I know the 300 will serve me well for long shots in churches too where flash isn't allowed. I'm trying to get the best of both worlds. I'd love to get the 500, 600, or 800 but those are just dreams for me for the next few years.

[hollis_f]

300 is NOT ENOUGH focal lengh for those 2. Add TC? don't even think about it. Result is not the same.
Are you trying to say that a 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC will give worse results than a 100-400 at full extension? Because that's a load of old Jackson's.

[canonloader]

I wish I could afford one, but I have sworn off IS lenses. But it just so happens there is one for sale in the Sell forum, a 300/2.8 non-IS for $2550. ;)

Ooops, the topic is closed (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=592313&highlight=300%2F2.8), but he didn't say it was sold. Might be worth contacting him.

[jmik26]

To each is own, I say go for it. I use the 300 f/2.8 for 100% of my bird and wildlife photography right now. Coming from the 100-400 its a step up even when I have the TC's attached to it. Take a look at this guys site (http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-bird_wildlife_tanzania_africa.htm), he uses the TC's on all of his lenses with great success. Poke around his site and you will also see a lens comparison test...Jeff

[stathunter]

I can't comment on how the 300 works for birds. I shoot brides and my next purchase is the 300 ----I have rented it a few times---it does come in handy and provides sharp photos.

[gymell]

His brides are easily spooked.

Hahah, that must be why he has to use a blind for them! ;)

[CountryBoy]

To each is own, I say go for it. I use the 300 f/2.8 for 100% of my bird and wildlife photography right now. Coming from the 100-400 its a step up even when I have the TC's attached to it. Take a look at this guys site (http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-bird_wildlife_tanzania_africa.htm), he uses the TC's on all of his lenses with great success. Poke around his site and you will also see a lens comparison test...Jeff

Thanks for the link . I've been thinking about getting this lens for birding/wildlife also. It handles both tc's very well, has IS and retains AF when used on a 30D or 40D

But I might get the 400mm 5.6 first, then add the 300mm 2.8 later.

[andrewhuxman]

The 500 is a much better birding lens than the 300 in my opinion although the 300 is a great lens it just wont reach out far enough, even with the 1.4 Extender you only get 420MM. The 500 with a 1.4 gives you 700MM.... To each his or her own.:)

[leftofedge]

The 500 is a much better birding lens than the 300 in my opinion although the 300 is a great lens it just wont reach out far enough, even with the 1.4 Extender you only get 420MM. The 500 with a 1.4 gives you 700MM.... To each his or her own.:)

For 2 grand more though. I will be in a blind for the small birds. One day I'll have that extra money to own both.

[andrewhuxman]

For 2 grand more though. I will be in a blind for the small birds. One day I'll have that extra money to own both.

I use a blind also and also shoot little birds here is a shot of my blind when we were out last 3 weeks or so ago. And a couple sample shots from that outing.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t47/ahuxman58/IMG_0888.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t47/ahuxman58/IMG_0971.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t47/ahuxman58/IMG_0997.jpg

[leftofedge]

Nice ones.

[leftofedge]

Woo, Calumet is going to match B&H's price and I will be able to lease the lens and pay it off over a year. Ordering it Tomorrow!

[CountryBoy]

Woo, Calumet is going to match B&H's price and I will be able to lease the lens and pay it off over a year. Ordering it Tomorrow!

Let us know how you like it. Interested in some bird shots with the 2x on it.

[Hikin Mike]

I'm using a 5D/300mm f/4L IS/1.4x II and I made blind using my kids old 'house' and the cover from our grill...

http://www.thebackcountry.org/images/web_temp/Blind4.jpg

http://www.thebackcountry.org/images/web_temp/_MG_6452.jpg

[davebreal]

i've heard nothing but good things about the 300 2.8, even with a 2x TC. of course you'll probably want to use at minimum a monopod, but probably a tripod.

no first hand experience unfortunately.

[scot079]

I'm using a 5D/300mm f/4L IS/1.4x II and I made blind using my kids old 'house' and the cover from our grill...

