Help me justify the 300MM F/2.8

Rovers_Andy

Rovers_Andy

Messages
5,021
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok Im thinking about getting the Canon 300MM F/2.8 L IS to go with the 400MM

Is there anyone here who has owned both of these lenses at the same time, if so did you find having a 300 and a 400 worthwhile?

My thinking is that the 300 will be ideal for motorsports which i hope to start covering in the new year and indoor sports(planning ahead for 2012). I think it will also be ideal for wildlife as with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC i'll have enough reach and will be able to handhold it.

Any comments from people who have the 300 would be appreciated

Thanks

Andy
 
You really shouldnt ask for everyones opinion.. everyone accept mine maybe hahaha :)
 
The 300 is the sharpest thing I have ever used, it loves the 1.4 but needs stopping down with the 2X.
 
Buy that and a 600 F4, job sorted Andy........:thumbs:
 
I use both and although the 300mm hasn't been used for a while I wouldn't want to be without it.
 
If you want it for indoor sports i would go for a 200 f2 IS... takes a 1.4x TC superbly,
thats the next on my list if i ever get around to advertising my 600 f4 IS
 
P-E said:
I use both and although the 300mm hasn't been used for a while I wouldn't want to be without it.
Click to expand...

Cheers Ian, i was hoping another sports shooter would give some feedback, one other reason the 300 could be good is for games where i cant get behind the goals, i find the 400 is too long for the side of the pitch

Today 15:05
fracster Buy that and a 600 F4, job sorted Andy........
Click to expand...

:lol: you read my mind:suspect:, at one point i was thinking of ditching the 400 and have the 300 for Sports and 600 for Cricket and wildlife :bonk: but you know what im like, i change me mind every 2 minutes :lol:


If you want it for indoor sports i would go for a 200 f2 IS... takes a 1.4x TC superbly,
thats the next on my list if i ever get around to advertising my 600 f4 IS
Click to expand...

Now thats put the cat among the pigeons, not a lens i had even considered
 
If you can afford it Andy, want it, then why not?

Ain`t no pockets in shrouds mate.....:thumbs:
 
The 300mm might be a bit long for indoor use, I know I've never been able to use mine at gymnastics or anything. The 70 - 200 usually comes out for indoor use, so either one of those or a 200 f2 would be your best bet if that's what you're looking for :)
 
If I had to get rid of one it would be the 400 even though I use this all the time to cover rugby.

I find the 300 ideal for athletics & ice hockey.
 
fracster said:
If you can afford it Andy, want it, then why not?

Ain`t no pockets in shrouds mate.....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Your right about that mate, i might aswell milk this job for as long as i can. Tell you something if i ever have kids they better like photography :lol:

day 15:16
purpleclouds The 300mm might be a bit long for indoor use, I know I've never been able to use mine at gymnastics or anything. The 70 - 200 usually comes out for indoor use, so either one of those or a 200 f2 would be your best bet if that's what you're looking for
Click to expand...

Cheers Phil i didn't realise that, i thought you used the 300 for the bulk of your indoor stuff
 
Rovers_Andy said:
Your right about that mate, i might aswell milk this job for as long as i can. Tell you something if i ever have kids they better like photography :lol:



Cheers Phil i didn't realise that, i thought you used the 300 for the bulk of your indoor stuff
Click to expand...

With you mentioning the Olympics.. things might be a bit different there, but on the most part gyms are pretty small and 300mm does give you quite a large working distance with people as the subject.

Full frame person would mean they're stood around the edge of the box, if not further.. never been anywhere in door that's had that much space for me to work in!

Unless you are covering something at a fixed distance like the high rings, or horse or whatever it's called then a zoom is quite handy.

So it depends what you're looking to do specifically!
 
P-E said:
I find the 300 ideal for athletics & ice hockey.
Click to expand...

I love mine for ice hockey.. gets me right in there and lets me shoot over the plexi.. the distance gives more of a level view where a shorter lens over the plexi is a poor view.

Athletics I always want longer.. use the t1.4

I tried a 400 and it was no good for me as only any use behind goals.. impossible at side of pitch becasue too long and you ahve to lift and move when play changes ends.. Also at very poor lit grounds even with a markIII you cant get enough shutter speed to match the 400mm (on the shutter should at least = focal lenght)

Can also use the 300 for plays.. from back of theatre.. and concerts..

400 would be good for cricket and rugby but i couldnt afford both so the 300 being more versatile I kept that
 
I would add.. the extra megs in the 1dmkIV will allow far deeper cropping and thus give me as good a reach as a 400mm :) the 1dIII and IV along with a 300mm L has anough quality to pull an A4 out of a really small crop..
 
purpleclouds said:
With you mentioning the Olympics.. things might be a bit different there, but on the most part gyms are pretty small and 300mm does give you quite a large working distance with people as the subject.

