300mm Question

jstuedle · Dec 13, 2007

I own one lens longer than 300mm and it is reserved for tripod/blind wildlife shooting. It's a 400 f/3.5, uses a 122mm filter and looks and handles like a howitzer. I'd love to own a 600 f/4, but that will wait for another lifetime. Even the 300 2.8 is a bear to hold steady and is best used on a tripod. The cost, size and weight of these lenses is simply out of most shooters ability to justify owning them. I would imagine that the longest lens in most shooters bag is a 70/80-200 f/2,8 or a 70-300 pro-sumer variable aperture lens.

Chris of Arabia · Dec 13, 2007

Out of interest, I just checked out whether Tamron still did their 300mm f/2.8 - they do and it weighs nearly 3Kg. That's a lot of lens to be carrying around.

sabbath999 · Dec 13, 2007

I own a Sigma "BigMa" 50-500, and I have nicknamed it "The Beast".

I use it pretty well exclusively for birding, and I don't use it very much.

The quality is "OK" on it, not spectacular (you would expect that in a 10x zoom) and it is pretty slow.

It does focus fast with the HSM motor, and optically it is surprisingly good, when on a tripod or shooting at 1/1000th of a second or higher.

Pretty well means the lens needs to be shot at high ISO or in direct sunshine, or on a 'pod.

I am not thrilled with it, but it is not bad for a lens that is under $1000.

I am also not going to give it a recommendation here, I think there are better choices.

The following was shot at 500mm to give you an example... it has OK sharpness (especially considering it is backlighted, it is not a very good picture but it is at least an example) , but nowhere near as good as you would get out of a 500mm f/4 prime.

sabbath999 · Dec 13, 2007

BTW the above is a zoo shot, not from actual birding... I don't have my birding pix online on this computer at the moment.

Happy Hour · Dec 13, 2007

sabbath999 said:
The following was shot at 500mm to give you an example... it has OK sharpness (especially considering it is backlighted, it is not a very good picture but it is at least an example) , but nowhere near as good as you would get out of a 500mm f/4 prime.

I will make sure I never post any pics of mine on here. Because I tink thats a killer pic! but for the "Crowl" Have you thought about a 2x lens coverter? I just read on a post yesterday about how suprisingly great they are a 200mm with a 2x on the end vs a 400mm and they were saying that you could not tell the difference between the 2 pics. and there not very expensive at all. I'm looking into buying one myself. (mianly for the zoo)

usayit · Dec 13, 2007

Big Mike said:
EF 600mm f/4.0L IS $7,200
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS $6,500
EF 500mm f/4.0L IS $5,500
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS $3,899
EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS $5,199.

So which would I choose? hehe lol

Probably the 300mm with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters in my pocket....

Off topic.. the 400mm f4 DO IS has never made any sense to me... For a fraction of the price, one could just purchase the 400mm f5.6L ($1065). It is lighter and the extra stop is NOT worth $4100 premium. Not to mention the not so impressive DO optics.

btw.. the 300mm f4L IS is a bargain.

astrostu · Dec 13, 2007

Bah -- wimps! I have a 600-1000 mm lens. Granted, it's f/9.6-16 so the front element takes 77 mm filters. I use it for astrophotography. And then of course there's the 6860 mm f/16 lens I sometimes hook up to.

soylentgreen · Dec 13, 2007

usayit said:
So which would I choose? hehe lol

Probably the 300mm with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters in my pocket....

Off topic.. the 400mm f4 DO IS has never made any sense to me... For a fraction of the price, one could just purchase the 400mm f5.6L ($1065). It is lighter and the extra stop is NOT worth $4100 premium. Not to mention the not so impressive DO optics.

btw.. the 300mm f4L IS is a bargain.

