Handheld 300mm f/2.8 IS?

Renting one this coming weekend, will it need a monopod? Im really not a weakling , and I much rather enjoy the mobility of handholding. Not sure of the weight of this lens though.

Tell us what you're going to shoot with it, & maybe why a 1.4 TC for the 70-200 isn't a good option?

If you're gonna be holding it up shooting all day then a monopod can be a good idea.

It's about the same weight as my 200L.
I can hand hold my 200L easy and I am a small guy.
So I would say, yes, it's doable.

Nemesis Digital wrote in post #7861541
Renting one this coming weekend, will it need a monopod? Im really not a weakling , and I much rather enjoy the mobility of handholding. Not sure of the weight of this lens though.

I've use the 300 f/2.8 hand-held for a good part of a day without problem. Depending upon what you're shooting, a monopod may help or hinder. For an airshow a monopod may become a dangerous weapon rather than a help. For more fixed subjects, a monopod may likely help.

Nemesis Digital wrote in post #7861541
Renting one this coming weekend, will it need a monopod? Im really not a weakling , and I much rather enjoy the mobility of handholding. Not sure of the weight of this lens though.

You'll more than likely be fine, with what little description you gave. What you'll be shooting would be nice to know. However, I've shoot quite a few sporting events and I can't recall anyone monopod the 300; however, I've seen a monopod on a 70-200 2.8 and D40 (yes, you read that correctly). I image the combo would get heavy if you're constantly holding it up, not so much if you aren't continually holding the lens up to shoot).

Apologies for the lack of info.

I will be shooting motorsports. Was considering the 1.4 on the 70-200 IS L, but was not one hundred percent sure on the quality it will produce.

If you go without a 'pod, at least go prepared to set it down from time to time. I will usually stuff a hand towel and a plastic garbage bag in a vest pocket. I lay the bag down, then the towel so I can just set the 300 down on the front of the hood without getting it dirty or scratching it up.

One issue I never thought of when I first got mine: tightness in my wrists and forearms from mearly supporting the lens/body all day (not just from being in a shooting position.) I shoot a lot of aviation subjects so I'm mostly tilted well up above the horizon when I'm shooting. FWIW, I tend to be a one-handed camera dangler and don't have it hanging off a shoulder or my neck like some do.

Hmmm...maybe I need to hit the gym.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #7861845
Tell us what you're going to shoot with it, & maybe why a 1.4 TC for the 70-200 isn't a good option?

PhotosGuy, since you brought it up

I own a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Canon 1.4x TC II. I've been "considering" getting a 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4 at least.

I'm shooting soccer for the most part.

My reasoning for possibly upgrading is that I can't use the 70-200mm+1.4x at f/4. To get sharper pictures, I have to do f/5.6 at a minimum it seems. When I do that, the background blur is just not where I'd like it to be. My hope is that I would be able to shoot the 300mm f/4 wide open and thus get better background separation.

Obviously the 300mm f/2.8 would be perfect, but it's a bit out of my price range.

So, am I correct in assuming I could do better with the 300mm f/4, or do you think the difference would not be appreciable enough?

int2str wrote in post #7862258
PhotosGuy, since you brought it up

I own a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Canon 1.4x TC II. I've been "considering" getting a 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4 at least.

I'm shooting soccer for the most part.

My reasoning for possibly upgrading is that I can't use the 70-200mm+1.4x at f/4. To get sharper pictures, I have to do f/5.6 at a minimum it seems. When I do that, the background blur is just not where I'd like it to be. My hope is that I would be able to shoot the 300mm f/4 wide open and thus get better background separation.

Obviously the 300mm f/2.8 would be perfect, but it's a bit out of my price range.

So, am I correct in assuming I could do better with the 300mm f/4, or do you think the difference would not be appreciable enough?

In others words, as in football, "speed kills".

IMHO - I think your images will be much better with a monopod, sure you can handhold it but I think your asking alot of yourself for your 1st time out with a heavy lens to think that you'll get the same quality of images handholding the lens right out of the box.

For football I would get monopod. You have lens down (not really down on ground) whole lot of time, and rest of time, you are keeping it up following action. And for this, monopod is good idea. I shoot a lot of sports with 300 or even 400 or 500 without monopod, so it's far from mission impossible, but for football I would pick monopod for sure.

i would invest in a monopod.

even though you may be strong, lugging that lens all day can be quite irritating.

IMO, if you think you need f/4, then you need f/4?
I use the 2X TC II with the 70-200 f/2.8, but have to stop down to effective f/11 to get reasonable sharpness at air shows & racing, which is why I asked what you'll be shooting, so...

I agree, but sometimes I want a tripod just to hold the camera off the ground, so I fold the legs of my tripod & loosen up the head which works well for me.

I've handheld a 300 f/2.8, & 500 f/4 w/ a 2xTC and had great results, but for motorsports I would use the monopod. The last time a shot sportbikes with a big lens and no pod I was very disappointed. Since you are renting the lens, you can probably rent a monopod for $15. The store I rent from doesn't include a head or a quick release but it's easy to thread on and off since you can hold it up and spin it.