More Telephoto Samples?? 300F/4 ? anyone?

[mpphoto12]

i am familiar with the 70-200 f/2.8 but does anyone who owns a 300f/4 want to share some pics or tell me how it is???? thanks

[Ifmracing]

I just recently got the 300.


I have not had a chance to take all that many photos yet, I did shoot some hockey that I was pretty pleased with, I can try to put some up of those a bit later.


Also, I think I'm going to try to shoot some motorcycle ice racing possibly tomorrow and will try to get some of those up here too.

[mpphoto12]

thanks how does it feel and i have never had a prime so whats it like using a fixed focal length? thanks

[Colin]

My experience with my 400 prime is that I really love it, but I'm wary about using it in situations where my subject might get too close. You simplylose a lot of shots that if you were using a zoom, you could just back off to a wider angle. If you're far away to begin with, and the relative distance will remain fairly proportionally constant (at 100 yards, who cares if they come 20 yards closer. At 40 hards, 20 yards closer is a big deal) then a prime can work really well. Primes at wider focal lengths mean that you can often adjust by moving yourself a little bit, but they also mean that you've got to be pretty much in it to begin, and I'm not sure who does that, really.


I really like the 70-200, though I have a 100-400 on my way off wish list.

[mpphoto12]

oh thqanks and how do you like the 400 ther is no IS right? are you at higher isos? has it been a hastle in many conditions? thanks

[MVers]

oh thqanks and how do you like the
400 ther is no IS right? are you at higher isos? has it been a hastle
in many conditions? thanks





The
400/5.6 does not have IS. Being that it is a f/5.6 lens you are
generally shooting at higher ISO's to stop action unless the lighting
conditions are good--IS or not. You also need to make sure your shutter speeds are
quick enough to compensate for movement when shooting handheld. In the
end you cannot get a better 400mm prime for the money and its certainly
a great performer as long as you understand it's limitations. For a lot
of birders it is an ideal lens for birds in flight (BIF) because of its
light weight and fast AF. FWIW I tested a 400/5.6 prior to going with
the 100-400 and it was because of it's lack of versatility (No IS,
fixed FL, longer MFD) I decided against it. What may I ask do you plan to shoot with the 300/4IS?

[Colin]

The 100-400 is certainly more versatile. If I didn't have the 70-200 with IS, I would have certainly gone the route of the 100-400 with IS, and would still like to, eventually.


the 400 f/5.6 is NOT a practical walk around lens. I would certainly not buy it as my only telephoto. I'd say thatalmost half the time I use it, it's on a tripod with a shutter release, and the mirror lockup feature enabled. When I do use it without a tripod, there's usually plenty of light. Hand holding without some direct light at dusk is pretty impossible. If I don't have the tripod, or the time to use it, and there isn't plenty of light, I try to brace the lens against something, and hold still as I squeeze, like I'm a sniper or something trying to hit some madman at a quarter mile. In these situations, a 100-400 with IS would be far superior, as would a 300 f/4 IS, I estimate. Actually, in these situations, if I have the option, I'd rather take the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and just crop instead of risk the motion blur or take the 1600 ISO noise hit.