I think the whole appeal of the DO lens is the reduction in weight and size. Hopefully Canon can improve upon this and apply it to the other lenses. Just handled a EF 500 f/4 L IS with a 1.4x TC and this thing is a monster. With tripod and Wembley head...Easily 15lbs to lug around. Image quality is unsurpassed though. Stopped down to f/11 and its lights out!!! I prefer my compact EF 300 f/4 L IS with 1.4x TC. A 300mm prime that you can hand-hold is a plus in my book anyday.

usayit · Dec 13, 2007

400mm f/4 DO IS = 1,940g
400mm f/5.6L = 1,250g

soylentgreen · Dec 13, 2007

usayit said:
400mm f/4 DO IS = 1,940g
400mm f/5.6L = 1,250g

Sorry. Was comparing the 400 DO to the f/2.8 version. I like the compactness of the f/5.6, but it really needs IS for hand-holds. Otherwise a tripod/monopod is needed. That one stop is huge if available light is limited though. Especially if I have to stop down to gain performance. Almost went with it over the 300 f/4, but figured a 1.4x TC will give me a 420 f/5.6 IS.

Snyder · Dec 13, 2007

Ive been looking for a nice 600mm f/4 Nikkor lense with manual focus for around or under 1,500.

usayit · Dec 13, 2007

soylentgreen said:
Sorry. Was comparing the 400 DO to the f/2.8 version. I like the compactness of the f/5.6, but it really needs IS for hand-holds.

Ok... then the 300mm f2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter. Still cheaper than the 400 DO..

Ok... or just save $1300 more and you have the 400mm f2.8... better than the 400 DO Not a lot more money considering that you are spending $5k already...

Sorry.. I keep going in circles every time I try to figure out who in the world would buy the 400 DO. I certainly have no idea how I would market or sell it. Just doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the Canon lineup.

astrostu · Dec 14, 2007

usayit said:
400mm f/4 DO IS = 1,940g
400mm f/5.6L = 1,250g

This isn't a fair comparison to see and conclude that the DO is heavier. First off, the IS adds a significant amount of weight (as shown below) and the f/4 requires a larger aperture which means more material in the construction, including glass. You should actually look at the pictures of these two lenses and can plainly see that they're not even close to the same thing: DO, Regular.

A more fair comparison:

70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS - 58 mm filter size - 1.6 lb, 3.9" (10 cm) long
70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS - 58 mm filter size - 1.4 lb, 5.6" (14.3 cm) long
70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 - 58 mm filter size - 1.2 lb, 4.8" (12.2 cm) long

Okay, I've just proved myself slightly wrong, but this is assuming that the build material is the same between the DO and regular lens, which is doubtful. If that's so, then DO adds 0.2 lb in this case, or about 56 gms. The IS also adds 0.2 lbs. But it does decrease the length of the lens by over 4 cm, which can be significant in some instances, and the length savings would be even more significant for longer focal lengths.

Another comparison showing weight of IS:

70-200 mm f/2.8L IS - 77 mm filter size - 3.2 lb, 7.7" long
70-200 mm f/2.8 - 77 mm filter size - 2.8 lb, 7.6" long

Here, the IS adds 0.4 lb, or about 112 gms.

jstuedle · Dec 14, 2007

There are advantages to both the Nikon 300 2.8, and a 300 4.0. Just like there are advantages to both a 600 4.0 and a 600 f/8. The heavy, large aperture lenses are designed to be sharpest near wide open and isolate your subject with a shallow DOF with that buttery soft background. The smaller aperture versions are lighter and a lot more "packable". As in easy to pack around a large preserve or on the trail. The heaver lens works best only with a tripod, and the lighter are usable hand-held if you have the light for them. To imply there is no reason for a 400 2.8 is to not understand what it can uniquely do and how that unique look make or break a certain type/style of image. To only be seen with the biggest weapon on the field of battle is to sacrifice mobility and utility. Every lens the mainstream manufacturers offer has a legitimate purpose. To offer a trivial piece would be marketing suicide. (and we have seen a few pieces of equipment that qualifies there too)