Full frame person would mean they're stood around the edge of the box, if not further.. never been anywhere in door that's had that much space for me to work in!

Unless you are covering something at a fixed distance like the high rings, or horse or whatever it's called then a zoom is quite handy.

So it depends what you're looking to do specifically!
Click to expand...

Just have three bodies, 135 f/2 on one 200f/2 on another and 300 f/2.8 on the third :cuckoo:
 
Rovers_Andy said:
Just have three bodies, 135 f/2 on one 200f/2 on another and 300 f/2.8 on the third :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

That's craaaaaazy talk :D

You won't know until you're in the position of actually doing a job, what lens will be best.. so of course the more you have the more choice you have!

Indoors though, are you willing to miss a shot because you can't go wide enough? A 135 f2 and 70-200 2.8 would be a good mix.. the latter being the 'just in case' for when something unexpected happens close by..

The 300 would be great for motorsport etc that you mentioned by the way, especially with the TCs :)
 
The 300 would be my choice (and it was since I have one). The 400 to me was too heavy, too long and I couldn't think of as many uses for it as I could for the 300.
 
purpleclouds said:
Indoors though, are you willing to miss a shot because you can't go wide enough?
Click to expand...

Most team sports is OK wiht a prime because you can afford to miss shots.. pretty much anything that happens outside your range is at some point going to happen inside your range if you can be patient (spellt?) Unless theres a fight or summat :)

If its a set position sport then you use the primes zoom feature... ie yer legs.
 
KIPAX said:
Most team sports is OK wiht a prime because you can afford to miss shots.. pretty much anything that happens outside your range is at some point going to happen inside your range if you can be patient (spellt?) Unless theres a fight or summat :)

If its a set position sport then you use the primes zoom feature... ie yer legs.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking gymnastics etc (as he mentioned 2012)... if someone doing floor routines slips 10ft away you'd only get a face shot with a longer prime (135+)

Of course, a wider prime could be of use... it depends exactly what Andy is anticipating covering. No one lens will do all the suggestions that have been thrown up :) It'd have to be a planned combination of a couple...
 
fracster said:
If you can afford it Andy, want it, then why not?

Ain`t no pockets in shrouds mate.....:thumbs:
Click to expand...


I'm going to try that on the wife....that's a good 'un.....but somehow I don't think she'll wear it....(oh not the shroud...just in case you thought that)

Thinking about it more, she'd have a £3800 mortgage for the 300 2.8 to pay off if I popped it but there again she could always get MY money back on it eh?

....Tempting

Anyone want to buy a car?

Jamie
 
purpleclouds said:
I'm thinking gymnastics etc (as he mentioned 2012)... if someone doing floor routines slips 10ft away you'd only get a face shot with a longer prime (135+)

Of course, a wider prime could be of use... it depends exactly what Andy is anticipating covering. No one lens will do all the suggestions that have been thrown up :) It'd have to be a planned combination of a couple...
Click to expand...

To be honest i was put off zooms after using the 70-200 under the floodlights, i don't know if i'd buy it again.

The sports im thinking of would be most of the indoor stuff along with swimming etc. As far as i can tell the 200 will take the 1.4 with negligable loss of IQ so it could be used for Motorsports i reckon

Your always going to miss some shots with Primes but as you say it depends on what your shooting and at a big event you might not be able to sit in the ideal spots so a zoom could be required

I don't think my brain can handle this much info when im hungover :lol:
 
Rovers_Andy said:
To be honest i was put off zooms after using the 70-200 under the floodlights, i don't know if i'd buy it again.
Click to expand...

same here.. found it very poor at low light grounds even on a mkIII .. Fantastic lens during the day :)
 
petersmart said:
Mind you at about £3700.00 it should be!
Click to expand...
He'll get it cheaper than that though (unless he's telling fibs). His location says Tampa and B&H has it for US$4340 (a mere £2728 according to XE)
 
I use a 300 2.8 and it is great from the sidelines. Due to most of the agency photographers shooting from the ends, I'll often shoot from the sides to try for a different angle which is a bit more unique. For football it would also probably be just fine from the ends whereas it can be a bit short with rugby due to the 10m or so of "end zone" behind the try line. However it does mean I can get a nice tight try shot with it if I dont have time to swap to the 70-200. Ditto for Kipax though - the 1DIV will enable more cropping thus making the 300 a much better bet for rugby.

With a 1.4x on it the results are excellent. I think it really improves the flexibility of the lens as you can have a 300 or 420mm quite easily.

For motorsport that will be ideal as you'll probably be in daylight with no need for high shutter speeds (assuming you're going for a bit of panning etc) and wont miss the extra stop from 2.8 to 4.0. The bokeh is still fab at f/4.0 anyway. With all the trudging around circuits you wouldn't want to cart a 400 with you anyway I dont think.

