Really bad GAS

The GAS is so bad today that I thought I needed to call a gastroenterologist! The pain started when I received my Canon evaluation loan today, a 300mm f/2.8L II. The attached x-rays, I mean pictures, summarize the pain. The image, in both full and cropped version, was shot right out of the shipping box on a 5d III with a 1.4x teleconverter. I have been looking hard at a 400mm f/2.8 II, but I do believe this prescription, I mean lens, may take care of my GAS for a while. A lot of money, probably more than it would cost to check out normal gas symptoms by the gastroenterologist. But, this lens will be a lot more fun than a colonoscopy, so well worth the $$.
 

Attachments

  • Full.jpg
    Full.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 270
  • Beck_20141119_JI6A6941-2.jpg
    Beck_20141119_JI6A6941-2.jpg
    474.2 KB · Views: 244
... you're looking for support from the largest group of GAS enablers on the planet... wish you luck... I have one of each, kinda like a two car garage... wait, that would be cheaper, sorry... Good Luck trying to control the GAS!
 
Upvote 0
I feel your pain, nonac!
The 300/2.8L has crawled into my wish list too. It's probably the only lens I would consider sticking a 2x TC behind, and the 1.4x TC would be on almost always. It's one heck of a lens!
 
Upvote 0
Oh the vexing annoyance of GAS,..I feel it quite often! Nice images though! Please post some more….I’m sure we would all like to see what it can do….and more images of the lens itself too!
 
Upvote 0
jdramirez said:
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...
 
Upvote 0
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
 
Upvote 0
Random Orbits said:
jdramirez said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
hendrik-sg said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
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):
a1_1024.jpg


70D + 300 + 2x tc iii = 960mm (no cropping):
youngeagle.jpg
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0