Anyone moved from 100-400 to 300 2.8?

Started Dec 18, 2008 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
bvphotos
Regular MemberPosts: 251
Like?
Anyone moved from 100-400 to 300 2.8?
Dec 18, 2008

The 100-400 that I have is a decent lens. Nothing wrong with it. But I'm looking for a possibly better setup for wildlife since I'm bumping into its limitations every now and then. The only realistic alternative to the 100-400 that I can think of is the 300 2.8 lens to be used in conjunction with the 1.4TC. The 500 and 600 f4 lenses are too heavy and too expensive. Even the 300 2.8 is a bit too heavy for my liking and is expensive, but I could talk myself into buying one and using it with a 50D (which I'm considering buying as well). This combination would probably give me a 2-stop advantage over my current setup (1 stop from the lens and maybe a stop worth of ISO performance from the camera). When in the jungles, I suspect this 2-stop advantage could be significant.

I'd be interested in hearing from people who have used the 300 2.8, particularly in comparison with the 100-400 and the 500 f4. Would you recommend this lens for wildlife? How does it work with 2 stacked 1.4TCs? I've seen some great pics with a 2x TC. Would my tripod setup be able to handle this lens?

-- hide signature --

http://bvphotos.smugmug.com

Rebel XT, Canon 100 f2, Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, Canon 100-400 IS, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 10-22, Sigma 18-200 OS, Tamron Pro 1.4TC, Speedlite 430EX, Feisol 3402 + Giotto ballhead.

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow