Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Sports 
Thread started 03 Feb 2011 (Thursday) 20:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

300 2.8 vs. 400 2.8.

 
canonnoob
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:20 |  #1

I know this has been discussed several times. I searched and still have not decided on what exactly I want to do. Here is the situation. I currently own a mint 300 2.8 IS and I am extremely happy with it, but sometimes I really wish I had something with a bit more reach. I have a few options.

1. Sell the 300 and pick up a 400 either II (non IS)- no cost or IS - few grand on top of selling.

2. Pick up the 400 II (non IS) and keep the 300 as well.

3. Forget about it and live with what I have.

I am more interested in the people who own or have owned both. Thanks guys.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 178
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:23 |  #2

Why not add a 1.4X TC?

You can easily make up the 1 stop loss in ISO with negligible gain in noise.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:27 |  #3

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11772746 (external link)
Why not add a 1.4X TC?

You can easily make up the 1 stop loss in ISO with negligible gain in noise.

I have used the 1.4.. I dunno. Even that sometimes is a bit short for some of the stuff I shoot. Baseball outfields are hard to reach lol.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Flores
Goldmember
1,179 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2010
Location: TEXAS
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:28 |  #4

2x = too much loss of light and IQ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:28 |  #5

Unless it was during the day, then yes too much loss.

EDIT: apart of me likes the idea that for high schools I have the 300- typically pretty good length, but If I go to anything like college or pro stuff, the 300 is a bit short.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,494 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:29 |  #6

Then use a 2x tc on it. I used it that way no problems.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:33 |  #7

macroshooter1970 wrote in post #11772778 (external link)
Then use a 2x tc on it. I used it that way no problems.


yeah... shooting night games at 5.6 is not gunna work.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 178
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:33 |  #8

I'm thinking the 400 f/2.8 + 1.4X TC is probably your best compromise then.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:35 |  #9

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11772798 (external link)
I'm thinking the 400 f/2.8 + 1.4X TC is probably your best compromise then.

Im thinking if I can swing the cash for the MkII non IS after the new version comes out that may be the best bet. what do you think jay? maybe even the IS version.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clickclickclick
Senior Member
530 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:35 |  #10

I have the 400 2.8 II. It's an outstanding lens, you won't be disappointed with it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,494 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:36 |  #11

canonnoob wrote in post #11772793 (external link)
yeah... shooting night games at 5.6 is not gunna work.

Then I guess you know what you need to do then.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shutterpat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,538 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 8327
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Orange, CA.
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:38 |  #12

get the 800 and be done with it.


Follow me --> https://www.instagram.​com/shutterpat/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:39 |  #13

Heres where I stand:

the 300 can sell anywhere from 3600-3900. I can easily pick up a used 400 2.8 II for less and have cash left over.

I can sell the 300 and put about an extra 2k into a 400 IS.

or I can swing the money for the 400 mk II and keep the 300.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,494 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:42 |  #14

patrickf117 wrote in post #11772831 (external link)
get the 800 and be done with it.

Then he can't take pictures because he'd have to use f/5.6 :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Feb 03, 2011 20:56 |  #15

macroshooter1970 wrote in post #11772856 (external link)
Then he can't take pictures because he'd have to use f/5.6 :)

sorry not all of us desire to stop down in order to get everything in focus. just saying.


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

15,075 views & 0 likes for this thread, 28 members have posted to it.
300 2.8 vs. 400 2.8.
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Sports 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
1409 guests, 175 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.