Red-Ringed Tupperware Party with (ineffective) Tin Foil Hats (5)

puddlepirate44 wrote in post #4605438
I will say this first: I love the 400. To be honest, I think it was the best gear purchase I've ever made.

That being said, I think that the 300 f/4 IS is more versatile than the 400. It has IS, it's an f/4 which is good, and it'll still work with a 1.4 TC to bring it up a step if you want the extra reach. The IQ is stellar.

While the 400 is amazing, IMO, the 300 is a better all around lens for what you're looking for.

I will now sit back and watch everyone disagree with me.

You've pretty much summarized my impressions based on several bajillion posts around here and no ''hands on" with either. It really helps to hear from people who've played with both in the field.

Maureen Souza wrote in post #4603869
Humanitarian Bowl at half time........Fresno State 20- Georgia Tech 7

"Humanitarian Bowl?" Is this the one where they give them a bowl game for humaitarian reasons?

There's just way too many bowl games now. Here in San Diego the Holiday Bowl was originally created to give San Diego State University their own bowl game. They've never played in it. Then, three years ago the Poinsettia Bowl was created to give San Diego State University their own bowl game. They've never played in it...

Five teams (out of nine)teams in the Mountain West Conference went to bowl games. Since when does a fifth-place team go to a bowl game? Whatever happened to the requirement that the school win their conference before even being considered for a bowl game? There are now 32 different bowl games taking place between December 20th and January 7th... Coupled with the NFL playoffs, it's football overload!

Permagrin wrote in post #4605205
okay, I think you were right. (I didn't know the 24-70 wasn't a speed focusing lens...I would have thought it was)

We just shot 66 shots with the 70-200 F4IS and 44 with the 400 (at high iso's because it was getting dark) There were about a dozen mis-focused shots (most of them w/the 400 because I have a hard time holding it still). Considering the low light, I'm amazed at how few there were.

So, in switching lenses 2 of the 3 tested came back with approx 90% keeper ratio which is extremely acceptable. With the 70-200, only 3 or 4 of the 66 frames mis focused. That was a HUGE difference from testing with the other lens.

(I checked the lens focus and had to turn off the -1 setting for all because it focuses properly now).

I'll test it again tomorrow in better light but I'm am feeling more hopeful. Thanks Wooly, I was all set to call canon again (I'd been over the CF's and couldn't get it to track...) but I think it's working. Dan looked over the shots and said that it was a completely different result (you wouldn't even think it was from the same camera) using the two telephoto lenses....

If you meet up with Scooter...ask to try his 70-200 f/2.8....that is a fast focuser for sure...I just suspect it was the lens...

puddlepirate44 wrote in post #4605253
OK, this is where we left off on the 21st:

Sneaux Day: Goin' Full Throttle!


Which leads us to this:

Sneaux Day: An Ungood Discovery

Yeeeeeeeeeha....a literal and figurative cliffhanger.

Permagrin wrote in post #4605339
this is cool...I cannot figure out what it's raining on but I like it.

No rain at all....I have a small glass birdbath...that has a flower pattern cast in the glass....what you are seeing is about half an inch of ice on top of the water.

Jon wrote in post #4605384
OK - question.
I have 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400 IS, Canon 1.4x TC.

I will be getting the 500 f/4. Just not as soon as I'd hoped due to vet bills for Ann's horse. However, we've just paid off the mortgage, so that money's now available. The 1D III is also on delay, but inevitable.

In the mean time, I'm considering a tele prime. The question - 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6?

I'm quite likely to be using it in forest conditions, so IS would be useful, as would the extra stop at 300. It'll also have to fit in with the rest of my gear as carry-on (and the UK, which is a probable destination, hasn't yet loosened up to allow 2 carry-on bags). Subjects - wildlife (including BiF) and MBiF.

Which - and why?

No question...the 300....IS, it takes a TC nicely, has semi-macro capabilities, like having 3 lenses for the price of 1. It is a fast focuser, has decent IQ and great balance. Need more?

Not (primarily) running up post counts - The Axim's unable to cope with Java/Javascript, so multiquotes don't work.