Indoors (basketball etc) it's likely to be a bit long but could still come in useful.

Olympics-wise should we hold a sweepstake or something to bet on how many of us get in there? I've got my eye on it as well :-) There must be a way...
 
Rovers_Andy said:
To be honest i was put off zooms after using the 70-200 under the floodlights, i don't know if i'd buy it again.
Click to expand...

Care to expand on that thought?

I am fairly certain to encounter bloody floodlights sooner rather than later and am curious as to why a 2.8 zoom would fair worse than a 2.8 prime?
 
desantnik said:
I am fairly certain to encounter bloody floodlights sooner rather than later and am curious as to why a 2.8 zoom would fair worse than a 2.8 prime?
Click to expand...

he swapped for an f2 prime as did I .. massive difference for some very poor lit grounds
 
Digitall said:
I have both a 300f2.8 and a 400f2.8, although they are both Nikon fit. Both lenses have different uses and I would not be without anyone of them. Buy the 300f2.8 and go to the Mach loop, then you will see just how good a purchase it was.
BTW is Tampa near Mid Wales??
Click to expand...

Not quite :lol: but i live in Preston when im not working
 
desantnik said:
Care to expand on that thought?

I am fairly certain to encounter bloody floodlights sooner rather than later and am curious as to why a 2.8 zoom would fair worse than a 2.8 prime?
Click to expand...

Hi mate, the issue wasn't with the Aperture more with the AF speed. Some may disagree but the bulk of the guys i spoke to (Agency & Freelance) ditched the 70-200 in favour of the 135 f/2.
 
Well, if you're back in Florida soon, I'd get in touch with B&H. I've dealt with them before when I was living in the USA and popped into their store once on a drive through NY, great people to deal with, very knowledgable and helpful.

KEH is also great if you're looking at good quality used gear at decent prices. Personally I feel KEH doesn't rate their gear highly enough. I've bought a few of their "bargain" grade lenses in the past (usually when I'm looking at a lens, I'll buy one used, try it out for a couple of months, then resell it before deciding whether to buy new with full warranty, etc) which have been better than those marked "Mint" at the camera stores local to me at the time for half the price.
 
Kaouthia said:
Well, if you're back in Florida soon, I'd get in touch with B&H. I've dealt with them before when I was living in the USA and popped into their store once on a drive through NY, great people to deal with, very knowledgable and helpful.

KEH is also great if you're looking at good quality used gear at decent prices. Personally I feel KEH doesn't rate their gear highly enough. I've bought a few of their "bargain" grade lenses in the past (usually when I'm looking at a lens, I'll buy one used, try it out for a couple of months, then resell it before deciding whether to buy new with full warranty, etc) which have been better than those marked "Mint" at the camera stores local to me at the time for half the price.
Click to expand...

Who are KEH, ive had real problems finding a camera shop in Tampa as im after a set of bowens pulsar triggers too:bang:
 
Tobers said:
I use a 300 2.8 and it is great from the sidelines. Due to most of the agency photographers shooting from the ends, I'll often shoot from the sides to try for a different angle which is a bit more unique. For football it would also probably be just fine from the ends whereas it can be a bit short with rugby due to the 10m or so of "end zone" behind the try line. However it does mean I can get a nice tight try shot with it if I dont have time to swap to the 70-200. Ditto for Kipax though - the 1DIV will enable more cropping thus making the 300 a much better bet for rugby.

With a 1.4x on it the results are excellent. I think it really improves the flexibility of the lens as you can have a 300 or 420mm quite easily.

For motorsport that will be ideal as you'll probably be in daylight with no need for high shutter speeds (assuming you're going for a bit of panning etc) and wont miss the extra stop from 2.8 to 4.0. The bokeh is still fab at f/4.0 anyway. With all the trudging around circuits you wouldn't want to cart a 400 with you anyway I dont think.

Indoors (basketball etc) it's likely to be a bit long but could still come in useful.

Olympics-wise should we hold a sweepstake or something to bet on how many of us get in there? I've got my eye on it as well :-) There must be a way...
Click to expand...


Yeah the relative lightness of the 300 compared to the 400 is one of the big selling points for me and as you mention with the TC on at f/4 theres still enough DOF to isolate the subject

As for the Olympics i need to do some research as i have a feeling the criteria will be quite strict and you'll need plenty of published work in each area. Would be good to have "London 2012" meet though :lol:
 
KEH are based in Georgia, but they keep their inventory updated online.

I lived about an hour or so south of Tampa, and the one shop I used to go into ended up closing down, so all I was left with was Ritz/Wolf Camera. I ended up buying pretty much all my gear from B&H, KEH, eBay or Nikonians.com classifieds after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top