Why use a 300/2.8?

300f2.8 on one body 500f4+1.4x on the other. No more zooms when I set up on tripods. Still use the 100-400 as a walkaround. So I have 480mm and 1120mm available simultainously on a D60 & 10D with supurb optical quality.

Everyone else pretty much said it perfectly. My 300 f/2.8 is the my most sharp, contrasty, incredible lens. It's the benchmark for all my equipment. I so wish my 500 or 600 were just as great but alas, they aren't. Even with tele-converters it's awesome.

I think the only advantage the 300 f/4 has over the 2.8 is the size. And, that's only a factor in my book when shooting lots of handheld images. Otherwise, the lens works great on a good tripod.

Good luck.

Thanks for the feedback Juan and the excellent link. I found the following article on Michael's website that may also be of interest where he tests the 300/2.8 with the old and new 2x TC's:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/c-ext.shtml

So it seems that the 200/2.8 + 2x TC does not even match the 100-400 until f11. I have read that the 1.4x TC usually retains the quality of the original lens but that the 2x TC is more liable to cause image degradation. A comparison of the 200/2.8 + 1.4x TC with the 300/2.8 would still be an interesting shoot out. Obviously the big lens should win but how close and at what cost (weight & $$$)?
Thanks again,
Graham

I'm awaiting delivery of an Astrophysics Traveler EDFS 4.1 inch aperture (105EDFS) sometime over the next month or so (after 4 years on the waiting list). With a focal length of 610 mm, this f5.8 is a very high quality piece of glass and is supposed to leave normal camera lenses standing. There is also an optional telecompressor providing 458 mm f4.5 and a teleconvertor (a 2x Barlow) providing a 1220 mm f11.6 optic.

I'm really looking forward to trying it out with my 1Ds and may try to persuade my local camera dealer to do a shoot out between the Traveler and the 600/4 later in the year. The Traveler currently retails for $3480 and because of the difficulty in obtaining them, actually appreciates in value, unlike the rest of our optical gear

The Astrophysics website can be found at:
http://www.astro-physics.com/

Is there anyone on this list using the Traveler or other high quality telescope as a substitute for the Canon or Nikon big glass?

Regards,
Graham

gwarrellow wrote:I'm awaiting delivery of an Astrophysics Traveler EDFS 4.1 inch aperture (105EDFS) sometime over the next month or so (after 4 years on the waiting list). With a focal length of 610 mm, this f5.8 is a very high quality piece of glass and is supposed to leave normal camera lenses standing. There is also an optional telecompressor providing 458 mm f4.5 and a teleconvertor (a 2x Barlow) providing a 1220 mm f11.6 optic.

I'm really looking forward to trying it out with my 1Ds and may try to persuade my local camera dealer to do a shoot out between the Traveler and the 600/4 later in the year. The Traveler currently retails for $3480 and because of the difficulty in obtaining them, actually appreciates in value, unlike the rest of our optical gear

The Astrophysics website can be found at:
http://www.astro-physics.com/

Is there anyone on this list using the Traveler or other high quality telescope as a substitute for the Canon or Nikon big glass?

Regards,
Graham

Even if it does prove optically superior the fixed aperture is debilitating, eliminating many of the creative options available to the nature photog.

Every piece of equipment has limitations. I am sure your primary intent is not wildlife and so this may prove the best compromise for you.

Best and let us know the results,

Chas

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, the fixed aperture of the system is the real limitation for nature work. You also guessed that this was not the primary purpose of the Traveler for me! I am a keen amateur astronomer and the telescope will be used for visual/CCD and photographic astronomical work.
All the best,
Graham

Tom Hill a fellow Nikon shooter said it all. 300/2.8 is my go to lens. I sold my 600/4 after going digital and getting 1.5 crop factor. Wanting a little more reach, I have recently purchased a 500/4. Schools still out on it's comparison to the others.
I seldom use my zooms. They're just dust collectors.
Chip

Nobody has mentioned the fact that the 300 f/2.8 with 2x TC retains autofocus with the 10D, while that combo with the f/4 lens does not. May be a factor for you?

Excellent reminder Mr. Boner

Bob Boner wrote:Nobody has mentioned the fact that the 300 f/2.8 with 2x TC retains autofocus with the 10D, while that combo with the f/4 lens does not. May be a factor for you?

It even retains AF with stacked converters on a 10D!

Bob was paying attention! Yep, the f/5.6 limitation of the 10D is an issue. Less of one than it could be since I suspect I'll be getting one of the high-$ cameras that can autofocus at f/8. Looks like there may be some new developments on that score. So f/4 wouldn't be as big a concern.

One other good feature of the 300/2.8 that I don't think got mentioned is that it focuses very close. This is useful since I like closeup shots of insects and their kin. With my 10D, the lens sometimes works well for dragonflies and butterflies!

Since I'm keeping the 300/2.8, I have a couple of years to decide what, if any, additional big telephoto lens I want to sink money into. By then Canon and its competitors might have come up with a new (and no doubt expensive) supertelephoto to tempt me to pillage and plunder my bank account. Till then I'll do like Theodore Roosevelt, and do what I can, where I am, with what I have....

Hello,

I have both EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and EF300mm f/2.8 L USM (no IS). I find on average, the 100-400mm lens produces more satisfying pictures -- I guess it iis not because of lens quality. There is something to do with the acquitance -- the former has been around for over 2 years where 300mm is in my hands for less than 6 months. Also my 300mm f/2.8 lens is very old, so the AF may not be up to the par with modern version, the issue is particular bad when you are shooting in the woods with a 2x TC on. Nonetheless, this lens is a real joy for the sharpness alone.

BTW, my copy of EF300mm f/2.8 LUSM has a minimum focus distance of 3m. I am not sure about the newer IS version.


Griffin.

The 300mm f/2.8 IS is by far the sharpest lens I have or will ever own. Just wickedly sharp, not to mention the speedy autofocus speed. However, I much prefer my 300mm f/4 IS for birds in flight. I just got back from Tanzania, where I wish I had my f/4 with me for flying flamingos. Oh well. Can't have it all.

I took most of my shots with the 300mm f/2.8 IS without any teleconverters, and used the 1.4xII and 2xII on some shots as well. I personally cannot tell the difference between the 1.4xII and without any TC's at all. Just amazing. The 2x does get a little soft, but this is all relative, since we are dealing with a super sharp lens to begin with. I don't consider the use of a 2xII teleconverter a very ideal situation, however.

I hope this helps.

Hi,

I am considering a 300 f2.8 IS to add to my EF100-400. How would those of you that have both consider the quality of a 300+2x (600mm), over the 100-400+1.4x (560mm)? Both convertors being series II. I shoot birds mostly, but find the 500 f4 much too pricy, as I'm also considering another new digital body after PMA.

Thanks for your comments.

Lat Correa wrote:I am considering a 300 f2.8 IS to add to my EF100-400. How would those of you that have both consider the quality of a 300+2x (600mm), over the 100-400+1.4x (560mm)? Both convertors being series II.

Read the comments posted on this thread. It has already been stated that the 300/2.8 with either of the TCs is way sharper than the 100-400 without any TCs.

-J

Thank you J. I did read all of them, I guess with the amount material, I forgot your first post.