06-12-2020 02:25 AM
06-12-2020 02:36 AM
Thank you Peter.
But are we talking about pixel peeping here? I would think all the lenses mentioned here are pretty sharp. I've been using my 70-200 IS mark ii with my 2x mark iii extender and I am very happy with the picture quality.
06-12-2020 02:56 AM
06-12-2020 10:03 AM
"Are you saying the 300 F4 IS lens is sharper than the 300m F2.8 IS lens?"
I am saying, in real world use the f4 is as sharp and can be even sharper than the f2.8. You have to remember there are other f-stops besides f2.8 and f4. You use them all. You can't shoot everything at a lens' wide open aperture. A person like most of us have no real use for a lens like the f2.8 when there is such a good alternative like the f4.
06-12-2020 10:06 AM
"But are we talking about pixel peeping here?"
This whole discussion is about pixel peeping. Absolutely nothing else! None if these lenses discussed is bad. The f4 still remains your best buy option.
This is not a lens you are going to use everyday. After Yellowstone, what? Do you have plans to use it then too?
06-12-2020 10:12 AM
I place little credence to most reviewers. I never use DXO for instance. The Digital Picture is better by far.
So if you are a believer in that, here is what they said about the f4 model...."Overall, this lens (the f4 modle) a a very good value. The Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens delivers great image quality and physical features for a relatively low price. If you need only 300mm (and 420mm available with the 1.4x) and f/4 is a wide enough aperture for you, look no farther."
06-12-2020 10:54 AM
The short answer to your question is yes, I would love and sure have plans to make great use of this lens long after my Yellowstone strip.
Prior to the COVID lockdown, I normally visit Yosemite, Sequoia, and nearby parks at least once a year, and been spending most of my Christmas holidays in Hawaii.
So yes, I would think I will continue to make good use of this lens after my Yellowstone trip.
Latly, the reason I preferred the 300mm lens over the 400mm or 500m because it's lighter, smaller which make it easy to pack and travel with. Especially on planes when most airlines only allowed one carry on bag. I don't think any sensible person would check in these lenses.
06-12-2020 11:02 AM
"I don't think any sensible person would check in these lenses."
You see there in lies your problem. These lenses are designed to be checked in. Their cases show that fact. They are designed for the pro that is using them and carrying them and traveling with them all the time. Day in and day out. They were not made for the guy that goes to Yellowstone or Hawaii once a year.
06-12-2020 11:10 AM
Point taken. That said, have you seen what they do with your luggage? Not to mention missing luggage. I had my shares of those.
Lost luggage is no fun, and I definitely don't want to deal with my camera gears or laptops, etc. gone missing.
06-12-2020 11:14 AM
There are times when f2.8 vs f4 does make an important difference:
Focus speed will be slightly faster which can be critical in action shots. Since AF is done with the lens wide open, the f2.8 will still be faster even if you are stepping down the aperture for the actual exposure.
Depending upon the body, a f2.8 or faster lens will activate dual cross point sensors in the AF array providing for the highest AF performance from that lens/body combination. More regular cross type points will also be available with faster glass and many will generally be available even when a 1.4X extender is used with the faster lens. With the 2X extender, slower glass will only let you use a single cross point in the center even with the better DSLR bodies.
At times, that extra aperture stop really makes a difference and for me that is the "prime" reason I use fast primes a lot because of sports events with poor lighting. Even when shooting with the 1DX III, if I can halve the ISO while maintaining the shutter speed I need that is a very good thing.
The downside is fast glass is more than one stop on the expense, size, and weight parameters. If f4 is fast enough for your needs then it is much easier to live with than f2.8 telephotos. As I noted in another thread, even though I have a 400 f2.8 IS II my old 400 f5.6 still gets used because when f5.6 is fast enough (which it is for a typical hike) I would much prefer to carry a lighter and more compact lens than the excellent 400 f2.8 and even though you give up some AF performance the old 400 f5.6 will still AF with the better bodies when equipped with a 1.4X and it still provides good quality images with that combination.