Yes, me too...but at what cost and how darn heavy?
It would be perfect in a pintle mount on a vehicle, like the machine guns on those World War II Jeeps.
Cream of the Crop
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
"Holy crap its long!"
Gallery: 572 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Well the closest thing i can think of is the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma...
Joined Feb 2009
Apr 03, 2009 17:26 as a reply to @ KenjiS's post |
Right, finally cleared some time to process the RAW files from various test shootouts. First thing that became clear: I'll need to improve my technique a bit, because there's still too much motion blur/me not paying enough attention to shutter speed! I'm too used to shooting wide.
And the 300 F/4L:
Please do click on the pictures for full res.
As stated, the shots from the 300 are more vibrant, and I'm tempted to attribute most of that to the available light. What does bother me more, however, is the relatively visible CA, more so in the 300 F/4 shots than in the 100-400 shots. Treetops wide open against a white sky is sure to bring it out, but the 100-400 shot of the tram lines (did a tree, but at f8, and that didn't have any CA) is pretty much clean. Even the shot of the girl walking her dog (subject is clean as a whistle) exhibits some pretty wild CA on all the parked cars/every OOF area is fringed in green and/or magenta. not visible at web res, but go in closer/screen filling on a 23" monitor and it's visible, and it's certainly visible at 100%. Is this normal, or is that copy a bit of a bum lens? Reason it 'worries' me is that I'd want to use the lens with a 1.4x TC, meaning I'd be introducing more CA, rather than less. For the record: the 70-200 with TC was cleaner.
Even this shot has pretty visible CA (look at the pigeon's feet):
Note that all of these are processed with DxO Optics pro, using lens corrections (including CA/purple fringing, automatic settings) for the 300. No correction modules are available for the 100-400 and the 5D as yet.
Anyway, prices have just hopped up again (damn it!), meaning the 300/4, second hand, with new 1.4 TC, is about 300 bucks cheaper than the 100-400 new (can't find any second hand). Grr. Stupid yen.
5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
mattia wrote in post #7661818
I'd say sharpness is slightly better for the 300. Sample shots below. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the 100-400 was shot around midday, on a gray/overcast day, while the 300 was shot by the riverside on more or less the first properly sunny day we had, so it's major advantage is the light it had to play with; good light makes everything look, well, nicer!
The 300 by itself tends to make everything look nicer.
As stated, the shots from the 300 are more vibrant, and I'm tempted to attribute most of that to the available light.
Nope. It just doesn't have a cast. The whites are truly white, which make everything pop off around them.
Reason it 'worries' me is that I'd want to use the lens with a 1.4x TC, meaning I'd be introducing more CA, rather than less. For the record: the 70-200 with TC was cleaner.
I wouldn't worry about it. CA is not an issue with my Canon 1.4x II.