agonizing again - have 100-400 L IS mkii is it worth getting a 300 L IS f/2.8

On Craigs list here there is a 300 f/2.8 for sale for $2200 but I already have the 100-400ii and wonder if it is worth getting it for BIF?
It is 2.8 vs 5.6 and it has gotten me wondering

Yes, absolutely, your zoom won't do f2.8. Simple

I think after going through your recent threads, I would recommend staying put with what you have. The major thing that stands out is your mobility. The 300 2.8 IS adds around two more pounds to your set up and it is not as balanced as the more recent telephoto designs. I remember you stating you have a tripod, etc... to handle "longer" telephotos. Again, as I have recommended in previous threads, flexibility is what you need in your situation and the 100-400 gives you that.

3Rotor wrote in post #19017349
I think after going through your recent threads, I would recommend staying put with what you have. The major thing that stands out is your mobility. The 300 2.8 IS adds around two more pounds to your set up and it is not as balanced as the more recent telephoto designs. I remember you stating you have a tripod, etc... to handle "longer" telephotos. Again, as I have recommended in previous threads, flexibility is what you need in your situation and the 100-400 gives you that.

Thank you, I do have a tripod but due to my situation with my knees unless I am using it for surfers I tend to handhold as with surfers they are in a general area and move horiztonally while birds are all over the place. Moving myself around with the tripod is tough.
I usually sit on either a bench or a foldup chair and swivel with the birds.

The 2.8 is 300 grams lighter than my 60-600S (although I don't mind shooting with that from the chair, carrying it in is a pain) but it is 400 grams heavier than the 150-600C I often handhold and 800 heavier than the 100-400.

On thinking about it, there are only a few ponds where the limited reach of the 300 would be good, mostly I am shooting 400-600, either with the Sigmas or with the 1.4x on the 100-400.

As much as I want to find a way to spring for it I think I need more time shooting and practicing. But it is tempting

I personally would stick with what you've got, I own the 100-400 L II and it is excellent for BIF. If it was the MK II version of the 300L f/2.8 I would say yes go for the 300.

With weight and transporting being an issue have you thought about buying one of those jogging strollers to transport gear? I was out shooting eagles at a state park last month, and saw no fewer than 4 of them that guys (without young kids) had bought, usually 2nd hand, for the purpose of transporting 600mm primes and an assortment of bodies, lenses, tripods, clothing layers, chairs, food, etc. for a full day of shooting. At first I thought it was comical, but it makes sense when it’s a 1.5 mile hike on gravel trail to where the eagles are, and you’ve got a lot of heavy stuff to haul.

Even on a crop body, for me 300 was always limiting for birds, but the kind I like to shoot need as much reach as I can get.

ct1co2 wrote in post #19017864
With weight and transporting being an issue have you thought about buying one of those jogging strollers to transport gear? I was out shooting eagles at a state park last month, and saw no fewer than 4 of them that guys (without young kids) had bought, usually 2nd hand, for the purpose of transporting 600mm primes and an assortment of bodies, lenses, tripods, clothing layers, chairs, food, etc. for a full day of shooting. At first I thought it was comical, but it makes sense when it’s a 1.5 mile hike on gravel trail to where the eagles are, and you’ve got a lot of heavy stuff to haul.

Even on a crop body, for me 300 was always limiting for birds, but the kind I like to shoot need as much reach as I can get.

That is not a bad idea, I have a handcart that I use for gun shows but a stroller would work better. I have a gun cart for SASS Cowboy shooting but it is not designed for rough ground.
My biggest problem is I WISH I could walk a mile or so, with my severe arthritis I am lucky to get 1/5 of a mile before having to sit down, but I often try to lug a foldup chair, a camera bag, binocs and more. When I am sitting I can handhold my Sigma 60-600 ( 2700 grams) as I don't hold any camera to my eye for that long.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19017938
That is not a bad idea, I have a handcart that I use for gun shows but a stroller would work better. I have a gun cart for SASS Cowboy shooting but it is not designed for rough ground.
My biggest problem is I WISH I could walk a mile or so, with my severe arthritis I am lucky to get 1/5 of a mile before having to sit down, but I often try to lug a foldup chair, a camera bag, binocs and more. When I am sitting I can handhold my Sigma 60-600 ( 2700 grams) as I don't hold any camera to my eye for that long.

Are you going to keep the 100-400 as well? If so, can you repair the Version 1 if it is needed?
It’s a big boy.

