I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.
Bought the 300mm 2.8 ii and think its huge
- Thread starter KKCFamilyman
- Start date
Are you a professional sports photographer? Otherwise, I think if you don't know what to do with the lens, you probably made a mistake spending that much money on it.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I tried out a 300/2.8L IS II the other day, it was in the rentals section of a 'going out of business' Calumet location. I was amazed at how small and light it felt.
Of course, I've been using a 600/4L IS II for 1.5 years now.
I pulled out my debit card when the guy told me it was $3600, but he needed to check with the liquidation manager if that was the MkI or MkII price, and the manager said rentals weren't for sale. Damn!
Of course, I've been using a 600/4L IS II for 1.5 years now.
I pulled out my debit card when the guy told me it was $3600, but he needed to check with the liquidation manager if that was the MkI or MkII price, and the manager said rentals weren't for sale. Damn!
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
No but i have been doing indoor high school sports and getting into wildlife. Thought I would try is it aince my 70-200 makes me crop too much. I bought it for that purpose but just trying to justify if its worth it or if I should get the 300mm f4 which is cheaper.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
If you are asking like that, it isn't worth it. I have a MkI IS and don't use it often now, but there is no way I'd sell it because I know that when I want it I really want it, if an expensive piece of gear like that is not screaming to you just liquidise it and put the money somewhere else.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
No doubt this is one of Canon fastest AF prime, sharp, and very friendly for handheld(wish I can say to my 400mm f2.8 IS II). I shoot indoor swimming twice a month, the 300mm still a bit short for close-up shots for my taste. I went with 400mm and pair it up with my 70-200 f2.8 IS II for longer distance shooting. LOVE IT
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
KKCFamilyman said:
It's not huge it is just more than you are used to. I started with a Canon 350D and an 18-200 lens - I thought that was bulky! I now normally carry an 800 F5.6, 300 F2.8 IS Mk1, extenders, tripod, head, 1DX, etc etc in a pack that is over 10lbs before I fill it - you just get used to it.
Just look at the images you get and it will feel lighter!
Upvote
0
Steve said:
I probably did not phrase the question correctly. I have intentions of indoor sports/events, wildlife with teleconverters. Just after it came its big and heavy. Just having second thoughts on tying up that much money on something I will use sometimes. I do want the 400 but the cost is too high. Its not money I want to throw around so after some shooting I was looking for opinions to see if anyone has been down this road and had suggestions. The IQ is awesome and the af is fast.
Upvote
0
Well, I use my 300 for my primary wildlife lens. With a 2x TC, its a hand holdable 600mm 5.6 with a very short minimum focus distance so its great for photos of small passerines, shorebirds or shooting from a hide. It's easy enough to hike with once you get used to it especially with a nice black rapid style strap. I've also used it for field sports with and without the 1.4x TC. Its good for tight portraiture, especially for indoor sports where you will definitely need the wide aperture.
There's plenty of good uses for the lens if you shoot the style of photography it calls for. Mine is the ancient non-IS version and I would instantly trade up for the vII if I could afford it. I bought the sigmonster because I got a crazy good deal on it and it will come in very handy for when I'm distance limited like, say, shooting waterfowl or in a restricted habitat but I will almost certainly continue to use the 300 primarily. It is just too good and too useful for wildlife and sports. I'd say keep it around for a bit and see if you use it. You can't really lose too much money if you find yourself selling it on later and you'll never be hard pressed to find a buyer. I'd guess that if you have any interest in wildlife or sports photography, you won't ever want to get rid of it.
There's plenty of good uses for the lens if you shoot the style of photography it calls for. Mine is the ancient non-IS version and I would instantly trade up for the vII if I could afford it. I bought the sigmonster because I got a crazy good deal on it and it will come in very handy for when I'm distance limited like, say, shooting waterfowl or in a restricted habitat but I will almost certainly continue to use the 300 primarily. It is just too good and too useful for wildlife and sports. I'd say keep it around for a bit and see if you use it. You can't really lose too much money if you find yourself selling it on later and you'll never be hard pressed to find a buyer. I'd guess that if you have any interest in wildlife or sports photography, you won't ever want to get rid of it.
Upvote
0
Yeah. It is big but:
-Even cropped it blows the 100-400 out of the water in most cases,
-With a TC it still exceeds the IQ of my 100-400,
-You really can hand-hold it.
I know I won't use it every day, but then again, I did not pay the present MAP for it either : .
Thinking of selling a nice 100-400, BTW.
-Even cropped it blows the 100-400 out of the water in most cases,
-With a TC it still exceeds the IQ of my 100-400,
-You really can hand-hold it.
I know I won't use it every day, but then again, I did not pay the present MAP for it either :
.Thinking of selling a nice 100-400, BTW.
Upvote
0
Steve said:
Thanks for the type of answer I was looking for. I PP a few BIF and was amazed at how sharp this lens is. I think I am going to use it for a few more weeks then make a decision from there.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:I tried out a 300/2.8L IS II the other day, it was in the rentals section of a 'going out of business' Calumet location. I was amazed at how small and light it felt.
Of course, I've been using a 600/4L IS II for 1.5 years now.
I pulled out my debit card when the guy told me it was $3600, but he needed to check with the liquidation manager if that was the MkI or MkII price, and the manager said rentals weren't for sale. Damn!
Get one Neuro - you won't regret it for a minute. It's awesome at 300 and great at 600, and relatively speaking is as light as a feather. I crossed paths on a hike on Saturday with a fellow with a 600 and a monopod, fabulous lens but not a lightweight.
Upvote
0
I had a old Canon 600mm f/4 non IS, and one of the original Nikon Autofocus 300mm f/2.8 lenses. The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 seems like a light toy compared to those. I have not used the 300mm f/2.8, but expect its a similar size.
For me, that's too big, I'm downsizing due to my hands getting weak, I sold my 1D MK IV and my bigger lenses. The 100-400mmL and 70-200 f/2.8 are as big as I can handle.
For me, that's too big, I'm downsizing due to my hands getting weak, I sold my 1D MK IV and my bigger lenses. The 100-400mmL and 70-200 f/2.8 are as big as I can handle.
Upvote
0
KKCFamilyman said:
What is your reason for shooting? Why do you own what you already own? Regardless of the answers, is this lens purchase in line with your previous purchases and will it make a difference in your performance, enjoyment and advance your skill?
I notice that you already own 2 5D3 bodies along with other expensive lenses so money obviously isn't an issue and you say as much. So I think your plan is sound, keep it for a few weeks and enjoy it, then decide.
Keep in mind that you can throw a 1.4 teleconverter on the 70-200/f2.8 and only lose a stop with a max of 280/f4 mm if you sell it. Not as good as the 300mm/f2.8 but you can easily get the stop back in post with the sensor on the 5D3. I shoot swimming that way all the time. Of course I shoot for fun, I'm not shooting for Getty Images.
Upvote
0
As stated, I also thought it was huge and expensive when I bought mine and now both of those superlatives never cross my mind. I just pinch myself after every shot. It's good for all the usuall shots and also very nice with or without a 36mm extension tube for near macro, for things like butterflys, without being that close.
Not the greatest sample but it makes my point, 300 X2.
Jack
Not the greatest sample but it makes my point, 300 X2.
Jack
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
