- Messages
- 832
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was deliberating recently whether to sell my 120-300/2.8 for three reasons.
1) I shoot at the 300mm end 80% of the time
2) I tend to use it at f/3.4-f/4.5 most of the time
3) I use it handheld 90% of the time
So, I thought that I might be better off with either a 300/4 or the brilliant Canon 400/5.6.
The reason I was shooting at smaller apertures is that I wanted to get the max quality for the fine feather details in birds, and because most of the times the DOF is too shallow at f/2.8. Yesterday the light was fading and I decided to give it a go at f/2.8. I realised that I couldn't remember the last time I used the lens wide open, and the reason is that you sometimes get only a few seconds with birds and I needed to be sure that I got the shot. Luckily a robin perched quite close to where I was standing and managed to get a couple of shots, and realised that the lens is just brilliant even wide open! When I shoot at f/3.5, I never sharpen the photos because they don't need any sharpening.
At f/2.8, with just a little bit of USM, the results IMO are quite decent.
So, after lots of deliberation, I realised that even though I shoot at the 300mm end of the lens 80% of the times, if I didn't have a zoom, I would miss 1 every 5 shots. Now, I wont think twice before using f/2.8, and as for the weight, well, I did get used to it and I find other lenses too light to hand-hold without any movement
The only problem with f/2.8 is the very shallow depth of field. I shot this robin at near the lenses min-focusing distance. At this distance, the DOF is 0.66cm. That's 6.6mm. The two shots I got even though they weren't refocused, had different parts of the bird in focus. The one I'm posting has the grey feathers in focus, whereas the other one had the mayfly in focus (nice macro kind of shot
)
This is a 100% crop, 300mm, ISO200, 1/320 sec exposure, Sharpened in PS using USM ( radius: 1px, Amount: 100%), Hand-Held
1) I shoot at the 300mm end 80% of the time
2) I tend to use it at f/3.4-f/4.5 most of the time
3) I use it handheld 90% of the time
So, I thought that I might be better off with either a 300/4 or the brilliant Canon 400/5.6.
The reason I was shooting at smaller apertures is that I wanted to get the max quality for the fine feather details in birds, and because most of the times the DOF is too shallow at f/2.8. Yesterday the light was fading and I decided to give it a go at f/2.8. I realised that I couldn't remember the last time I used the lens wide open, and the reason is that you sometimes get only a few seconds with birds and I needed to be sure that I got the shot. Luckily a robin perched quite close to where I was standing and managed to get a couple of shots, and realised that the lens is just brilliant even wide open! When I shoot at f/3.5, I never sharpen the photos because they don't need any sharpening.
At f/2.8, with just a little bit of USM, the results IMO are quite decent.
So, after lots of deliberation, I realised that even though I shoot at the 300mm end of the lens 80% of the times, if I didn't have a zoom, I would miss 1 every 5 shots. Now, I wont think twice before using f/2.8, and as for the weight, well, I did get used to it and I find other lenses too light to hand-hold without any movement
The only problem with f/2.8 is the very shallow depth of field. I shot this robin at near the lenses min-focusing distance. At this distance, the DOF is 0.66cm. That's 6.6mm. The two shots I got even though they weren't refocused, had different parts of the bird in focus. The one I'm posting has the grey feathers in focus, whereas the other one had the mayfly in focus (nice macro kind of shot
)This is a 100% crop, 300mm, ISO200, 1/320 sec exposure, Sharpened in PS using USM ( radius: 1px, Amount: 100%), Hand-Held
good pic
but if does look like its been focused correctly. maybe i am being picky 