Mike, awesome shots man. I couldn't results like that using the 300/4 + 1.4:)

leftofedge, I can't recommend the 300 2.8 enough but it's very limited as far as birds go. You MUST be close to your target, I don't use a blind however.

The 500 would be great and I'll probably end up buying it eventually but for now the 300 is putting out. I guess the frustrating part is when you see a nice eagle or something fly overhead that's smaller than the AF point in your viewfinder.

[leftofedge]

Mike, awesome shots man. I couldn't results like that using the 300/4 + 1.4:)

leftofedge, I can't recommend the 300 2.8 enough but it's very limited as far as birds go. You MUST be close to your target, I don't use a blind however.

The 500 would be great and I'll probably end up buying it eventually but for now the 300 is putting out. I guess the frustrating part is when you see a nice eagle or something fly overhead that's smaller than the AF point in your viewfinder.

I'm going to buy the 300, 1.4, and 2x converters all at once. I've been reading countless reviews on how awesome this lens is with the 1.4 and also how well it produces with the 2x. I want it for birds and for a walk around so the 500, 600 won't be able to give me that luxury.

[Hikin Mike]

Mike, awesome shots man. I couldn't results like that using the 300/4 + 1.4:)

leftofedge, I can't recommend the 300 2.8 enough but it's very limited as far as birds go. You MUST be close to your target, I don't use a blind however.

The 500 would be great and I'll probably end up buying it eventually but for now the 300 is putting out. I guess the frustrating part is when you see a nice eagle or something fly overhead that's smaller than the AF point in your viewfinder.

Thanks. :o

[highcountry]

Unfortunately, small birds need big glass. These photos were taken off of my back porch at no more than 25'. Using a 500mm IS or 70-200mm f4 w/1.4x (280mm).

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/data/525/Male-House-Finch-Fluffing.jpg

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/data/525/Male-Goldfinch-70-200mm.jpg

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/data/525/Chickadee.gif

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/data/525/Nuthatch-1_edited-1.JPG

[Larry Weinman]

I have the 300mm f 2.8 and use it for wildlife and birding with both the 1.4 and 2x converters. I also have a 100-400. I get very good quality with the 300, even when using the 2X but I wouldn't serll my 100-400, it's just too versatile. Yesterday when shooting Trumpeter Swans the 300 was just too long for many shots.

[EdV]

I puzzled over this decision fro quite a while last summer. I kept bouncing back and forth between the 300 2.8 and the 500 4. In the end I went with the 300 2.8 because it is a more versatile lens in my estimation. If it were just birds, the 500 would be the way to go. But the 500 is just not as versatile as the 300.

And the 300 2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses that Canon makes. It is one of the very few that loses very little with a 2x TC which is what I use regularly for birds. I post on a board that offers some of the harshest criticisms of bird images (its how you learn) and believe me I have gotten my share of criticism. But never that the image wasn't sharp with the 300 2.8 and 2x.

Hope this helps.

[sandpiper]

300 is NOT ENOUGH focal lengh for those 2. Add TC? don't even think about it. Result is not the same. Minimum at 400mm to 600mm range.

OK, I have both the 100-400 and the 300 f/2.8 IS so am speaking from first hand experience. The 300 takes TCs very well and is certainly no worse with a 1.4x on, than using the 100-400 at full stretch. In addition, it is still a stop faster (f/4) and has quicker AF. I have only used the 2x once (briefly, I borrowed one to try a few shots) and, although the image did seem slightly softer when pixel peeping, it was certainly not an issue.

The 500 is a much better birding lens than the 300 in my opinion although the 300 is a great lens it just wont reach out far enough, even with the 1.4 Extender you only get 420MM. The 500 with a 1.4 gives you 700MM.... To each his or her own.:)

Yes, I agree. I lusted after the 500 (and the 600) but ended up buying the 300 because of budget constraints. This is just a hobby and it was hard enough to justify the £3,000 for that lens, never mind anything longer.

I have the 300mm f 2.8 and use it for wildlife and birding with both the 1.4 and 2x converters. I also have a 100-400. I get very good quality with the 300, even when using the 2X but I wouldn't serll my 100-400, it's just too versatile. Yesterday when shooting Trumpeter Swans the 300 was just too long for many shots.