Permagrin wrote in post #4605454
well, I can tell you what I really like and dislike about each lens

400
likes: super fast focusing
400mm w/o a tc
pin sharp when you get the focus

dislikes: I can barely hold it still without IS
it leaves focus as fast as it gains it
5.6

300
likes: it's fast focusing but not as fast as the 400
can be either 300mm or 420 w/very minimum diminishment of IQ (I REALLY like this)
f4
IS
very sharp

dislikes:
only 300mm

Only 300 doesn't bother me - the 500 will be coming, as will the 1D3, and, as you say, it likes the 1.4x TC. Size-wise, how are they? (not weight; the 1-4 and 728 don't bother me.) Both handling and carrying packed. Paper specs are nice, but not real world. Domke-friendly? Horizontal or vertical? I have the F-7 if I'd need depth, the F-1 for length.

puddlepirate44 wrote in post #4605438
I will say this first: I love the 400. To be honest, I think it was the best gear purchase I've ever made.

That being said, I think that the 300 f/4 IS is more versatile than the 400. It has IS, it's an f/4 which is good, and it'll still work with a 1.4 TC to bring it up a step if you want the extra reach. The IQ is stellar.

While the 400 is amazing, IMO, the 300 is a better all around lens for what you're looking for.

I will now sit back and watch everyone disagree with me.

Not going to get an argument from me.

Jon wrote in post #4605490
You've pretty much summarized my impressions based on several bajillion posts around here and no ''hands on" with either. It really helps to hear from people who've played with both in the field.

You could have played with either one when we were at Roan. I had them both with me....

Woolburr wrote in post #4605557
No question...the 300....IS, it takes a TC nicely, has semi-macro capabilities, like having 3 lenses for the price of 1. It is a fast focuser, has decent IQ and great balance. Need more?

That's where I've been leaning. I think you all are pushing me over the brink. Of course, Scottlet hasn't jumped in to try to sell me his 400!

New Year's Resolution:
1 body, 2 prime telephotos. Right now I suspect 1D3, 300 IS, 500 IS (not in that order).

Jon wrote in post #4605558
Not (primarily) running up post counts - The Axim's unable to cope with Java/Javascript, so multiquotes don't work.

Only 300 doesn't bother me - the 500 will be coming, as will the 1D3, and, as you say, it likes the 1.4x TC. Size-wise, how are they? (not weight; the 1-4 and 728 don't bother me.) Both handling and carrying packed. Paper specs are nice, but not real world. Domke-friendly? Horizontal or vertical? I have the F-7 if I'd need depth, the F-1 for length.

There isn't much difference size wise....the 400 is a touch longer...but since my 300 nearly always has a 1.4x on it...they are virtually identical in size. The 400 feels a touch lighter....suspect that is due to no IS....but the differences are nominal.

Jon wrote in post #4605588
That's where I've been leaning. I think you all are pushing me over the brink. Of course, Scottlet hasn't jumped in to try to sell me his 400!

New Year's Resolution:
1 body, 2 prime telephotos. Right now I suspect 1D3, 300 IS, 500 IS (not in that order).

I can't help you as far as the Domke bags go...I have no idea about their relative sizes.

Woolburr wrote in post #4605572
You could have played with either one when we were at Roan. I had them both with me....

I wasn't looking that far ahead then! I think I spent most of my time with the 728 and 24-70.

I think you had a macro on for a fair bit as well.

Woolburr wrote in post #4605592
There isn't much difference size wise....the 400 is a touch longer...but since my 300 nearly always has a 1.4x on it...they are virtually identical in size. The 400 feels a touch lighter....suspect that is due to no IS....but the differences are nominal.

the 300 w/the tc is just a hair heavier (tech specs) but it doesn't feel like it...it feels the same as the 400 alone.

Woolburr wrote in post #4605596
I can't help you as far as the Domke bags go...I have no idea about their relative sizes.

We don't have your domkes but if Dan puts the 400 on his camera (the 300 w/tc is just a bit maybe 3mm longer) it fits horizontally in his F2 (he can not get any other lenses in there, safely, but can put some misc. filters and things in there with it). I don't know if that'll help....