Lenses 300mm+

I think I'll disagree that it was in any way patronising.

I only showed the lens as if you watch a GP weekend on the TV, you'll see these lenses in the hands of a lot of the official F1 photographers, they are quite distinctive. Also it contains the text from Canon themselves stating it's suitable for sports, which is wholly relevant to the thread.

If that's in any way patronising I apologise!

I think there's a spot of pot calling the kettle black here...
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
You're extremely patronising.

You'd think from reading your posts that you are gods gift to the sporting photographic community. Perhaps in your eyes you are.

Well a 400 2.8 is better than a 5.6. Period. And if they made 500 & 600 2.8s then they'd be using those not f4s.
Click to expand...

I don't think he sounds patronising but maybe that's just me :P Yes, that message seems a little harsher than average but it was in response to a whole host of other messages in the same tone so it's all relative ;)

The way I see this thread so far is that some people think anything without an F2.8 aperture is just a potato that you attach to your camera whereas other (like myself) think that F4 and F5.6 lenses have their place alongside the others.
 
It all depends on your budget and whether you want to substitute slight loss in IQs for versatility.
When I bought my first DSLR I picked the prime path and bought the canon 300mm f4 IS, from personal experience it's a cracking lens which handles the 1.4x TC very well without any visible loss in IQs, but then again, the 400mm f5.6 just as good, although no experience of using this lens.

I've seen some cracking images from the zooms as well like the canon 100-400 or either of the sigmas like the 50 (150)-500mm if the conditions are right. Another alternative is the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 which has improved over the different versions to the current sport OS version which might be outside your budget?

Still got the 300mm f4, but also upgraded to the f2.8 version and added a 500mm f4 this year, but have saved over a number of years to make these purchases. Would I consider a zoom, yes, well the 200-400mm f4 would be seriously tempting if it was 1/3 of the price and the new sports OS version of the sigma 120-300mm is very interesting, but for a budget of around the £1000 mark I've been very happy with the canon 300mm f4.
 
within the budget that you mention

If you are a Canon shooter the 400mm f5.6, (it's non IS), has always been very well regarded …… it is a classic "wildlife" lens……. especially for the money …… I wish Nikon had such a lens

It is almost worth buying a 7D and this lens as a "travel, hand held lens" for birding and such a set up new would cost far less than just the new Nikon 80 400mm VR zoom lens……. I'd like to give this set up a try as it is relatively small and lightweight and would be great to take on a plane

Have a look at the reviews, it really is a sharpe lens (much) more so than any of the zooms at the longer ends. Primes are better sealed etc., etc., and zooms by their very nature can attract internal dust …. primes are also better buys used because of this and you will always sell it if you need to - to upgrade

You should get one well within your budget and IMHO it is a very good option and is probably the best of the bunch of those mentioned in your opening post ….. it also works with Canon TCs, say the x 1.4

The lens is better for wildlife than for Sports ……. so it depends on what you want the lens for

Get a camo cover for it to cover all that white paint up and you will be all "togged" up

All my comments are based on reading the reviews both from the "pros" and what people have said on the internet.

I can only speak from experience of Nikon lens, and for Nikon it would be the 300mm f4 and TC14Ell, within your budget ……. this lens IMHO is very good
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top