# Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...



## Ken B (Jan 2, 2014)

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

I am certain others have gone down this which to get path before so I can only ask for thier guidence. Fortunatly I have time before I buy. We have a Camera-imaging Expo coming to Phoenix next week and I plan on going to play with some big lenses to see how I like them.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 2, 2014)

Ken B said:


> OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> 
> Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?
> 
> ...



I would try to go for the focal length you need natively, that way you're assured of best possible image quality at that focal length. The 300 mm however may be more flexible. Tough choice.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 2, 2014)

You didn't provide enough information for anyone to really give you a good recommendation.

We do not know what you shoot. We do not know if what and where you shoot if the size and weight of a 600mm set up could be used. We do not know what will make you happy.

As a general rule use the focal length that suits your needs, which appears to be the 600mm. From that rule you can make compromises.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 2, 2014)

I have gone down this path and ended up with the 300mm f/2.8 IS II, but I'll admit that even with the 2x III, I sometimes wish it were longer. I also took the 800mm for a spin (as a CPS loaner) and frequently found it to be too short, even with extenders. Yes, you read that right. With my shooting (everyone is different), I find my subjects are either in the 70-200 range (often with 1.4x) or in the 300-600mm range. Beyond 600mm, I really need a 2000mm or something as they are way too far away. Plus, here in Florida, the heat mirages and humidity really much up shots beyond about 50 yards in good times and beyond 50 feet in the middle of summer. With the extenders, you have an amazing 300mm, excellent 420mm, and very good 600mm (esp @ f/8). 

The other key for me was portability. The 300 2.8 is a lens you can _carry_ with you and hand-hold, while the 600mm is one you _lug_ with you really need a tripod (and gimbal) for in most situations. I often hike in or stalk my subjects and this is really important to me. If I was shooting out of blinds, from a vehicle, or stationary position most of the time, the 600mm would be my choice, no question. It's definitely a lot more effort to get close to your subjects, but one of the things I love about wildlife photography is the very challenge of getting the shot.

Also, the 300mm leaves me with enough spare cash to buy a 1Dx one of these days.

Of course, there's always the 200-400 1.4x, that gives you more options, but is still large and heavy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2014)

I shoot birds, have the 600/4L IS II, and almost always use it with the 1.4xIII, occasionally with the 2xIII.


----------



## Skatol (Jan 2, 2014)

I had the option of getting the 400 2.8 with a 2x TC or the 600 F4. Decided on the 600 with 1.4 TC and never looked back. This often falls short. I typically do not lug this around and set up in one location for the day. Not sure if this helps you or not, what are your primary goals?


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 2, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> You didn't provide enough information for anyone to really give you a good recommendation.
> 
> We do not know what you shoot. We do not know if what and where you shoot if the size and weight of a 600mm set up could be used. We do not know what will make you happy.



I'll second that! You say that you don't have enough reach. OK, how much do you have to crop to get the images that you want and what focal lengths would give you those images?

For example, the first time I went to Watkins Glen, it was with an EOS-3 film camera and a 100-400. Looking at how much I had to crop, I decided that I needed 800mm or its equivalent. Now I use a 7D with either a 100-400 or a 300 f/2.8 with 1.4X and 2X TCs. By next spring, I'll probably own a 200-400 zoom.

FWIW, Sports Illustrated photographers typically prefer the 400 f/2.8 with 1.4X and 2X TCs over a 600 f/4 with a 1.4X TC.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have gone down this path and ended up with the 300mm f/2.8 IS II, but I'll admit that even with the 2x III, I sometimes wish it were longer. I also took the 800mm for a spin (as a CPS loaner) and frequently found it to be too short, even with extenders. Yes, you read that right. With my shooting (everyone is different), I find my subjects are either in the 70-200 range (often with 1.4x) or in the 300-600mm range. Beyond 600mm, I really need a 2000mm or something as they are way too far away. Plus, here in Florida, the heat mirages and humidity really much up shots beyond about 50 yards in good times and beyond 50 feet in the middle of summer. With the extenders, you have an amazing 300mm, excellent 420mm, and very good 600mm (esp @ f/8).
> 
> The other key for me was portability. The 300 2.8 is a lens you can _carry_ with you and hand-hold, while the 600mm is one you _lug_ with you really need a tripod (and gimbal) for in most situations. I often hike in or stalk my subjects and this is really important to me. If I was shooting out of blinds, from a vehicle, or stationary position most of the time, the 600mm would be my choice, no question. It's definitely a lot more effort to get close to your subjects, but one of the things I love about wildlife photography is the very challenge of getting the shot.
> 
> ...



