300mm IS L 2.8 question

[BBones]

ok, I have played with the 400mm beast and at 11 pounds I can safely say the lens is quite useless for me on the track. 11 pounds is way to heavy to pan around with free hand. BUT, at f/2.8 the 300mm lens should be able to handle the 1.4xtc and boost me pretty far to take pictures with and not kill me hefting it around the track for 8-12 hours a day.

is the 300mm comparable to the 400mm? I am shooting at Thunderhill in the next 2 weeks and want to rent a larger lens since I am unfamiliar with the track and want to keep out of the impact areas.

[Andy]

ok, I have played with the 400mm beast and at 11 pounds I can safely say the lens is quite useless for me on the track. 11 pounds is way to heavy to pan around with free hand. BUT, at f/2.8 the 300mm lens should be able to handle the 1.4xtc and boost me pretty far to take pictures with and not kill me hefting it around the track for 8-12 hours a day.

is the 300mm comparable to the 400mm? I am shooting at Thunderhill in the next 2 weeks and want to rent a larger lens since I am unfamiliar with the track and want to keep out of the impact areas.
that 300 f/2.8L is one of *the* best telephoto lenses out there. it's regarded as canon's sharpest production lens by many. check with ian408, he has one. and i think waxy's got one, too.

man say it can handle the 1.4x really really well :deal

[BBones]

hmmmm....much less costly to rent then the 400 and I might still have working vertebrae by the end of the day still.

[wxwax]

What Andy said. A superlative lens.

[pathfinder]

I own Canon's 300 f2.8 IS L and find it works very well with a 2x telextender - that is how I store it in the case anymore. I am sure the 1.4 Tx will work with the 300f2.8 even better.

At 400mm the F4.0 DO IS lens is very nice - it is lighter than the 300 f2.8 IS L and I suspect as sharp also. The 400mm f2.8 is known as a very heavy beast - even heavier than the 500 f4 IS L.

I use the 300+2xTC for many of my birds in flight shots as it is light and easy to handhold. Here is an example of the 300+2x I have posted previously

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/19877912-L.jpg

Feedbag shots are ugly- but the pattern really demonstrates the quality of the 300+2x. Canon 20D ISO 800 f7.1 ( 1/2 stop from wide open aperature) 1/100th Expect better quality with the 1.4Tx


http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23398758-L.jpg

[ian408]

The 500 requires at least a monopod. It's way too heavy to carry. But
the 300, beside being tack sharp, is easily carried around.

On trips, I can get the 300 into my pack and on the plane. If I'm concerned
about the length, I can add the TC and I'm good to go.

Excellent lens the 300 f/2.8 is.

Ian

[wxwax]

Not that ugly, PF. This image is striking, nice balance and very sharp!

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23398758-S.jpg

[pathfinder]

Not that ugly, PF. This image is striking, nice balance and very sharp!

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/23398758-S.jpg Thanks waxy. It is kind of a convention of bird shooters that they don't show the food or the feeder that attracted the birds, even though there is almost always a feeder used somewhere to get shots of small birds. I have seen websites where they describe putting the food directly behind the limb the bird is perching on.:D

I kind of liked this shot as a demonstration of the sharpness with a 2x that everyone says gives such poor results. The secret is using a 20D - not a full frame camera of course - and not showing any detail in the corners.:): And it has real nice bokeh in the background too.