Alaskan Cruise - 70-300L/Crop Sensor?

[Cory]

Did anyone see the pics from the recent "300 4.0 IS" thread? Now I'm really ****** up.

 

[chas1113]

Cory: I have the EF 70-300mm L and the EF 300mm f/4 IS (can't seem to let go of it even though the zoom gets me to 300mm at f/5.6). I got rid of three zooms when I got the 70-300L (EF-S 55-250, EF 70-200 f/4 IS and an older EF 100-300L)...but I kept the 300mm f/4 IS because at 300mm it was still sharper than the zoom. With a 1.4 TCon an APS-C crop body I get great results at the "reach" equivalent of 672mm — with IS. When I am reach limited I take two bodies (5D Mark II with the 70-300L and an old 40D with the 300mm f/4 IS with TC).

There, I've whetted your appetite for buying a 70-300L, a 300 f/4 IS AND a full frame body!!

 

[Cory]

There, I've whetted your appetite for buying a 70-300L, a 300 f/4 IS AND a full frame body!!

You did. I was actually going to upgrade to a 6D, but the thought of learning something new threw me off as well as a new "normal" lens, etc. Plus, results with my T1i are really extremely good so I figured I could throw some dollars towards a great telephoto. My tele-primes really shine for indoor sports - my daughter's an "extreme" volleyball player (delusional sports-dad alert), but I can definitely use a tele-zoom for my son's outdoor sports, band, etc.
The 300 prime or 100-400 seem like a good move for several reasons; one of which is the same size polarizing filter that I already have - of course, an expensive one. I am a "prime"-ho so maybe I'll rent a 300 4.0 IS and buy the 100-400II when it comes out. That might be the move and bring just my normal zoom and 300.
:-*

 

[chas1113]

I had my 300mm f/4 for my daughter's Crew (rowing) events (Dad sports alert redux).... I considered the EF 100-400mm but it had the push-pull of the 100-300 L I had and didn't care for the action of it. That's why I opted for the lighter, sharper, better IS (4 stops) and normal twist zoom action of the 70-300L. The 70-300L balances better, too. I'm sure the new 100-400mm L II will prbably match its image quality whenever it comes out, but it will cost a small fortune and still be heavier.

 

[Cory]

If no one minds one more potentiall stupid question (which I'll research some articles on anyway):
Can a polarizing filter be helpful at times for wildlife (on water, bright sun, etc.)? I've gotten great results with mine for landscapes, but "yes" for wildlife in certain conditions or not really?

 

[Loswr]

If no one minds one more potentiall stupid question (which I'll research some articles on anyway):
Can a polarizing filter be helpful at times for wildlife (on water, bright sun, etc.)? I've gotten great results with mine for landscapes, but "yes" for wildlife in certain conditions or not really?

Yes, as long as the loss of ~1.75 stops of light doesn't drop your shutter speed too low.

 

[akclimber]

Would the big upcoming Alaskan cruise (in a week and a half) call for a 70-300L? My current gear is a T1i, Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and 200 2.8II (and the associated goodness for waterfalls, bright light, etc.).
Also, would wildlife in bright sun necessarily call for a polarizing filter in many cases or are polarizing filters more of a landscape thing?
Thanks.

Howdy,

I live in Juneau and recommend either the 70-300 or maybe even better the 100-400 (the 100-400 is my go to whale lens when I'm out on my boat and my handheld bear lens when I don't have my 500 with me or the bears are too close).

And yep, a polarizer is good to have. Don't forget it can also do a very good job accentuating rainbows!

Feel free to ask any SE AK related questions if you have 'em.

I hope you enjoy your trip, the weather gods are kind and the whales, bears and eagles plentiful! (the wildflowers are going crazy right now!)

Cheers from warm (!), sunny (!) SE AK

 

[akclimber]

The 100-400 weights 3lbs or so, bring a tripod

I've taken literally thousands of shots with the 100-400L, and even more with the 70-200/2.8L IS II (which is slightly heavier). Of all of those, perhaps a few dozen were taken from a tripod.

Agreed, the 100-400 is very easy to handhold. Heck that's its whole reason to exist!

 

[akclimber]

Did anyone see the pics from the recent "300 4.0 IS" thread? Now I'm really ****** up.

I also own a 300 f/4 IS and I haven't used it since buying my used 100-400. The 300 has better IQ and is better for close focusing for flowers, etc. but it's not as versatile as the 100-400.

Cheers!

 

[Cory]

Thanks again for all the help. There's no one perfect answer so reviewing all options I rented the 100-400. My final rationale was the rental fee being similar to what a polarizing filter would have cost for my 200 prime (and I already have a 77mm polarizing filter). Almost bought the 70-300, but I think I'd rather wait to see what version II of the 100-400 might be like. Lots of soccer and band events ahead and I think I just coached my final soccer game after 10 years of coaching leaving time for massive amounts of future pics.