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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 13, 2006, 4:45 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8
Default

NHL,

Your right I never really thought about the physics of this, just assumed that heavier lens was more difficult to hold steady. Looks like 100-300 is back to top of list above 70-200 f2.8.



Many thnaks for taking the time to reply and offer your views - it is much appreciated by a newcomer.:-)

Thanks again

woollyback


woollyback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 6:20 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

woollyback

The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC (600mm @ 1/180s) handheld:
... just a stroll in my neighborhood - try that with an IS prime (only if you can hand hold it)!
Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 12:38 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
bigboyhf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 165
Default

Showoff!!! What is that? A Parakeet?? :G

H
bigboyhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 12:41 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
Default

NHL good shot.However a 120-300 will blow my budget to very little bits.No doubt its one of the best lenses out there.Would love to rent one for a weekend
gaida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 2:07 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8
Default

Wow - love it.



Can't stretch to 120-300 f2.8:sad:, but 100-300 f4 definitely top of the list:G:G.



Thanks again



Woollyback
woollyback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 4:09 PM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

bigboyhf wrote:
Quote:
Showoff!!! What is that? A Parakeet?? :G
This Blue Jay is a showoff however @ 600mm even with a slower (1/125s) shutter speed handheld (I was really pushing my luck here): :blah:








woollyback wrote:
Quote:
Can't stretch to 120-300 f2.8:sad:, but 100-300 f4 definitely top of the list:G:G.
-> According to the MTF, the 100-300 f4 EX is actually a better lens than the f/2.8 !

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 4:45 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
Default

NHL i believe the 120-300 is a little bit sharper at F/4 isn't it?
gaida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2006, 6:39 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

gaida wrote:
Quote:
NHL i believe the 120-300 is a little bit sharper at F/4 isn't it?
You're probably right - I was thinking in term of wide open only with commonly published MTF charts...

I realize the 120-300 f/2.8 EX will blow most budget to little bits, but bear in mind if one compare this lens to an EF 300mm f/2.8 prime it's only half the cost! This focal lenght is great for fashion photography or outdoor portraits which is my specialty. I took on birding only late last year, and even bought the 100-400L IS USM to go with it!

The 100-400L is great because it's lighter, but when I need the reach I always pull out my 120-300 f/2.8 EX with a 2x teleconverter. This lens is very flexible and cover a lot of focal lenghts - where can one get a lens all the way from 120 to 600mm, relatively fast for low-light action shots, and still be hand holdable? Most lenses having this kind of reach can only be used from a stationary platform, so one can forget about taking a stroll through the parks.

-> If you add all the lenses you might want to buy then the 100-300 f/2.8 is quire a reasonable package indeed!

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 2:39 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Hey guys,

I have been away fora little bit working on a new hobby to co-exist with this one.

I also have to agree on the 100-300 f/4. I have one and it is fantastic. This is a

100% crop of a pic I took with mine with the 1.4x converter. I dont remember how many yards away I was but I was not even shooting for this bird. I was resizing the pic and there it was hiding in the bushes.
Attached Images
 
arowana 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 4:17 PM.