300mm Question

March 9th, 2010

I don't see many comments on lenses over 300mm. Is it not that common for people to buy 400mm?

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)

Go to the UK and do the same in �'s in some places.

Too bad they don't do that here in pesos...

i didn't realize they were that pricey. I can see why not that many people have them.

So if there is one 300mm lens to buy that was of good quality but also has a good price which one would it be?

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.

http://users.marktwain.net/hawkins2/buzzard.jpg

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.

i should mention that there is some post-processing on them offcourse (not alot, just some basic stuff :))

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.

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 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239654-USA/Canon_7034A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_4_0.html), Regular (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html).

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.

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. :)

They are mostly used by professional sports shooters and hard core wildlife shooters.

Xm, so, I have to choose... :er:

:mrgreen:

If it can help you, here are some shots made with:

http://www.patrik-b.fr/photos.db/_mg_7786_tb.jpg
Canon EF 100-400 (http://www.patrik-b.fr/mainframe.php?query=ICgoYGlzb2AgPj0gMTAwIEFORCBgaX NvYCA8PSAzMjAwKSBPUiBgaXNvYD0wIE9SIGBpc29gIElTIE5V TEwpIEFORCBgbGVuc2AgTElLRSAnQ2Fub24gRUYgMTAwLTQwMG 1tIGYvNC41LTUuNkwgSVMgVVNNJw%3D%3D)
and
http://www.patrik-b.fr/photos.db/crw_4432_tb.jpg
Sigma 70-300 (http://www.patrik-b.fr/mainframe.php?query=ICgoYGlzb2AgPj0gMTAwIEFORCBgaX NvYCA8PSAzMjAwKSBPUiBgaXNvYD0wIE9SIGBpc29gIElTIE5V TEwpIEFORCBgbGVuc2AgTElLRSAnU2lnbWEgNzAtMzAwbW0gZi 80LTUsNiBERyBBUE8gTWFjcm8n)

Two lenses with comparable ranges, but different budgets.

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.

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.

Still expensive by comparison to most common lenses, but a perhaps more practical proposition would be the EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM at $1,119.95. It would also be a damned sight less of a strain in carrying it round too when compared with some of Mike's list. This one's on my list of potential future buys.

This is actually the one I am using, and the weight was also one of the reasons ;)

over here it costs the price you quote, but in EUR :confused:

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

I have the sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO and it was pretty cheap. Makes good enough pics too. You can see some samples on my website (see signature) Most of the fauna and roofvogels (birds of prey) are shot with either the sigma or the Tamron, which is even cheaper as the Sigma. I like the Simga better though.

I don't see many comments on lenses over 300mm. Is it not that common for people to buy 400mm?

good lenses over 300 are very very expensive ... actually, already at 300 good ones are very expensive ;)

also a 400 or 500 mm lens is a rather specialised lens (wildlife and sports mainly), and less multi-purpose than something in the 30 - 300mm range.

also, anything beyond 300 mm is not that easy to handle in terms of camera shake and all.

Those are great photos. After seeing that I feel comfortable purchasing one of the basic 300mm lenses for my XTI

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.

i imagine they would be a pretty penny-- especially if you wanted to use it at high speeds. thats a serious scope

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.

What's your definition of 'a good price'?

The 70-300mm F4-5.6 consumer level zoom lenses are less than $200. There is a 70-300mm IS (or VR from Nikon) that is several hundred more. There is the 100-400mm L IS, that I mentioned before. There is the 300mm F4 that someone mentioned.

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

I know a few people who have this lens: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS $1,379

It isn't that common because they are really expensive. They are mostly used by professional sports shooters and hard core wildlife shooters.

I think all of what has been said is prety much right (long lens=expensive) but nother thing is I think most of the discussions on the forum are about either portraits or general people shooting. Long lenses like the ones you mentioned are more for sports or wildlife shooting and are fairly specialised I am sure if you look in the landscape/nature section you might se a little of that. Really though alot of the people on the forums are either gneral shooters or portrait shooters and the max you are going to get there is pretty much 200mm.

This is actually the one I am using, and the weight was also one of the reasons ;)

over here it costs the price you quote, but in EUR :confused:

Go to the UK and do the same in �'s in some places. Best price I can find is �769.99, but that's shipped from Hong Kong.

This isn't a fair comparison to see and conclude that the DO is heavier. .

First to point out... even with IS being heavier it is still $4100 premium for what??

Read my previous post again... weight is just one part of the issue...

If weight is a concern... 400mm f5.6L and you save $4100
If speed is a concern... 400mm f2.8L IS and it is just $1300 more
If Image quality is a concern... 400 f4 DO is NOT the best in the category. DO optics have not proven to be up to par with its regular optic brotheren. Either the other two will be better.

1 stop is 1 stop but at a premium of $4100????

Makes no sense.

You brought up the other DO lens... that is even a worse example. You pay $500 more and all you get is .2 lbs lighter weight and 1.7 inches shorter??? Again.. not to mention the crappy DO optics...

ah.. didn't mean to stray so far off topic...

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)

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.

Too bad they don't do that here in pesos...

If they did, I would be a frequent visitor ;)

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

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

Posted in portal.hzfq.com | edit

300mm Question

Archives

Meta