300mm f2.8....A decent walkabout lens? (2 Viewers)

[Gaz Shilton]

I have been fighting 2 demons over the last 12 months or so.
Which prime to get, 500 or 600.
I have had many responses to a previous thread on this matter with mixed results, all helpful.
However having just spent a week walking around Spurn (quite warm at times) I am starting to re-think my photographic lens requirements.
Lugging a 500 plus tripod and all the rest, in the heat, seems a bit too much, for me.

Would I be better off with the 300 f2.8 hanging off my shoulder, ready to take a shot at a moments notice?

An example of this: I walked past a bush and out pops a Lesser Whitethroat.
With a 500 on a tripod I would have to set it down etc, re-position the camera/lens then try and get the shot, whereas with the shorter/lighter 300 I could swing it round off my shoulder and get into position a lot faster and having a better chance of getting such a good shot close up.

Would the 300 f2.8 with 1.4x converter attached be a better option as I do like to walk/bird and photograph as I go.
A 500 lens over my shoulder on a tripod walking around for a few hours would make it that bit more difficult to do this IMO.

I know there are other lens options out there, but, I really like the 300 f2.8

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

 

[Neil]

Use a monopod . I use one with my 500/4 90% of the time. I have it extended so that it's about 1 ft off the ground when over my shoulder. I bend my knees slightly and then it's easy to stand it up and swing the lens around onto the subject. One thing I have noticed with the 500/4 that many birds are spooked when the large "eye" swings around on them. I rarely get the same reaction when digiscoping or using a 300/4. Neil.

 

[Dave Williams]

I have a 300mmf2.8 and a 500mmf4. If one had to go it would be the latter.
What the 300 lacks in reach can be compensated in flexibility. The 500 is hand holdable, but not for long ( well, not by me anyway). I'm struggling with BIF with the 500, the 300is superb. You'll always want more reach if you get the 300mm, but you will if you get the 500 too....and the 600 no doubt !

Then there's the cost.
The 300mm is a lot,lot cheaper.

More portable


and better in poor light.

 

[GYRob]

Mono pod here too easy to carry over the sholder and always ready for the grab shots with my 500f4isL
Rob.

 

[Overread]

I know several wildlife/bird photographers who use a 300mm f2.8 with and without teleconverters as well as other longer lenses (500mm, 60mm ones) and they generally all say that the 300mm is the walkaround lens. Sure the longer lenses can work as walkaround and with a monopod are not that impossible to use, but the thing is they are far heavier - and if your trekking around that weight gets to be quite a lot by the end of the day.
The 300mm f2.8 is no light lens itself, but compartivly its a lot lighter than the others and it takes telconverters well giving an excelent 300mm, a very good 400mm and a decent 600mm. Its a cheaper and lighter setup - ok so you have to change parts to get those extra lengths true, but chances are you will stick to one setup for most of the time.

 

[Highcountry]

Might want to consider the 400mm f4 DO lens as well. It is about 1.3 lbs lighter than the 300mm f2.8 and gives you add'l 100mm over the 300mm and I understand takes the 1.4x well.

 

[hollis_f]

When I wanted a new lens to augment/replace my 100-400 I knew that the 500 was not an option. Just like Gaz, I prefer to be able to take shots at a moment's notice and I prefer to shoot handheld. Also, there are many places I go to where a scope is essential and there's no way I could carry that along with a 500 plus tripod plus gimbal.

So I went for the 300 2.8 and have never regretted it. The scope and tripod are in a Mulepack on my back and the 300 (normally with a 1.4x) on a long strap over my shoulder where I can easily whip it round and be shooting within a second or two. If I do need a tripod then I can remove the Mulepack, swap scope and camera and hope that the bird is still there.

 

[Gaz Shilton]

When I wanted a new lens to augment/replace my 100-400 I knew that the 500 was not an option. Just like Gaz, I prefer to be able to take shots at a moment's notice and I prefer to shoot handheld. Also, there are many places I go to where a scope is essential and there's no way I could carry that along with a 500 plus tripod plus gimbal.

So I went for the 300 2.8 and have never regretted it. The scope and tripod are in a Mulepack on my back and the 300 (normally with a 1.4x) on a long strap over my shoulder where I can easily whip it round and be shooting within a second or two. If I do need a tripod then I can remove the Mulepack, swap scope and camera and hope that the bird is still there.

That's exactly what I do.
Bino's, scope + tripod, camera over my shoulder (anticipating the shot).
To carry all of these and a 500 for a day out in the field seems nigh on impossible.
Using the 300 in a hide off a bean bag with a 1.4x or a 2x seems like a better option (to me at least).

Not to mention it will cost a LOT less. (which would please the wife no end).

Thanks hollis_f

 

[Jaff]

Sounds to me like you've made your decision Gaz. I'm sure you and you're new lens will be very happy together. :t:

 

[Sandpiper]

Gaz,

Being the proud owner of a 300 2.8 I would say without hesitation, go for it. It is a very versatile lens and takes both 1.4x or 2x TC's well. I have also achieved perfectly acceptable shots with stacked TC's too.

Mike

 

[farmdogfan]

Gaz,

Being the proud owner of a 300 2.8 I would say without hesitation, go for it. It is a very versatile lens and takes both 1.4x or 2x TC's well. I have also achieved perfectly acceptable shots with stacked TC's too.

