|
|
Post by mantarey on Feb 10, 2008 15:06:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Feb 10, 2008 21:54:32 GMT
Hi Rey, The 300 2.8 IS is probably the sharpest lens Canon has ever made. Based on the MTF charts and on my occasional use of my friend's copy, it can take a 1.4x TC very well, and even a 2x TC is decent. It's an excellent birding lens when you need a light and relatively compact kit. AF slows down noticeably with a reporting 2x TC, so some users resort to stacking two 1.4x TCs (e.g. Canon 1.4x + Kenko Pro 1.4x) instead of using a straight Canon 2x. The second 1.4x is not seen by the camera and thus the combo focuses faster. The 500 f4 IS + 1.4x TC is sharper and faster focusing than the 300 2.8 IS + 2x TC. So one pays an extra USD 1500 for the benefit of 100 mm more and faster AF for BIFs. Is the added capability worth the extra cost? Most birders believe so, as the 500 f4 IS overwhelmingly outsells the 300 2.8 IS in birding applications. Also, the 500 f4 can take a 2x TC with useable results, albeit no AF with the 40D (I go around this by stacking a Tamon 1.4x behind a Canon 1.4x). Here's a 100% crop from such a combo - 1000 mm, f/14, 1/125 sec, ISO 250, bean bag:  Personally, if I have the 400 5.6L or 100-400 IS and I want to upgrade to a longer reach for birding, USD 4K and 5.5K look the same to me - it constitutes a major purchase and any such amount will hurt my pocket badly. It's like being asked by the operator of an electric chair how many volts will I prefer if I were executed - 600KV or 700 KV (when the fatal voltage is say 5 KV). I'd go for the 500 f4 IS if only to keep my mind off lens purchases for a long time and concentrate on birdshooting. If I go the 300 2.8 route, I'll always wonder if I can get better shots had I bought the 500 instead. The only conceivable scenarios that will make me prefer the 300 2.8 IS are: 1. I shoot sports on the side 2. I can't handle the 500's 8.5 lbs weight (vs the 300's 5.6 lbs). Romy |
|
|
|
Post by mantarey on Feb 11, 2008 0:55:39 GMT
Thanks a lot Ka Romy, you really made agood case for the 500 as a better option for the 3002.8. What got me interested with the 300 is when I saw the potential for sports and at the same time getting 600mm at F5.6 for birding. Shooting motor sports and other types of sporting events is one of my major interest even in my film days and I would really love to use a 2.8 lens with a reasonble reach. But then again I would pass up the chance of owning a better birding lens which at present is increasingly becoming a major "obssesion".  So I guess the 300 is a compromise, If I have the moolah, I'll get both in an instant  |
|
|
|
Post by tina mallari on Feb 11, 2008 1:19:24 GMT
500 ! ... 500 ! ... 500 ! ... but not if it's going to cause problems with Perla of course  An excellent lens should never be exchanged for peace and quiet in one's household. ;D ;D ;D UNLESS you know how to make lambing your wife (lentement et doucement) ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Feb 11, 2008 2:35:38 GMT
Let's start a thread on how to justify gear purchases with our domestic partner. ;D 500 ! ... 500 ! ... 500 ! ... but not if it's going to cause problems with Perla of course An excellent lens should never be exchanged for peace and quiet in one's household. ;D ;D ;D UNLESS you know how to make lambing your wife (lentement et doucement) ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by William Lim on Feb 11, 2008 10:42:25 GMT
If you are an occasional bird shooter, 300 f/2.8 is he way. However, for a serious birder 500mm is the best. My two centavo worth of opinion. I am also looking for a long lens. I have search the net and came into a decision to take the 500mm in the near future with the blessing of my former girlfriend.
|
|
