Wildlife Lens - 300mm f/4 IS

Keagle · Sep 30, 2007

Thank you for that chart usayit! That's gonna come in helpful.

Keagle · Oct 1, 2007

I contacted Sigma via email. They can't rechip it. They advised me to ring up them, so I'll try that and see if I get any further.

sabbath999 · Oct 1, 2007

Keagle said:
Yup - I'm going to call them tomorrow about rechipping. I had a look at the Bigma...but the lack of IS and it's weight puts me off, as I'm not the strongest guy.

I have a Bigma, don't let the weight scare you... any of these lenses are heavy.

The lack of IS (or VR) is a big deal IMHO. My Bigma can't be shot handheld (at least by me) at the longer apertures, I only use it braced or on a 'pod. The Bigma would be a KILLER lens with image stabilization, without it the lens is "OK" but no better.

Having said that, it is under $1K US, so there is that to consider as well.

Personally, if it were me, I would get the best 300 prime I could afford for wildlife, and a good TC. But that's me.

soylentgreen · Oct 1, 2007

If it's IQ you are after, than no zoom is going to surpass the primes. I recommend IS on anything over 200mm hand-held unless you use a tripod. Shooting animals and birds is a bit cumbersome with one, but the results justifies it. Sneaking up on a deer may be difficult with a lot of gear clattering. I suppose you might be able to get within 40-50 feet before they spook. Set up a blind if need be.

Keagle · Oct 2, 2007

Thank you both guys for the answers! It's now between the 100-400, and the 30mm f/4.

I would rent them and try them out, but there's nowhere around here that does lens rentals.

lostprophet · Oct 2, 2007

You don't always need a fast lens in low light

The 300 F4 would of been fine but you'd of needed to be a bit closer

Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Shutter Speed: 1/320 second
F Number: F/5.6
Focal Length: 600 mm (300 2.8 + 2x extender)
ISO Speed: 200
Date Picture Taken: Sep 9, 2007, 7:25:56 AM

Keagle · Oct 3, 2007

Hmmm...that's a pretty nice picture Andy. I see your point.

Keagle · Oct 6, 2007

I went out this morning, and at f/4 I was having shutter speeds of between 2 seconds and 1/5. I can just handhold 1/5 if I rest on my knee. However - my phone has f/2.8 (I think), so I grabbed that out and took a trail shot. The difference was amazing, so I'm gonna see if I can try out some faster glass and consider saving up.

Though I guess I could just bump up the ISO...

Alex_B · Oct 6, 2007

Keagle said:
I went out this morning, and at f/4 I was having shutter speeds of between 2 seconds and 1/5. I can just handhold 1/5 if I rest on my knee. However - my phone has f/2.8 (I think), so I grabbed that out and took a trail shot. The difference was amazing, so I'm gonna see if I can try out some faster glass and consider saving up.

Though I guess I could just bump up the ISO...

I guess with the phone it is not the f/2.8 only, but also the ISO which might be higher by default in low light.

in morning light i never took any image below ISO 200, and you might need to go to ISO 400 or even higher if it is really quite dark.

Even 1/5 seems still an awfully long exposure. In particular since animals tend to move from time to time. This also holds for the 1/10 you might get with faster glass. maybe it was just still too dark, or you were trying to shoot something in the shade?

Keagle · Oct 6, 2007

I was trying to shoot a bird, on a brance on a bare tree. It was around Sunrise (7:10ish). Yup - I always forget to raise the ISO, I was shooting at ISO 100 which might be the reason.

Yeah, the phone has probably done that. Makes sense

usayit · Oct 6, 2007

Yup... you should bump up the ISO setting on the camera. The extra stop an f2.8 lens you would still have resulted in a slow shutter speed in those conditions. Some even up the ISO to 800 and experiment with noise ninja although I think the Canon's handle noise pretty well at that setting.

Also look at this way...

70-200mm f2.8 IS - $1700 (heavy and expensive, too short)
300mm f2.8 IS - $4000
400mm f2.8 IS - $6500

300m f4 IS - $1000 (bumping up the ISO is free, easy to pack, cheapest of the bunch, IS). I have already made the decision that the extra stop and weight factor just isn't worth it. In the old film days, I would've had the at least the ISO 400 roll loaded.

With that said.. since your 70-210mm is out of commission with the newer digital SLR, I still think that you would still be best served by the 100-400m L.

Keagle · Oct 6, 2007

Yeah, that's my other choice. The 300 f4 IS is $1400 for me second hand from eBay, and the 100-400mm L about $1600. I'm very tempted to get a 70-200mm f/4(£350, eBay), 1.4 tele(£170, eBay) and save for the 300mm prime again. Though it would be cheaper overall to get the 100-400mm L, the f/5.6 is a bit worrying. Though that's what my current 70-210mm has.

strick · Oct 6, 2007

Keagle said:
Though it would be cheaper overall to get the 100-400mm L, the f/5.6 is a bit worrying. Though that's what my current 70-210mm has.

Why is the f/5.6 a concern on the 100-400 when you are talking about a possible converter on a 300 f/4?

I would think that you can get very good IQ with a 300, or any lens, with a conveter on it but are you then getting the same IQ (or a bit less) than just getting the 100-400?

Alex_B · Oct 6, 2007

strick said:
I would think that you can get very good IQ with a 300, or any lens, with a conveter on it but are you then getting the same IQ (or a bit less) than just getting the 100-400?

no, the converter option is not as good as the 100-400 at 400, but still useable. the 100-400 is a bit soft at 400 as well though.

Keagle · Oct 6, 2007

Alex_B said:
no, the converter option is not as good as the 100-400 at 400, but still useable. the 100-400 is a bit soft at 400 as well though.

Aye - reading reviews, it's the softness that bothers me a bit. It's not like I'd notice it though, I'm not superly fantastic at this.

strick said:
Why is the f/5.6 a concern on the 100-400 when you are talking about a possible converter on a 300 f/4?

I would think that you can get very good IQ with a 300, or any lens, with a conveter on it but are you then getting the same IQ (or a bit less) than just getting the 100-400?

That's a great point - thanks for bringing that up. Because it's f/4 at 300, and f/5.6 at 420mm. Meaning if need be I don't need to pull right out to get a slightly lower aperture. Though raising the ISO is now an option it seems.