Using super telephotos - what are your lighter support lenses?

[Overread20]

An interesting view Gary because as I ask this question around quite a few who use a 300mm f2.8 say that they have still hung onto their 100-400mm lenses. Infact I've not had anyone say they keep a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 as a lighter backup to the 300mm f2.8 (though I have of course had a few say that the 300mm f2.8 is their lighter lens

Part of the problem with the 100-400mmLs is their sample variation though - even in Juza's test the one he loaned had horrific problems at the short end. Also I think that the superzooms have a greater chance to be incompatable with select camera bodies because of different tollerances - which I suspect leads to a lot of the "Canon say its fine but its still soft on my camera" complaints.

Out of interest Gary if you were to use a lighter/cheaper support lens for your 300 f2.8 what lens would you opt for and why

 

[usayit]

The 100-400 is a lens i would not buy, i swopped my 300F2.8 for my friends 100-400 at a motorcycle meet once for about 30 minutes when i got home i deleted all of them they were not good enough, it would be no good at an event where i am printing on site if i had to do that

I don't thing the OP is asking whether a zoom would be a replacement for a prime like the 300 f/2.8L but something to have "in addition" to. Comparing the IQ 300 f/2.8L to a 100-400L is obvious.... its like saying that the 300mm f/2.8L can't shoot at the 400mm focal length.

 

[gsgary]

An interesting view Gary because as I ask this question around quite a few who use a 300mm f2.8 say that they have still hung onto their 100-400mm lenses. Infact I've not had anyone say they keep a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 as a lighter backup to the 300mm f2.8 (though I have of course had a few say that the 300mm f2.8 is their lighter lens

Part of the problem with the 100-400mmLs is their sample variation though - even in Juza's test the one he loaned had horrific problems at the short end. Also I think that the superzooms have a greater chance to be incompatable with select camera bodies because of different tollerances - which I suspect leads to a lot of the "Canon say its fine but its still soft on my camera" complaints.

Out of interest Gary if you were to use a lighter/cheaper support lens for your 300 f2.8 what lens would you opt for and why

It would be my old 300mmF4 non IS, super sharp wish i had kept it i didn't need the money at the time

Anil Kumble with 1.4x fitted

 

[Overread20]

I thought you would say that, but I just get the feeling that if I had a choice between the f4 and the f2.8 before going on a trip chances are I would each time be wanting to take the f2.8 and feeling bad about using the f4 because outside of weight it would not be giving me anything the 2.8 could not do a heck of a lot better

 

[gsgary]

I thought you would say that, but I just get the feeling that if I had a choice between the f4 and the f2.8 before going on a trip chances are I would each time be wanting to take the f2.8 and feeling bad about using the f4 because outside of weight it would not be giving me anything the 2.8 could not do a heck of a lot better

Focus was nearly as quick

 

[Overread20]

Gah you're making this choice hard again!!

I think I'm going to have to fall back to rolling a dice on this one!

 

[gsgary]

Gah you're making this choice hard again!!

I think I'm going to have to fall back to rolling a dice on this one!

The F4 will do everything the F2.8 will do apart from when it gets darker

 

[Overread20]

ever try it at the 600mm mark? From what I hear that is another thing the f2.8 does that the f4 is not so good at

 

[gsgary]

ever try it at the 600mm mark? From what I hear that is another thing the f2.8 does that the f4 is not so good at

Only the F2.8 all my cricket shots are at 600mm
600mm

2x + 1.4x

 

[Hardrock]

300F4

300F2.8

Im really not seeing that much of a difference. Both shots seem great. I think it would be worth it to have the 300 f4 until you can cough up the money for the F2.8. Obviously With the F2.8 its a little more versatile but why hold out for the F2.8 for a couple of months or years and miss out on using the F4 until the money is saved. I agree with everyone your kind of stuck between a rock and a hardspot trying to decide! Thanks GsGary for the comparison shots. How do both lens match up with TCs on them. Is the F2.8 alot better or just a little? Granted you are going to loose quite a bit of light with the F4.

