Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep
I use Canon lenses on Canon bodies, so YMMV, but I shoot long lenses, out to 1000mm focal length. I'd suggest going with the 300/f4. It's a lot less load and will AF very well on the Canon bodies, even with the 1.4x teleconverter attached. Weight is an issue when hiking after shy birds and animals.
The only real benefit of the 300/f2.8 II over the 300/f4 is that the IS is good for 2-more stops. 4 vs. 2, which is very real if you, like me, hand hold almost everything. The comparison of the two lenses shows no difference in IQ:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=3
Consider buying used. The Canon super-telephoto lenses hold their value, after the first small burst of depreciation.
Dave |
The 300 2.8 II may be the sharpest lens Canon has ever built. It truly is the benchmark that all my other "sharp" lens are measured against - 85 1.8, 70-200 2.8 II, etc. The bokeh is also truly special, it's simply smooth in a way that zooms never seem to accomplish.
I am one of the likely few people that have owned both a 300 2.8 II and a 400 DO II, and have sold both for a 500 II now. I think the 400 DO II outperforms the 300 2.8 II with a 1.4x tele but bare the 300 has a slight (!) edge on absolute sharpness and I definitely found the bokeh more pleasing.
All of these options are a bunch of money and large and imposing. The idea of taking the absolute top of class autofocus performance that the superteles bring to the table and throw it away by using it via an adapter on a non Canon body seems somewhat a waste to me. I am not taking away from what nice images some of the other bodies can produce, but autofocus is absolutely the name of the game for birds in flight, and anything that compromises would not be worth it for an increase in dynamic range, etc.
In my humble opinion, if you are going to spend the money on a super tele, you should try it with a top quality Canon body paired to it. A truly incredible combo.
Mark
300 2.8 II @ F2.8:
300 2.8 II + 1.4x III @ F4.0:
