Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm

[mackguyver]

I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops.

That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton

Why do I picture Wayne & Garth from Wayne's World saying, "We're not worthy" when I read this???

You crack me up Alan and I knew it was an old chimney from your previous posts, but I didn't know it was a famous chimney as well! Thanks for the continued comparisons on these lenses

 

[JPAZ]

The "ranking" in the vote is the same as the price. I get all that. Pulled the trigger on the 300 after seriously considering the Tammy. But, at the time, was going through a series of wildlife shots taken with my 100-400 (while watching some Verdins build a nest outside of my window) and was disappointed with so many of them that I felt the Tamron would not be a better option (at least in the under 400 mm range) than what I have. That and the temporary price that was being offered through the buyer's group on www.canonpricewatch.com was all I needed to push me over the edge. I know what the 300 can do since I rented one last fall. I understand that a zoom can be handy at times vs. a fixed length and the use of TC's. The price difference is significant.

Had I not been seeing so many not-too-sharp images (most of which are probably my fault and not the fault of the lens) at the time, might have still gone with the Tammy. But, I will probably sell the 100-400 soon then look for a good deal on the 2xTC.

BTW, never underestimate the power of a chimney, and a famous one indeed!

 

[mackguyver]

JPAZ, I started to shake & cry when I saw the prices on the 300 and 85 in the group buy :'(. Ok, not really, but wow, what a deal, especially on the 300. Congrats on scoring that price and I'm sure you're dying to get the new lens. I can't recommend it enough and love it more and more each time I use it.

 

[kaihp]

JPAZ, I started to shake & cry when I saw the prices on the 300 and 85 in the group buy :'(. Ok, not really, but wow, what a deal, especially on the 300. Congrats on scoring that price and I'm sure you're dying to get the new lens. I can't recommend it enough and love it more and more each time I use it.

My only problem with that group buy is that I'm not in the US to take advantage of it

 

[tron]

JPAZ, I started to shake & cry when I saw the prices on the 300 and 85 in the group buy :'(. Ok, not really, but wow, what a deal, especially on the 300. Congrats on scoring that price and I'm sure you're dying to get the new lens. I can't recommend it enough and love it more and more each time I use it.

My only problem with that group buy is that I'm not in the US to take advantage of it

Me too

 

[Loswr]

My only problem with that group buy is that I'm not in the US to take advantage of it

That…and the fact that the deal has expired.

 

[Harry Muff]

Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?


It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.

 

[Loswr]

Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?

It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.

Speaking as a 600/4 owner, I often stop down into the f/8-11 range to get sufficient DoF for my subjects. Beyond the additional light, the faster aperture (fast being relative - f/4 is fast for a 600mm lens) has the advantage of allowing autofocus with extenders.

 

[mackguyver]

Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?

It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.

Like Neuro, not unless I need the extra DOF, which is probably 10% of the time - for things like deer or smaller subjects that are close to the lens. I love the subject isolation and speed of f/2.8 on my 300mm and on a recent shoot, I shot at 2.8 vs. f/8 (which was needed for full focus) because I preferred subject isolation to getting everything in focus. It's harder to get those shots, but when you get them, the extra effort is worth it.

 

[Steve]

Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?


It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.

I usually shoot with a 2x on my 300 2.8 and stop down a third or half stop to preserve sharpness. If it's bare or with a 1.4x, I'll almost always shoot wide open. I actually like a dof falloff for some close up bird pics; it makes the birds look more glamorous.

 

[Kerry B]

Whilst there is no doubt that using a 300f2.8 wide open is a major benefit in low light action or wildlife photography, there are numerous times when the light is good and I need some sort of depth of field that I use this lens at up to f11. Given that there is no difference in quality between the f stops I will always try and shoot wide open. For the money and yes this lens is expensive but not in comparison with 400f2.8mk11, there is no hiding the fact that you have to pay for quality.
The other thing you have to remember is the big whites do not depreciate, and can be an investment, third party lenses are generally cheap to buy on the second hand market. Another reason to look at the big white's.

 

[stochasticmotions]

Sounds like the options here are 1. extremely expensive and 2. Very inexpensive. I've gone in between with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and canon version III teleconverters. I'm very happy with the image quality so far comparing mostly to my old canon 100-400 and newer 70-300L. The extra stop or so of light is great but the weight is significant. Anyone else have the sigma and access to the tamron for comparisons? I already know that the canon primes are slightly sharper and significantly faster for autofocus.

I've been considering the tamron for those times that I don't want to/can't take the heavy weights.

 

[mackguyver]

I usually shoot with a 2x on my 300 2.8 and stop down a third or half stop to preserve sharpness. If it's bare or with a 1.4x, I'll almost always shoot wide open.

Steve, nice photo, and after reading one of Alan's posts, I tested my 300 with both extenders using FoCal and found that wide open was sharpest bare and with the 1.4x, and f/5.6 and f/8 were even with the 2x. There was a very slight boost at f/6.3, but after reading the-digital-picture and others, I had assumed that f/8 was sharper than f/5.6. Your lens might not match those results, but so far Alan and I have found that to be the case.

 

[GuyF]

That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.

What? I didn't know Newton invented gravity and the prism. I always thought gravity existed before he came along and the prism was a toy/curio which he bought at a county fair.

Before you challenge anyone to a battle of calculus (you failed to name Leibniz), do your homework.

 

[AlanF]

That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.

What? I didn't know Newton invented gravity and the prism. I always thought gravity existed before he came along and the prism was a toy/curio which he bought at a county fair.

Before you challenge anyone to a battle of calculus (you failed to name Leibniz), do your homework.

I didn't name Leibniz because I didn't claim Newton invented the calculus (he did, but our German colleagues see it differently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz-Newton_calculus_controversy

You don't understand the Cambridge sense of humour (yes, we do have one). My college claims that William Harvey invented the circulation of the blood, not discovered.

If you want a mathematical duel, here is my second (taken on Monday night at iso3200, f/4 24-105)

 

[candc]

Sounds like the options here are 1. extremely expensive and 2. Very inexpensive. I've gone in between with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and canon version III teleconverters. I'm very happy with the image quality so far comparing mostly to my old canon 100-400 and newer 70-300L. The extra stop or so of light is great but the weight is significant. Anyone else have the sigma and access to the tamron for comparisons? I already know that the canon primes are slightly sharper and significantly faster for autofocus.

I've been considering the tamron for those times that I don't want to/can't take the heavy weights.

I have the sigma sport and the canon tciii's also. The sigma bare lens has noticibly better IQ and AF. The sigma with 1.4 has better IQ and AF, sigma with 2x is about the same or marginally better. The tamron is plenty sharp enough and the AF is fine for most everything. The only reason to use the sigma or any other lens in the tamrons range is if you need wider aperture for effect or light conditions. The tamron is so nice to carry and use because of its size and weight. I don't see myself using the sigma with the tc's much anymore but I am still going to keep it for the 120-300 f/2.8

 

[AlanF]

The ultimate Tamron 150-600mm, available on eBay for only £1,000,000.

 

[eml58]

The other thing you have to remember is the big whites do not depreciate, and can be an investment, third party lenses are generally cheap to buy on the second hand market. Another reason to look at the big white's.

This is a good point & it has been my own experience, I owned both the version 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 Lenses, sold them for exactly what I had paid for them when I purchased the Version 2 Lenses, I could have sold them at a profit but I sold to friends so I was interested only in recouping what I'de spent.

On the question of f stop use, on all my White Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 200-400f/4 & 600f/4 I rarely shoot at anything more than f/2 on the 200, f/2.8 -f/4 on the 300, and f/4 - f/5.6 on the 200-400 & 600. I carry with me at all times a Circular Polariser to help with bright light conditions.

 

[eml58]

1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada

I can only comment on what I own or have owned, mine currently would look like this.

300f/2.8 II
200f/2
400f/2.8 II (Now Sold)
600f/4 II
200-400f4

With the exception of the 200-400f/4, all these Lenses show very minimal IQ degradation when using the 1.4x Version III converter.

Using the 2x Version III Converter on any of these Lenses shows IQ degradation, it's not bad, but it's noticeable.

The 1.4x can be used on the 200-400f/4 when using the built in 1.4x converter for reasonable results, use of the 2x converter gives poor results.

The difference between the 200f/2 & 300f/2.8 II is marginal in the areas of AF speed & sharpness.

The difference between the 400f/2.8 II, 600f/4 II & 200-400f/4 is again marginal in the same areas.

 

[tron]

The ultimate Tamron 150-600mm, available on eBay for only £1,000,000.

I'd advise against it! It is rather expensive.
Why don't you get 2x1Dx, a 300mm f/2.8L IS II, a 400mm 2.8L IS II, a 500mm f/2.8L IS II, a 600mm f/4L IS II, an 800mm f/5.6L IS, 1.4XIII, 2XIII. You will pay less and with the change you will get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ;D ;D ;D

On the other hand the Tamron comes with free shipping so tough choice... ;D ;D ;D