 

[gsgary]

I only used the 1.4x on the F4 i cannot remember if i have used the 1.4x on the F2.8 i usually have the 2x on it
I'm not sure if the F4 would have kept up with this
(1Dmk1 and 300f2.8)

 

[Derrel]

Overread,
You raised a good point about the 300mm f/4 versus the 300mm f/2.8. I maintain both for the simple reason that both lenses serve different purposes. I cannot speak directly to Canon's lenses in those two focal lengths, since I own those in Nikon only, but am familiar with the fact that both Canon's 300/4 L-IS and Nikon's 300 f/4 AF-S both have VERY close minimum focusing distances--much,much shorter than both companies' 300 f/2.8 models have. That makes the 300 f/4 models better for close-range shooting of small animals or other nature type work, and for using with a 1.4x converter and/or an extension tube as a high-magnification lens for small things like butterflies,lizzards, frogs, rattlesnakes, small birds from hides, etc. The difference between a roughly 7 foot minimum focus and one approaching 4 feet with a 300mm 2.8 versus a 300 f/4 makes the f/4 vastly easier to work with for nature-type close-range shooting. I know you like macro-type work, so that aspect of a 300mm lens is hard to overlook.

The second thing is one gsgary alluded to. I cannot speak for Canon's 300mm AF lenses, but Nikon's 300/2.8 AF-S lenses have very fast,sure,repeatable focusing that can really be relied upon on fast-moving shots, whereas their 300/4 AF-S is known as a much less-reliable AF-S lens, with decidedly slower, less-reliable focusing; it will 'sometimes' hunt for focus more than it should. Also, keep in mind Canon has that f/2.8 or better cross-sensor focusing requirement/feature, in which lenses of f/2.8 or faster aperture provide what Canon calls "double precision" focusing compared to slower lenses. Like I said, with the Nikon 300/2.8 AFS-II the focusing speed is exceptionally fast,and it is reliable under challenging conditions, but there is a definitely a step down in focusing speed with the f/4 AF-S lens that costs 1/5 as much money...

 

[djacobox372]

This won't likely help you, cause you shoot canon, but I have a nikkor 600mm f5.6 ais super-telephoto, and when I don't feel like lugging that beast around I take my 300mm f4.5 ais ed with me. What's nice is that they both work really well with the tc-301 teleconverter.

 

[gsgary]

Overread,
You raised a good point about the 300mm f/4 versus the 300mm f/2.8. I maintain both for the simple reason that both lenses serve different purposes. I cannot speak directly to Canon's lenses in those two focal lengths, since I own those in Nikon only, but am familiar with the fact that both Canon's 300/4 L-IS and Nikon's 300 f/4 AF-S both have VERY close minimum focusing distances--much,much shorter than both companies' 300 f/2.8 models have. That makes the 300 f/4 models better for close-range shooting of small animals or other nature type work, and for using with a 1.4x converter and/or an extension tube as a high-magnification lens for small things like butterflies,lizzards, frogs, rattlesnakes, small birds from hides, etc. The difference between a roughly 7 foot minimum focus and one approaching 4 feet with a 300mm 2.8 versus a 300 f/4 makes the f/4 vastly easier to work with for nature-type close-range shooting. I know you like macro-type work, so that aspect of a 300mm lens is hard to overlook.

The second thing is one gsgary alluded to. I cannot speak for Canon's 300mm AF lenses, but Nikon's 300/2.8 AF-S lenses have very fast,sure,repeatable focusing that can really be relied upon on fast-moving shots, whereas their 300/4 AF-S is known as a much less-reliable AF-S lens, with decidedly slower, less-reliable focusing; it will 'sometimes' hunt for focus more than it should. Also, keep in mind Canon has that f/2.8 or better cross-sensor focusing requirement/feature, in which lenses of f/2.8 or faster aperture provide what Canon calls "double precision" focusing compared to slower lenses. Like I said, with the Nikon 300/2.8 AFS-II the focusing speed is exceptionally fast,and it is reliable under challenging conditions, but there is a definitely a step down in focusing speed with the f/4 AF-S lens that costs 1/5 as much money...

The 300F4 non IS had fast auto focus, one thing that the F2.8 has that is nice is you can pre set the focus so you can focus on another point just turn the barrel and it returns to your preset so when im shooting horses or dog agility i can shoot 2 fences very quickly