Exactly my thoughts, with no regrets. With patience and creativity 600 works and 300 X2 is pretty good IQ. I would never give up portability because that's half the fun - hiking, smelling, observing, going on the water, ......

The 300 X2 tucks into the crook of my arm beautifully, while holding my Jobu lens mount and is great hand held, allowing me to duck through the underbrush!

If a 7D2 type camera has say 24 MP that may offer reach with IQ similar to FF for good lighting, and so that may be my solution to "longer" in the future, when it's hard to fill the frame.


Jack


----------



## Eldar (Jan 2, 2014)

I went from 500 f4L IS to 400 f2.8L IS II, with 1.4xIII/2xIII extenders, but moved to 600mm f4L IS II, to get the extra quality at 840mm and have the option to go to 1200mm. The 600 will stay with me for as long as I can carry it. I later added the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, so overall I am well covered for sports, wildlife and birds. The 600 is combomed with the 1.4x about 80% of the time.

I have been thinking about the 300 f2.8L IS II for some time, it is a phenomenal lens, with AF and IQ like no other, but I doubt it'll happen. The promised 7DII may be an interesting option for the extra reach though, if the AF is good enough.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 2, 2014)

I went down a similar path. Tamron 70-300, then with 2x teleconverter, then Canon 70-200 f/4 + teleconverter, then 500 f/4 (+1.4x, then +2x). If it's birds you're after, get the 600. Of course, price is a major factor - here in the UK the price difference is considerable (£4-5k for the 300 f/2.8 IS II, maybe £8-10k for the 600), but like others here, I find even the bare lens (500 in my case) is hardly ever enough. I shoot at 1000mm in good light, 700mm in poorer light (or even 1400mm with stacked extenders if I can't get close). The old mantra 'never enough focal length' is really true, especially for songbirds in the wild.

Having said that, I'd love a 300 f/2.8 too, to plug the middle gap (or more realistically the 200mm f/1.8 for now). As for the weight, that some have mentioned, I am of decidedly average strength, but the 500mm lens is not too bad once you get used to it, and the 600 isn't too much worse judging by the specs.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 2, 2014)

I recently purchased 300mm f2.8 IS II. There is no doubt the 300 is considered as "THE LENS". However, I returned the 300mm and settled with 400mm f2.8 IS II for more reach. I do quite a bit indoor shooting, therefore, f2.8 is what I really after. Otherwise, 600mm sounds awesome.


----------



## Click (Jan 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I shoot birds, have the 600/4L IS II, and almost always use it with the 1.4xIII, occasionally with the 2xIII.



Ditto


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 2, 2014)

I recently had a similar decision and wound up purchasing a 200-400/1.4x. Although I have had it only a week so far I do not regret this decision at all. While the 600/4 has more reach, the 200-400/1.4x is far more flexible.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2014)

If you are strong and want to sit in a hide (blind) for hours with your gear on a tripod, then go for the 600mm. If you want to walk or hike with a camera at the ready, and also use a hide with a hand held, go for the 300mm f/2.8 II with a 2xTC III. If you are rich, go for both. It is as simple as that.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 2, 2014)

AlanF said:


> If you are rich, go for both. It is as simple as that.


I like that last bit of advice


----------



## Vern (Jan 2, 2014)

If birds are your primary interest, get the 600. Per Neuro, I use the 600 w the 1.4X and it is never too long for birds. I also have the 300 2.8II (not rich, just obsessive) and it is a great walk around lens w either the 1.4 or 2X - but 600 is just not enough for smaller perching birds. There are a few other threads on this same topic, so I won't go on and on...