Nick5 wrote in post #19018032
Are you going to keep the 100-400 as well? If so, can you repair the Version 1 if it is needed?
It’s a big boy.

I like the 100-400, wish it had a bit more reach, with the 1.4xiii it is ok but not as sharp as the native lens or the 150-600. Since I shoot for my own enjoyment and Flickr I don't mind pushing the ISO. I was just considering....

Jeff, I think if you ended up purchasing the 300 2.8 IS, I feel you would have your 2x III TC glued to it to net you 600mm, since you mainly shoot in the 400-600mm range (and still fall short at times). At 600mm, the combination will be at f/5.6 wide open. That's a third of a stop better compared to your Sigma 150-600 at 600mm (f/6.3). At first thought, it's a lot of hassle to gain a 1/3 stop of light for perhaps a negligible amount of IQ.

I have no experience with the Sigma 150-600, so I cannot comment on the IQ of the 300 + 2x III verses the Sigma.

Change in AF speed and accuracy of the 300 2.8 IS with the 2x III? Sure. Again, I do not know how that would compare to that of the Sigma natively.

Like it was brought up in the previous threads. If you're in need of more reach and better high ISO performance, the next logical step is to invest in longer lenses and better bodies. We're talking about native 400, 500, 600 and 800 primes. Then of course, 5D's an 1D's.

What we ended up determining was that the cost was out of the question for a hobby and something you shoot for enjoyment. Mobility was and is still a huge issue. All this equipment comes at the price of weight and transportation.

Perhaps it is time to focus less on what you are shooting with but how you are shooting? I do not know your typical workflow in how to set up for a shot but it seems you are out in the open and either "chase" down birds or wait for them to come to you. Maybe think of ways of camouflaging to get you closer to your subjects without scaring them off. You see posts frequently about individuals setting up and waiting for hours to get a mere couple of shots. They get the "prized" shots because of all the time spent in planning for the shot.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19017299
On Craigs list here there is a 300 f/2.8 for sale for $2200 but I already have the 100-400ii and wonder if it is worth getting it for BIF?
It is 2.8 vs 5.6 and it has gotten me wondering

.
For what you are shooting and the way you are shooting it, absolutely not. . With your 100-400mm, you already seem to have massive troubles getting close enough to fill the frame with the bird the way one would prefer. . So you are thinking about getting something even shorter???

I know - the 300mm f2.8 takes extenders really well. . True. . But the 1.4x only gets you to 420mm. . And the 2x extender slows autofocus so horribly that it can not be considered a viable bird in flight combination. . I mean, yeah, I'm sure someone could get a few really great BIF images with that combo ..... but for every keeper there would be many many opportunities that were complete misses due to super-slow AF speed and AF hunting.

If you are serious about getting a big white prime, then for what you are shooting (birds in flight) and the way you are shooting them (from very far away), the only thing that makes any sense to me is:

a 500mm f4

a 600mm f4, or

an 800mm f5.6.

If it's not going to be one of those, then just don't get anything at all ..... because a 300mm f2.8, with or without extenders, is going to be worse than your 100-400mm in 90% of all of the situations you are using it in.


.

Thank you to everyone!

I have only been doing this for 6 months and try to get out every clear and some not so clear days to learn to do it better.

Right now I am putting on my longjohns, jeans and hunting coveralls and heading out, a warm 35 degrees but a 15 mph wind

I don't see how a faster shorter lens is really going to help your endeavors. Some good advice has been given.

Just walking around with the 5D4 and 150-600, and taking a ton of shots, I have learned a bit on patience and reach and etc. I would love a fast L tele, but am holding off a bit. The only reason I would need a 300 f2.8 would be for sports, and in that case, I would likely get the Sigma 120-300.

Reach and even decent pixel density are good things with what you are doing.

My examples:


Sigma 150-600 + 5D4 @ 600mm

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19018113
Right now I am putting on my longjohns, jeans and hunting coveralls and heading out, a warm 35 degrees but a 15 mph wind

And this is why I don’t miss New England winters. That raw cuts right through you breeze, yuck!

I have a 300 2.8, and NEVER use it for birds. Ever.

10 15 years ago, f/2.8 was dreamy, but with today's sensors, I'd be carrying around that weight, sacrificing FL, all for a rare 2% chance I will really be thankful for 2.8? No thanks.

IMHO the 100-400mm is it.


If someone GAVE me the 200-400mm f/4, I'd sell it and use the 100-400mm instead. $8k more and all those extra pounds for 1 stop? Lose all that easy point-ability? No thanks.