Time for some big glass

W

woollyback

Messages
1,417
Edit My Images
No
OK folks,

A while back I asked the question about upgrading my 300 f4 to its bigger f2.8brother. Well that got me a thinking - why not go the whole hog and buy a 500 f4?.

I like to photograph mainly wildlife and birds and some sports

So question is .. a 300 f2.8 & convertors or a 500 f4 - what would you pick and why?.:shrug::shrug::shrug:

Any thoughts would be great

Cheers

Rob
 
depends entirely on what you shoot - you might need them both. whats wrong with he 300mm f/4 for you?
 
awp said:
depends entirely on what you shoot - you might need them both. whats wrong with he 300mm f/4 for you?
Click to expand...

f4 is great but f2.8 with convertors gets me a usable 600 ?. The f2.8 is also better in lower light which is the north of England most of the time.

I mainly shoot wildlife and birds, but do a bit of sport.

Rob
 
woollyback said:
f4 is great but f2.8 with convertors gets me a usable 600 ?. The f2.8 is also better in lower light which is the north of England most of the time.

I mainly shoot wildlife and birds, but do a bit of sport.

Rob
Click to expand...

I think you would be disappointed with a 2x converter, stick to a 1.4 or 1.7.

Personally I would go with the 500mm f4, then you could put a 1.4TC on it and get to 700mm, ideal for birds.
 
I think the 300 2.8 plus 1.4x or 2x is quite a popular combo. It's surely not as good as a straight prime, but it's a lot cheaper, lighter, and resellable. Thanks to the wonderful quality of the 300 2.8 it has enough in hand to take even the 2x extender and, in my hands at least, the lens is unlikely to be the weakest link. It's a compromise solution, but one that is probably top of my super-tele list if and when, maybe eventually etc.

Having said that, for such an important purchase I would want to make absolutely sure and would hire a 300 2.8, both extenders, and a 500 4 to compare. The 600 4 is just too impractically big and expensive for me, and i think I'm not the only one ;)
 
I just bought a 1.7 TC to go with my 300 f2.8 (already had the 1.4, but just wasn't long enough for some circuits). Took it to Brands yesterday and was blown away by the results. It's put a sharp end to my 500 f4 lust :)

...for now ;)
 
One thing you might want to consider, if you aren't doing so already, is hand-holdability (if that's a word). I find that the 300mm f/2.8 is hand-holdable whereas the 500mm f/4, which is about 50% heavier, isn't. Obviously there will be people who are strong enough to hand-hold the 500, and there will be people who find the 300 too heavy. But I guess you don't know until you try.
 
Well, my suspicions seem to be confirmed - the 500mm is probbly the winner as I already have the 300 f4, and would almost certainly use the f2.8 with convertors all the time.

I think a good monopod will help with resting my arms though.

Many thanks for all the comments - guess I will have to start saving and rent one to see if I like it

Cheers

Rob
 
I played with a Sigma 500 on Monday and it Heavy if you want to hold it with the 300 you have the best of both with a TC on How much do you use the big one for you have to think
Take all at your stock of photos and see how many are at your max length do a sort on lens length and you see.
also why not search on Fstops as well and see what you use most and how much is wide open.
 
Having owned both, I sold the 300/2.8. I was never happy with the focusing speed or image quality with a 2x. It was pretty good but the 500 is razor sharp and takes a 1.4 very well too (they both do to be fair)

For wildlife and birds, I would also recommend a decent tripod and head over a monopod for either lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top