Printable View
Way OT, but for critical samples we use World Courier. They do a great job of babysitting samples, and importantly they will add dry ice to a container as needed while it waits for customs inspections, meaning cold samples stay cold. Not cheap, but very reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
It is definitely a well-engineered lens. Feels solid but not heavy. I had been considering a 300/2.8 off and on for the past few years, but was somewhat reluctant to buy the EF version once RF happened. If I'd already had one when I switched to RF, I'd have swapped the EF 70-200/2.8 for the RF version as I did, but likely stuck with that plus the EF 300/2.8. I have felt no need to upgrade my EF 600/4 II to the RF version. But effectively having both the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/2.8 in one lens is definitely an advantage for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
That's the only real downside. It's not very heavy, but it is long. I read a blog post by Dan Carr where he said that's the reason he wouldn't buy one. My current quest is a holster bag for it. I love my Lowepro Toploader Pro bags, great for camera plus one lens, optionally with a second lens in a case strapped to the side. I have all three sizes, I use the middle-sized 70 AW a lot more now that the 70-200/2.8 fits in that instead of the larger 75 AW. I'm hoping the Think Tank Digital Holster 150 fits the R3 plus 100-300, it's the largest holster-style bag I've found.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
soooooo...had a chance to put it through the paces?
Not really, though the R3 + 100-300 does fit (barely) in the Think Tank DH-150. One of my kids has an indoor performance tonight, that will be the first real use other than my usual initial lens tests (on which it performed perfectly).
Just circling back, the lens is great as expected. I do find the zoom very useful, more so than the 300mm prime would be. Looking over the EXIF from that evening, focal lengths ranged from 135-300mm, was great to be able to capture a small group then zoom in on individuals. I was typically between f/2.8 and f/5 and for almost all the shots the ISO was 6400 or less, which is a comfortable place on the R3.
As a nice bonus, the TT DH-150 holster has a small side pocket for the rain cover. With that removed, the pocket holds an RF 24/1.8 (with hood) for a wider FoV. Of course, it would also hold either the 1.4x or 2x extender (for which it was likely designed by TT), and that's good for other use cases.
I am not surprised, but it is still nice to hear good things about the lens!
Impressive .... very close in image sharpness compared to the 300mm f/2.8L but I guess it should considering it has an elite price tag as well.
I agree that with the 2X converter there is a substantial drop in sharpness but with today's AI sharpening software it may not be a big deal.
Love to see some real world images with and without converters.
Here's a quick comparison, and I think the 100-300/2.8 + 2x holds up very well compared to the 600/4 II. The 100-500 is no slouch, either...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/th...-is-usm.42653/
Thanks for the comparison. All of those are usable images. The biggest difference, IMO, was bokeh. Clicking on the images and trying to zoom in, you can see a difference in sharpness, and that will matter for certain shots. However, often, extreme sharpness is less important and what I am seeing from the 100-300 2xTC looks sharp enough.