I agree with this too, the 300 (even with a TC on) has much faster AF than the 100-400. My main reason for buying it though, was the fact that I tend to run out of light with the 100-400, living in England with it's cloudy, wet weather. I have taken many very nice bird shots with the 100-400 and it does benefit from the zoom versatility on a lot of occasions, although less so with birding shoots. I certainly don't view the 300 as a replacement for the 100-400, I would hate to part with either, they are very different beasts and each has it's plus points.

If the OP is generally shooting at 400mm though, the 300 with 1.4xTC will be a good alternative to the 100-400.

[skygod44]

OK, I have both the 100-400 and the 300 f/2.8 IS so am speaking from first hand experience. The 300 takes TCs very well and is certainly no worse with a 1.4x on, than using the 100-400 at full stretch. In addition, it is still a stop faster (f/4) and has quicker AF. I have only used the 2x once (briefly, I borrowed one to try a few shots) and, although the image did seem slightly softer when pixel peeping, it was certainly not an issue.



Yes, I agree. I lusted after the 500 (and the 600) but ended up buying the 300 because of budget constraints. This is just a hobby and it was hard enough to justify the £3,000 for that lens, never mind anything longer.



I agree with this too, the 300 (even with a TC on) has much faster AF than the 100-400. My main reason for buying it though, was the fact that I tend to run out of light with the 100-400, living in England with it's cloudy, wet weather. I have taken many very nice bird shots with the 100-400 and it does benefit from the zoom versatility on a lot of occasions, although less so with birding shoots. I certainly don't view the 300 as a replacement for the 100-400, I would hate to part with either, they are very different beasts and each has it's plus points.

If the OP is generally shooting at 400mm though, the 300 with 1.4xTC will be a good alternative to the 100-400.

+1 to KEEPING your 100-400.

I've borrowed the 300 and it is a gorgeous piece of glass....I'm pretty sure I'll get it one day (if Missus Skygod lets me!) or the 500, but the 100-400 beats the 300 if you need to quickly zoom! Of course, IQ and aperture are important, but I shoot hawks that dive and swoop. The 300 simply wouldn't work!

So my thoughts are that you're better off saving a little longer and buying the 300 as an addition to your 100-400.

More choice = good, in my books!

[hollis_f]

I bought the 300 2.8 despite already owning the 100-400, primarily for shooting birds. I don't think I've used the 100-400 since that purchase as the 300 + 1.4x is just so good.

Why haven't I sold my 100-400? Because it is still being used: by my friend who finds her 500mm (plus the required tripod and gimbal head) too heavy for many of our birding trips.

[Larry Weinman]

The 300mm f 2.8 works very well with a 2X at f 5.6 and even better at f8. Look up the archive on the 300mm f 2.8, there are tons of excellent photos with the 300 and 2X there are even some excellent ones with stacked TC..

[Loopy]

I sold my 100-400 recently, too many repairs.
I purchased the 300mm 2.8 strictly for shooting birds and I have not regreted it one bit. It's the sharpest lens you can buy and the extenders work fine, though the 2.0 will increase the fuzziness. This lens is lighter than the 400, 500 and 600 so if needed ,you can hand hold it for a short time. I use a monopod cause I'm a wimp.

[bhowdy]

When you look at many serious bird / wildlife photographer's gear list you will see a 500mm, 600mm or 800mm lens AND usually you will see a 300f2.8, or a 300f4. Others will also keep a large tele zoom as well (100-400, 150-500, etc)

The 300mm's are very viable focal lengths in some situations. It's really no different than a bag of golf clubs .... having the right club for a specific shot.

Of course all this comes at a significant cost.

[leftofedge]

I ended up keeping the 100-400 as well as buying the new 300. Until I have enough money for a 500, 600, or 800 I think I have all of my bases covered :)

[bandana]

I ended up keeping the 100-400 as well as buying the new 300. Until I have enough money for a 500, 600, or 800 I think I have all of my bases covered :)

great move! i would keep the 100-400 as well. you'll never know when u may need it's versatility.