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > If you are rich, go for both. It is as simple as that.
> ...



I am far from rich but, up until a year ago I had both the 300 F2.8 IS and 600 F4 IS.
I found that they made a wonderful, if very heavy, combination. Although I would always use the 600 in preference to the 300 + 2 x Mk3 extender (Mk2 wasn't very good) the 300 + 2 x allows me to get to places that I simply couldn't lug the 600 to!
If you need to move around a fair bit then I think the 300 + extenders wins hands down. On the other hand if you are not walking very far and can use a tripod then the 600 is the better option.
As some posters have noted you will always need more reach, I am one of them, so my 600 was sold to fund an 800!


----------



## rbr (Jan 3, 2014)

The 800 is a great option right now, especially if you want to buy used. They are readily available in the $9k range. They have the same IS as the latest MarkII big whites and are only slightly heavier than the new 600. If you want to photograph birds with a 600mm, you'll usually have the 1.4x and 2x attached. It's a lot easier and less of a hassle just to take off and on one tc than fiddle with two and their caps.


----------



## Northstar (Jan 3, 2014)

As larger MP bodies come to market in the following years, (hopefully 2014) the cropping capabilities will get better thus giving the 300 a bit more "reach" when editing. With that said, a 300 2.8 and hypothetical 46 MP camera combined would probably be about the same price as a 600mm alone....(obviously not the same reach)

Just something to consider when purchasing a lens to be used for many years to come.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 3, 2014)

Northstar said:


> As larger MP bodies come to market in the following years, (hopefully 2014) the cropping capabilities will get better thus giving the 300 a bit more "reach" when editing. With that said, a 300 2.8 and hypothetical 46 MP camera combined would probably be about the same price as a 600mm alone....(obviously not the same reach)
> 
> Just something to consider when purchasing a lens to be used for many years to come.


To some extent I agree. But the problem moves from resolution to focus. It does not matter how much you can crop, if you can't position the AF points correctly. That is why I believe (hope) the 7D replacer, whatever they decide to call it, will be interesting.


----------



## Ken B (Jan 3, 2014)

There are allot of great points brought up. I was also wondering about a 7D as a possibility to give me the added reach. While I'm not rich affording both in the future is a possibility in the future. For now I need to pick one. The Frugal side of me says 300mm is the way to go. But considering the 300 price is halfway to the 600 it's one of those things. No one else can make the call except me. 

To answer the folks that said I didn't provide enough info.. Truth is I would shoot what ever I can with which ever lens I had. If I had the 600 I would probably shoot more wildlife. Presently I do allot of autosports. so I think the 300 would be a great lens for that purpose. But I also shoot Macro.. So go figure... LOL


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 3, 2014)

Ken B said:


> There are allot of great points brought up. I was also wondering about a 7D as a possibility to give me the added reach. While I'm not rich affording both in the future is a possibility in the future. For now I need to pick one. The Frugal side of me says 300mm is the way to go. But considering the 300 price is halfway to the 600 it's one of those things. No one else can make the call except me.
> 
> To answer the folks that said I didn't provide enough info.. Truth is I would shoot what ever I can with which ever lens I had. If I had the 600 I would probably shoot more wildlife. Presently I do allot of autosports. so I think the 300 would be a great lens for that purpose. But I also shoot Macro.. So go figure... LOL



Be careful to consider if the 7D will deliver high enough image quality for you, particularly at higher iso's. Coming from a 5D MkIII you may be disappointed (I just got a 5D Mark III just for this reason). My 7D is still here, but I think I may sell it if I truly find I no longer need it.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Be careful to consider if the 7D will deliver high enough image quality for you, particularly at higher iso's. Coming from a 5D MkIII you may be disappointed (I just got a 5D Mark III just for this reason). My 7D is still here, but I think I may sell it if I truly find I no longer need it.


True, the current 7D is no alternative to the 5DIII or the 1DX. But if a 7D replacer (whatever they decide to call it) get a really decent AF system, then it may become an interesting alternative. We can expect more resolution and I would also expect significantly improved high ISO performance.
For motor sports the 300 will be a great alternative.