Mike

+1
regards per

 

[goodallian]

Hi Gaz,
I have been very fortunate over the last three years to have owned the 100-400, 300F4 IS, 400F5.6, and 300F2.8. I'm in agreement with most of the Forum but even though the latter is a cracking lens and very portable, I realised after a while that "reach" was probably the most important factor in my decision to sell it in the end, in order to get the 500F4. I am sure that sometime in the future you will have the same issue to face.
I had to budget for a sturdier tripod and Gimbal head but after several months I got used to the extra weight. I have kept the 400F5.6 for BIFs mainly and for the occasions when I knew there would be a long hike. There can be no argument with both these lenses producing stunning images and I have no regrets (except the big increase in price) in choosing the 500 even though I was sad to see the 300 F2.8 go.

Good luck with your choice,
Ian

 

[Nikon Kid]

I think the 300mm 2.8 could be my next lens of cause when I win some money from somewhere.
I noticed in the thread that most have there lens/camera 400/50d on there shoulder, I have mine
over my neck sitting in front of me ready for action and my bins are over my shoulder and my mini trekker on my back.

 

[hollis_f]

I noticed in the thread that most have there lens/camera 400/50d on there shoulder, I have mine
over my neck sitting in front of me ready for action and my bins are over my shoulder and my mini trekker on my back.

I have my bins around my neck (because that's where my hands instinctively go - even if I'm not wearing them) and my camera with 300 f2.8 on my shoulder. The Canon strap that comes with the lens is long enough so that even a large person like me can easily carry the setup over the shoulder and bring the camera up to my eye without having to remove the strap from my shoulder.

While I'm walking along I hold onto the tripod foot with my left hand behind my back. This stops the camera from swinging about and also stops the strap from falling off my right shoulder.

 

[tjsimonsen]

I have my bins around my neck (because that's where my hands instinctively go - even if I'm not wearing them)

Man, do I know that feeling :-O
I carry my camera (40D+100-400) over the shoulder and stick the tripod attachment in my belt. That eases the strain on the lens mount and the camera strap.

Frank have you tried a 2xTC on the 300/2.8? If so, how does it compare to the 100-400 with respect to QI and AF? I too am considering to add this lens to my holdings.

Thomas

 

[temmie]

Why on earth should you want a 300mm 2.8 for some instant shots.
IMHO, either you want a big lens (500mm and more), take your time, learn the behaviour of a bird, and get that perfect shot.
Or you want a portable lens, so get a 300mm F4 and take those (more than fine and very satisfying) record shots. But for just a bird that pops out, 300mm F2.8 is a lot of money and weight!

300mm F2.8 is nearly as heavy as 500mm, it's a brilliant lens to use with a 1.4 and even 2x converter, perfect for stunning flight pictures, but not a walkaround lens (unless you are kind of walking around your car).
I would definitely go for 500mm with monopod, and 300mm F4 for the longer walks.

 

[stevo]

Heres my two pennies worth a friend of mine has the 300mm f2.8 & although flexible in that you can add convertors the 1.4x being the best I found it heavy to use.Now someone else I know has just bought the f4 400mm DO & that felt much lighter & easier to use plus put a 1.4x tc on you still have AF & over 500mm of lens to use.

Steve.

 

[MarkEvan]

Got to say I agree with Temmie, why lug the 300 2.8 around if you think the 500 is too heavy......there isn`t that much difference in the long run. A better walk about lens would be the 300 f4 or even the 400 5.6 if you wanted the extra reach (though the lack of IS concerns some unless you are shooting in poor light you should be able to keep the shutter speed up)....much better for your neck and arms.......also bear in mind that any quick movements are likely to scare the birds anyway.

 

[Nikon Kid]

Heres my two pennies worth a friend of mine has the 300mm f2.8 & although flexible in that you can add convertors the 1.4x being the best I found it heavy to use.Now someone else I know has just bought the f4 400mm DO & that felt much lighter & easier to use plus put a 1.4x tc on you still have AF & over 500mm of lens to use.

Steve.

That sounds like a good option, 400mm f4 + 1.4 still got IS and AF at 560mm. What do you end up with f5.6, f7.1 or f8 and how fast is the AF with the 1.4

 

[hollis_f]

Got to say I agree with Temmie, why lug the 300 2.8 around if you think the 500 is too heavy......there isn`t that much difference in the long run. A better walk about lens would be the 300 f4 or even the 400 5.6 if you wanted the extra reach (though the lack of IS concerns some unless you are shooting in poor light you should be able to keep the shutter speed up)....much better for your neck and arms.......also bear in mind that any quick movements are likely to scare the birds anyway.

The 500mm is a full 50% heavier than the 300 f2.8 (3.87 kg vs 2.55 kg). When you add in the weight of a decent tripod (1.5 kg) and a gimbal head (1.5 kg) then you're looking at 2.7 times the weight. That's a lot of difference.

For me the 300 f2.8 is just about the maximum I can comfortably carry around all day. Yes, a 300 f4 would be lighter. But the 2.8 is a better quality (especially with a 1.4x converter).

The 400 f5.6 is also lighter. but there's no IS.

The 2.8 also has the advantage of being one stop faster than the 300 f4 or (with the 1.4x on the f2.8) than the 400. It can also take the 2x converter to get 600 mm and still AF on my camera.

Yes, I agree that it's not as good as the 500mm. But I've been out with a friend that uses a 500mm a lot and I know I couldn't carry it all day. Indeed, she's now so envious of my 300 2.8 and how easy it is to use that she's bought one for herself. Now she plans to use the 500 only when we're doing stuff close to where we can park.

So I'm not saying that the 300 f2.8 is the ideal birding lens for everybody, but it is the ideal lens for me when I'm out and about.