Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

Cool!

Thanks, here are a few more shots I've taken over the last couple of days.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

You're getting your Hummies dialed in really nicely Gene.

Thanks Jay. I am loving this lens, especially once I realized it was back focusing and I did some micro adjustments to correct that on my 7D. Oddly enough, no adjustments were needed when I added the 2x extender.

Don't know if it's been mentioned but it's my understanding that with the TC mounted, MFA data is stored as a separate "lens" so where a tweak may help a naked lens, it may be an entirely different value (or no adjustment at all) for a TC'd lens.

Exactly right Jay. "Barefoot", the lens needed a -6 adjustment to zero in the focus but when I added the extender, no adjustments were necessary and I didn't need to move off of zero ma. The lens/extender combo was seen as a seperate lens as far as the camera was concerned. So, now my 7D is set up so that the lens works properly whether I use the extender or not.

Great!

For anyone considering upgrading to the new MK II here's an interesting brief review: http://www.naturescape​s.net …ewtopic.php?f=5​7&t=204191

Interesting read...

navydoc wrote in post #13054885
Thanks, here are a few more shots I've taken over the last couple of days.

WOW, that is amazing.

Thanks. I wish the twig weren't in the way on the last two images though.

Rezolution wrote in post #13062128
For anyone considering upgrading to the new MK II here's an interesting brief review: http://www.naturescape​s.net …ewtopic.php?f=5​7&t=204191

It will be interesting to see if we hear similar results early next year when folks have the new 500/f4 IS II for comparison opinions. Quite a bit more money for an extra stop & a little less weight.

Silverfox1 wrote in post #13064562
It will be interesting to see if we hear similar results early next year when folks have the new 500/f4 IS II for comparison opinions. Quite a bit more money for an extra stop & a little less weight.

From that NatureScapes review: "Optically is whats counts most to me and probably everyone else. I tested the lens on backyard subjects such as pets, tree stumps, feeder birds, and other targets side by side with my current 300 2.8. I also ran LensAlign tests for the lens alone and with the new 1.4xIII and 2xIII tc's. With my current 300 2.8 I don't need any MA alone or either tc on my Mark4. With the new 300 I needed about +3 only with the 2x. I must say from looking at all the photos I took, I really don't see any optical difference between my old lens and the new one alone or with the 1.4x. With the new 2xIII on both lenses, my old 300 2.8 winds hands down - no contest. I would even say that my old 300 + 2xIII wide open is sharper with better contrast than the new lens stopped down a whole stop."

Gold! LOL. Maybe they should sell the old MKI at a higher price than the new MKII

Adding to the hummer theme:

1D4 and 300 f2.8 IS + 1.4x :

[URL="http://[URL][URL​]http://www.flickr.com​/photos/throughcarolsl​ens/6124357299/"]

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR