applecider said:
+1, +1, +1neuroanatomist said:sanj said:
+1
Justifying a 'great white' from a business standpoint would be a bit challenging. Wildlife and freelance sports shooters would need to be at the top of their field for revenues to balance an expense like that (most white lenses at events aren't owned by individuals), and if a purchase can't pay for itself it's poor business practice to spend the money.
But for a hobby, there's no need to justify...as long as one can afford it.
FWIW, the 300/2.8 II is next on my list.
jdramirez said:
Menace said:
Northstar said:jdramirez said:
JD...I have the 300 2.8 is and like you, mainly shoot sports.....the addition of this lens is huge for field sports and night games. It's my money maker.
Look what I see..... ;D :
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2-8-L-IS-USM-Lens-with-Hood-Caps-Case-/121364494388?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c41e33834
Northstar said:
The sharpness of that shot is very impressive - better than I can get from the 70-200 with 2x extender.tomscott said:I have too.
There is a big jump in price, the 400 Do would be perfect if its image quality was better than the 100-400mm for its weight and size.
Im guessing the 500mm F4 II is the most popular for birding? being longer than 400 and nearly a KG less? and more than F2.8 is needed for wildlife for decent DOF?
Ive been doing the same and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5DMKIII justifying at the cheapest £6000 more than the 400 F5.6 when its IQ is stellar and comparable to the other big whites although a few stop slower, no IS and its weight is 1/3 any of the big whites. IS isn't necessary when shooting at such high shutter speeds but its nice to steady the viewfinder!!
If only they made one with IS…. It would be perfect.
I went to the Farne islands this weekend and there were plenty of guys with the big whites but they were laden with massive tripods with gimbal heads and looked nakard! Just seems a pain in the ass to shoot with, difficult to track as the closer the birds came overhead you and the camera body need to go really low almost crouching on the ground while attached to a tripod and your just not free when using tripod.
After having my 40D and battery grip with 24-105mm and 5DMKIII with 70-200mm II and 2x extender strapped to my shoulders and my bag on all day with 8 hours of shooting my arms were tired. Im 26 and a pretty fit strong guy so I hate to think what they were like carrying the big lenses and tripod all day.
Another issue I saw was where we were was very close to the cliffs and about a foot over the fence was a huge drop. The cliffs weren't particularly flat obviously and the guys were having trouble getting the tripods stable enough to shoot, then when the light changed and they needed to move position it was like a mass migration, there was me just laughing away to myself.
Also while on the boat the lenses were too big for them to quickly get the lens set up and shoot where as the guys with the 100-400, 70-200mm with extenders, 70-300mm, 400 and 300mm primes managed to get up and shooting really quickly, so there are pretty big positives to being mobile.
Another question is how come they can make a really nice compact 300mm F4 IS and not a 400mm F4 IS that isn't DO, I suppose the reason is it would be smaller cheaper lighter and make the 2.8s less attractive?
Obviously I would love one, a 300 F2.8 400 F2.8 or a 500 F4 who wouldn't but there has to be some kind of balance between weight, usability, size and price. Which keeps bringing me back round to the 400 F5.6…
I think the 200-400mm would be my perfect lens is the best of both worlds but its still 3620g and massive!
It makes me wonder even more when I was shooting with the 70-200mm F2.8 II with just a MKII 2x extender and the IQ I've been very surprised with, I wasn't expecting brilliant results but they really are pretty good… The AF did hunt a little but was still pretty impressive with the 5DMKIII.
This is a 100% crop from that combo.
Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
5DMKIII 70-200mm F2.8 IS II 2x extender MKII, F7.1, 1/2000, ISO 640
Obviously I don't really have any experience with the big whites so these are just observations of one trip. So any thoughts are most welcome
charlesa said:
tomscott said:Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?
Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.
The most challenging thing is keeping the bird in frame with a prime its even more difficult if its flying toward you. With the zoom my technique is to track the bird at 70mm (140mm with the 2x) then as its coming toward you zoom into 400mm or what ever tele you need to try to fill the frame. Its a lot easier but obviously you loose a little AF speed canon quote 75% but I think this is worst case scenario from digital picture review he explains how the AF speed isn't really an issue with MKII lenses and MKIII extenders. I didn't have any trouble following Puffins and they are quick and unpredictable.
Next on my list is a MKIII extender I think
I find the 1.4x a perfect match for the 70-200 lenses, but the 2x makes the 70-200 long and unbalanced from an ergonomic perspective. The AF is also pretty slow as wickedwombat points out, but it's great to have the 2x with you in case you need it. Also, I did some comparisons and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III is nearly as sharp as the bare 400 f/5.6 @ f/5.6 and f/8. The differences were only visible at 100% magnification.wickidwombat said:tomscott said:Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?
Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.
The most challenging thing is keeping the bird in frame with a prime its even more difficult if its flying toward you. With the zoom my technique is to track the bird at 70mm (140mm with the 2x) then as its coming toward you zoom into 400mm or what ever tele you need to try to fill the frame. Its a lot easier but obviously you loose a little AF speed canon quote 75% but I think this is worst case scenario from digital picture review he explains how the AF speed isn't really an issue with MKII lenses and MKIII extenders. I didn't have any trouble following Puffins and they are quick and unpredictable.
Next on my list is a MKIII extender I think
Its OK but the tamron leaves the 70-200 +2x mk3 combo for dead as far as servo performance goes IQ i guess is not too different and this is coming from a once confirmed Tamron hater! i still carry the 2xTC with the 70-200 as an in case but if I know i'll be shooting long stuff I take the tamron
jdramirez said:
