Really bad GAS

[Loswr]

Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9. Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.

Great shots, BTW.

 

[LJ3Jim]

Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9. Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.

Great shots, BTW.

I need a little help understanding the f/9. The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2. This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens: 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim

 

[meywd]

Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9. Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.

Great shots, BTW.

I need a little help understanding the f/9. The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2. This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens: 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim

600 on FF = 960 on Crop and
f/5.6 on FF = f/9 on Crop

The sensor doesn't receive the same amount of light, because the sensor size is smaller.

Read more

 

[jdramirez]

My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.

Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9. Both of the shots below were handheld.

I fixed that for you.

Great shots, BTW.

I need a little help understanding the f/9. The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2. This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens: 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim

 

[LJ3Jim]

600 on FF = 960 on Crop and
f/5.6 on FF = f/9 on Crop

The sensor doesn't receive the same amount of light, because the sensor size is smaller.

My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.

Kind of makes my brain hurt...
I think I'll just stick with taking my pictures.

Regards, Jim

 

[Deleted member 91053]

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.
[/quote]

I think you are travelling down the same road as I did. The 300 F2.8 L IS is a stunning lens (even my Mk1) but where you need reach a longer lens is better. I went for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and am absolutely loving it! When funds allow, also give the 1DX a try out - but not until you have the funds as you will want it!

 

[Loswr]

I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600.

I bought the 600/4 II a couple of years ago, and the 300/2.8 is on my short list.

 

[jdramirez]

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 remembered.

I can probably afford the mk i version of the 300 f/2.8... so that's the one I'll compare.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

And with the 1.4x, the 300 still wins... but it isn't a blowout victory. The 300mm f/2.8 mkii is closer to a blowout...

But, what the 300mm can't do is shoot at f/2... and that extra stop of light means and 1 less stop of iso.

I'll still use the 70-200, but I do shoot some sports where there is quick movement, but at specific locations... volley ball for instance. The serve is always from the same location... the net is always at the same location, though the players obviously move up and down the net.

Ditto with tennis. I just like having the flexibility of f/2, f/2.8, and f/4... I know the stand alone primes are better individually, and I can use the converters on them... but I generally don't shoot at f/5.6 unless I have to... so give me 400 f/4 v. 600 f/5.6...

though I may be capricious about the whole thing... so I might change my mind tomorrow.

 

[Chisox2335]

You guys are killing me. Every time I think I've decided on the 500 mki I see a 300 mkii with 2x tc picture and think that's actually the way I should go.

 

[nonac]

Sending this eval lens back a few weeks ago was difficult. That said, I ordered my own today.