Help with 300mm F4L IS or 300mm F2.8L IS

4g63photo wrote in post #5275242
I like the 300 2.8. I took it out for a walk through a zoo today. The Iens is a bit heavy but bearable.
Here is a shot at 300mm.

Here is one with the 2x.

Good luck with your decision.

Very nice. Makes the decision even harder. I would love to get 600mm F5.6 with the 2x TC. What happened to the first bird's head?

easy answer: Bite off the bullet and get 300mm F2.8L IS. You will not regret. This is 300 f/2.8 IS plus 2x TC

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

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

20D_Newbie wrote in post #5275489
Very nice. Makes the decision even harder. I would love to get 600mm F5.6 with the 2x TC. What happened to the first bird's head?

Bad hair day.

40D 300f4 fOR ME

Ian

However i bet that 2.8 is the biz

Interesting thread, I had a chat this morning with a freelance press photgrapher . He was using a 1DMk 2+300mm f2.8. He said it got him shots he would not get otherwise and that was how he made his money.

IMO if you are using the lens regular and being paid then the 300 2.8 would be the better choice, who knows you could make the money back.

Mark

I bet next to the 70-200 2.8 it's the second highest paying lens.

Bubble wrote in post #5275929
easy answer: Bite off the bullet and get 300mm F2.8L IS. You will not regret. This is 300 f/2.8 IS plus 2x TC

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

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

Wow, those are nice!!! Thanks for muddying the water again.

I guess I need to rent the 2.8 but I hate laying out that kind of cash for the rental. I think I would have to really step up my money earning to justify it to myself. I really do want the 2.8L though!!!

I have made some good money shooting soccer, baseball and football. Even if I didnt make any, I would still highly recommend the lens.
The 70-200 2.8 is my real money maker though.

There's a test of the 300 f/4 with the 1.4 TC here.

As long as you're getting more work that will help pay for it, I think you'll only be happy with the f/2.8 & will wind up getting it in the long run. OTOH, someone else will be upgrading & you can probably get a good deal on a used f/4 to try it out for a year or two. Only you can decide what to do now.

20D_Newbie wrote in post #5277470
Wow, those are nice!!! Thanks for muddying the water again.

no problem. There is no need to rent this monster. Why waste money on the rental? Just get it.

I have recently gone through the same agony between the two lenses.

Ultimately, it came down to the cost, the price difference -if I remember correctly- was quite a bit. And also the fact that the 300 4 IS L had good reviews from the beginning.

So, here are my quick thoughts:

- 300mm on my 1D series:
* Lens by itself, it is average focusing, works really good, great IQ.
* With the x1.4TC, the AF slows down, but the lens definitely takes great photos.
* At x2TC, the only available focus point is the Center, and focus is really slow. Still good photographs though, if you can afford the aperture values.

In conclusion, this is a great lens at 300mm, best TC is 1.4 (as it keeps many of its original features), and if you have a x2TC, the resulting 600mm could come in really handy on a non-obscure situation. The secret to this lens, at least to me, is to manual focus at x2TC. The focus ring is incredibly smooth and effective.

If someone was asking me which lens I want for my b-day, I'd say 2.8 IS L. But if I had to pay rent, and my budget was tight, the 300mm is an outstanding lens, and splurge (live a little) and get the x1.4TC for it.

Cheers

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5277533
There's a test of the 300 f/4 with the 1.4 TC here.

As long as you're getting more work that will help pay for it, I think you'll only be happy with the f/2.8 & will wind up getting it in the long run. OTOH, someone else will be upgrading & you can probably get a good deal on a used f/4 to try it out for a year or two. Only you can decide what to do now.

Wow, the results with the 300mm F4L IS and 1.4x TC in that test are less than stellar. I rented a 300mm F4L IS and used my 1.4xTC and think I got much better results. This was pretty heavily cropped.

I was in a similar situation and have since sold my 300 f4. I think my main reason was the teleconverters especially the 2X work better with the f2.8 version (my 300mm f4 + 1.4 was good but I've heard the 2.8 combination is very good). Now I just need to save up the rest of the cash.

Ok, I need to bring up the prices to this discussion as well, rounded up, from BHPhoto.

The 300mm 4 L IS is $1200

Of course, 300mm 2.8 IS would be better, though its $3900 (almost three times more)

Heck, with a few more dollars, I could get 400mm L DO (The Cat's meow) - $5200

I guess what I am trying to point out, is that though the lens lineup is there, is clear, and 2.8 IS is king, as well as prime focal range, the budgets aren't just up to $1000 difference. If they were much closer, I would understand the debate.

At this point, here is my view: If you can afford the 400mm, go for it. If not, the 300mm 2.8 will also be a great lens, specially with the 2TC as it would bring you to a sloppy (just my term for a focal lenght that is affected by a TC or other additions) 600mm at 5.6.

But if you are on a budget like most of us are, the 300mm 4 IS L does incredibly well, specially considering how low its price is in the chain of prime whiteys.

In some cases it does not come down to the money. In this one, is simple. You either got money or not, you either can save $5200 or not. It kinda narrows down your decision for you (not that we'd like that).