November 23, 2014, 05:35:54 PM

Author Topic: Really bad GAS  (Read 2911 times)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2543
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2014, 10:24:54 AM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.

With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2?  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280.  Just curious...

I'll respond later, provided I remember to do so.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2014, 10:24:54 AM »

nonac

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
    • Marty Beck Photography
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2014, 11:16:30 AM »
If you are attracted to the 300 2.8ii and plan to use it with converters most of the time, the 400 2.8 is to heavy and to expensive for you, then maybe you should try the 500 4.0. This one is not so much more expensive and will have better AF and better IQ at 500 than the 300 at 420 and 600. It will be a better 700mm with extender than the 300mm with 2x and a compromised 1000mm with no or poor AF

My two main uses for this lens will be sideline football and birds/wildlife.  From experience with others I know, a 500 is too long for football. I can believe this as I found that I rarely used my prior 100-400 at 400 on the sidelines. Also, that extra stop of light is critical to me for night games.  So, a 500 would limit its use to just birds/wildlife for now.  I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600.  Extenders will give me reach on the 5d, and I an gain even more reach with my 7d II for birds. I haven't shot anything yet with the 300 and 7d II.
5d Mark III, 7d Mark II, 24mm f/1.4L II, 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 100 f/2.8L IS macro, 135 f/2L, 3x 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT, EF 1.4x III

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2014, 11:43:43 AM »
Sorry about the GAS, but it happened to me too, and the 300 + extenders is an AMAZING combination.  The lens costs over a grand less than it did when I bought it last year, so take some solace in that, at least!

LJ3Jim

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2014, 01:34:54 PM »
I went to the local camera store a couple of years ago intending to get the 400 2.8 ii.  I left with the 300.  My typical shooting style is handheld, and the 400 was just too heavy.  That said, I'm very happy with the 300 and the extenders.  Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor.  Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6.  Both of the shots below were handheld.

5D3 + 300 (slightly cropped):


70D + 300 + 2x tc iii = 960mm (no cropping):


JPAZ

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • If only I knew what I was doing.....
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2014, 04:56:15 PM »
I made a huge "mistake" and rented a 300 f/2.8ii for a birding trip.  By the first evening of photos in a setting sun, I was totally hooked.  Why the mistake?  Because within a year I bought one.

Remember that this lens with a 1.4TC yields about a 420 F/4 and the IQ really holds up.  I can handhold this with a 2x TC on my FF and it is still great.  If you are getting one, this is the one to get.
5d Mkiii; Eos-M; too many lenses; 430 EXii and a whole lot of stuff

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14929
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2014, 05:12:31 PM »
Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor.  Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9.  Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.   ;)

Great shots, BTW.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

LJ3Jim

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2014, 05:55:47 PM »
Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor.  Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9.  Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.   ;)

Great shots, BTW.

I need a little help understanding the f/9.  The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2.  This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens:  300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2014, 05:55:47 PM »

meywd

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • About Me
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2014, 06:35:53 PM »
Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor.  Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9.  Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.   ;)

Great shots, BTW.

I need a little help understanding the f/9.  The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2.  This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens:  300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim

600 on FF = 960 on Crop and
f/5.6 on FF = f/9 on Crop

The sensor doesn't receive the same amount of light, because the sensor size is smaller.

Read more
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 06:37:54 PM by meywd »
Current Gear: Canon 600D | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM | EF 50mm f/1.8 | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II | 430EX II | Canon EF 2x II; Past Gear: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 70-200mm f4 L USM | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2543
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2014, 06:38:41 PM »
My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.


Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor.  Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9.  Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.   ;)

Great shots, BTW.



I need a little help understanding the f/9.  The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2.  This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens:  300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

LJ3Jim

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2014, 06:56:49 PM »
600 on FF = 960 on Crop and
f/5.6 on FF = f/9 on Crop

The sensor doesn't receive the same amount of light, because the sensor size is smaller.

My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.

Kind of makes my brain hurt...
I think I'll just stick with taking my pictures.   :)

Regards, Jim

johnf3f

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 328
  • Canon 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2014, 07:06:55 PM »

My two main uses for this lens will be sideline football and birds/wildlife.  From experience with others I know, a 500 is too long for football. I can believe this as I found that I rarely used my prior 100-400 at 400 on the sidelines. Also, that extra stop of light is critical to me for night games.  So, a 500 would limit its use to just birds/wildlife for now.  I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600.  Extenders will give me reach on the 5d, and I an gain even more reach with my 7d II for birds. I haven't shot anything yet with the 300 and 7d II.
[/quote]

I think you are travelling down the same road as I did. The 300 F2.8 L IS is a stunning lens (even my Mk1) but where you need reach a longer lens is better. I went for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and am absolutely loving it! When funds allow, also give the 1DX a try out - but not until you have the funds as you will want it!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14929
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2014, 08:35:50 PM »
I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600.

I bought the 600/4 II a couple of years ago, and the 300/2.8 is on my short list.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2543
    • View Profile
Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2014, 09:25:46 PM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.

With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2?  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280.  Just curious...

I remembered.

I can probably afford the mk i version of the 300 f/2.8... so that's the one I'll compare.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

And with the 1.4x, the 300 still wins... but it isn't a blowout victory.  The 300mm f/2.8 mkii is closer to a blowout...

But, what the 300mm can't do is shoot at f/2... and that extra stop of light means and 1 less stop of iso.

I'll still use the 70-200, but I do shoot some sports where there is quick movement, but at specific locations... volley ball for instance.  The serve is always from the same location... the net is always at the same location, though the players obviously move up and down the net.

Ditto with tennis.  I just like having the flexibility of f/2, f/2.8, and f/4... I know the stand alone primes are better individually, and I can use the converters on them... but I generally don't shoot at f/5.6 unless I have to... so give me 400 f/4 v. 600 f/5.6...

though I may be capricious about the whole thing... so I might change my mind tomorrow.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Really bad GAS
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2014, 09:25:46 PM »