Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 15, 2006, 12:59 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
Not sure how well 2xTC would work on that Sigma zoom. Reading from folks using Sigma in sports, they say AF is slower then canon's 300 f2.8. Now with 2xTC, AF will be get slower. I tried canon 300 f2.8 IS with 2xTC on my 30d and AF was real slow.
It's fast enough with a 2xTC to capture theses shots on a 10D: :-)










Quote:
And 120-300 is not 300mm at full zoom
It's actually tested out to be 123.6-293.83 mm to be precise: http://www.popphoto.com/assets/downl...2003163559.pdf

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 1:02 PM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default


... and just in case one needs more reach than a 600mm here's one with a 1.4xTC stacked on top of the 2xTC (i.e. 840mm f/8 which AF focuses just fine on a 1D mrkII):





-> BTW I picked this picture not so much for its content, but to demonstrate how well the CA is controlled with this lens combined with the 1.4x and 2xTC stack, there's some sharpening artifacts but check the high contrast branches vs bright sky areas for the absence of fringing...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 2:13 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

was that hand held shot..amazing..its a known fact that even a mm shake in a tele is more visible in the picture. And this is a great skill NHL

I am just amazed at how steady you are.

Vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 2:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

was that hand held shot..amazing..its a known fact that even a mm shake in a tele is more visible in the picture. And this is a great skill NHL

I am just amazed at how steady you are.

Vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 4:16 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

NHL - Thanks for posting the flight shots with the 10d. I have heard some good things about the 120-300 f2.8 but then lot of people who shoot sports say the AF is slow. There is no other zoom which cover this range. For sports, 300mm f2.8 IS alongw ith 70-200 f2.8 would be nice but then I can use 120-300 f2.8 and cover the whole range with 1 lens and it is cheaper. Too many things to decide and little money to spend. Sorry to hijack the original thread.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 4:21 PM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
was that hand held shot..amazing..its a known fact that even a mm shake in a tele is more visible in the picture...
... and that's the beauty with this lens :idea:

-> By the time one adds a sturdy tripod and the neccessary gymbal for the bigger gun to track the actions, the "avoir du poids" have significantly increase to the point where it's becoming more work than a hobby...

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 4:56 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
but then lot of people who shoot sports say the AF is slow.
It's slow compared to the Canon 300mm 2.8 and the difference is more pronounced in low light than during day. But the Canon is twice the price.

So, people that don't have this lens hear 'slow' and don't look at the big picture - slow compared to what? The Canon 300 2.8 is arguably one of the best lenses out there - focus speed is better than 400 2.8 (by all accounts - I've never shot the 400 2.8 but discussed with several pros).

So, keep things in perspective. I've never heard of any lens besides the 300 2.8 that has 300mm and focuses faster than the 120-300.

So, 'slow' is a relative term. My 120-300 focuses at least as fast as my Sigma 70-200 2.8 and easily as fast as my 100-400 (obviously focuses much faster in low light than the 100-400).

I look at it this way - the 120-300 is probably about 85% of the Canon 300 2.8. The canon has slightly nicer bokeh and is sharper and weather sealed and has IS. But those extra attributes cost an extra $2000 AND you lose the zoom. So, add in an extra $1300 for an additonal camera and the price difference is $3300. It's just very difficult to justify that much extra cost to get the extra 15%. For working pros it absolutely makes sense - sports shooting as a profession is an extremely difficult and competitivefield and that extra bit makes a difference.

Having sung all the virtues of the lens - I will say as a wildlife option the downside compared to say a 400 5.6 or 100-400 is the size & weight. I have both the 120-300 and the 100-400 and If I'm hiking I still prefer the 100-400 because it's light weight and easier to hand-hold. yes I can hand-hold the 120-300 but the 100-400 is easier and more importantly it's easier to carry. If I'm using a tripod I would much rather use the 120-300 with 1.4 TC than my 100-400.

But for sports, it's a no brainer. If you can afford 2 bodies and a 70-200 2.8 for one and 300m 2.8 for the other - absolutely the best option. But, the second option - not far behind at all in quality is the 120-300 2.8. Everything else is a distant third.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 8:02 PM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Like everyone here I have the 100-400L too... and for hiking I'll take the 100-400L as well!
Problem is when you need the reach of a 600mm which other lens can you handhold (beside the equally weighty 300 f/2.8?) since the 100-400L won't cut it? :idea:
The other option with the 500mm f/4 with a TC is quite a bit heavier so let put that in perspective as well (@ just a few $K more)

-> Let also not forget that @ 420mm, the 120-300 f/2.8 is still a stop faster with a 1.4xTC than the 100-400L for that extra size :blah:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2006, 10:06 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Thanks JohnG and NHL.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2006, 10:26 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG may not agree with this...

But here's another perspective a 170-420 f/4 zoom (120-300 f/2.8 + 1.4xTC) is a lot more manageable than a fixed 400mm f/2.8, which will require a totally different shooting style because of its weight for that extra 1 stop (same 1-stop comparison as the slower 100-400 vs the faster 120-300 in weight)

... and a lot more $$$$ + a 2nd body!!! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:46 PM.