----------



## Skatol (Jan 3, 2014)

"But considering the 300 price is halfway to the 600"

Check ebay for some deals on a non IS 600. I bought one from Montereypark in Washington state. I may have the seller name spelled wrong but should be close enough for a search. Perfectly good lens that works well with the mark III 1.4TC. Yes it's heavier but you'll most likely have it on a tripod anyway. Shutter speed will most likely be high enough that IS is a non issue.
You can find them for around $5500.

I also made the upgrade from a 7D to the 5DIII. The 7D rarely sees any action now. Cropping down still gives me better image quality at ISO 800 and up than the 7D could ever hope for.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 3, 2014)

+2 on the 7D - after buying a 5DIII, I found the 7D wasn't worth keeping and sold it, keeping my 5DII & III. It's a great camera, but as soon as you hit ISO 1600, it's just way too noisy for me.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 3, 2014)

The 7d is incredibly unforgiving. Almost everything has to be perfect to get a pleasing image. Even ISO 400 is riddled with noise in the blue channel (problematic for birds in flight, etc). I still have mine, but that sensor is a mess compared to my 6D.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2014)

I am still getting some superb results from my 7D but the focussing with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII can hunt when there is not a contrasty subject. I got sufficiently frustrated yesterday, despite getting some good BIF shots, that in the evening I ordered a 70D and it arrived this morning from WEX. The initial results are looking good, and I'll post a comparison when there is good weather here in a couple of days. DxO tests on its sensor suggest the 70D has significantly better IQ than the 7D.


----------



## Northstar (Jan 4, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I am still getting some superb results from my 7D but the focussing with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII can hunt when there is not a contrasty subject. I got sufficiently frustrated yesterday, despite getting some good BIF shots, that in the evening I ordered a 70D and it arrived this morning from WEX. The initial results are looking good, and I'll post a comparison when there is good weather here in a couple of days. DxO tests on its sensor suggest the 70D has significantly better IQ than the 7D.



Congrats Alan...have fun!


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 4, 2014)

I didn't see if you were trying to decide between the 300 II and the 600II, but if you are willing to go with Version I lenses you could get both for less then the cost of a new 600. You would even still have some $$ left over for a new 5D Mark III to add to the mix.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 4, 2014)

Alan F, I'll be waiting for some comparative shots from your 70D with great interest! Any chance you could do a capture of the same subject with both cameras. I had my 300 2.8 II on my friend's and it wasn't AFMA, anyway the result wasn't as good as we had hoped.

Jack


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 4, 2014)

It all comes down to budget, and what you shoot. I have a 400mm f2.8 IS , and both 1.4X and 2X because i can afford that, and I shoot sports as much as nature.

When you need a 600mm the best lens to have is a 600mm. But a 300mm f2.8 and 2X converter is certainly a great combo. 

When you need a 300mm f2.8, a 600mm is just not going to work.


----------



## candc (Jan 4, 2014)

Ken B said:


> OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> 
> Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?
> 
> Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want them.



I think if you get the 300 that you will still want the 600. If you want 600+ it's the best way I have seen


----------



## Eldar (Jan 4, 2014)

candc said:


> Ken B said:
> 
> 
> > OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> ...


+1
With sailing boats people often get the 3-feet-desease (just 3 more feet and I´ll be happy ...) With tele lenses you find a similar problem. It may be an expensive route to go 300 -> 400 ->500 -> 600, if you should have gone for the 600 in the first place. A combo of 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 600mm f4L IS II, 1.4xIII/2xIII extenders and 5DIII/7DII bodies will cover just about everything. 

But be aware that the 600mm is a Big lens. But it can still be handheld and with the right harness it is fairly easy to bring on hikes and full day jobs. I have attached an image of my carrying solution, which basically is a flag bandoleer.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jan 4, 2014)

Ken B said:


> OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> 
> Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?
> 
> Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?



The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.

What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.

You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.

Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.


----------



## surapon (Jan 4, 2014)

Ken B said:


> OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> 
> Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?
> 
> ...




Dear Ken B .
I am not the Sport shooter or Birders, But , When I need to shoot this Both Job, My Lovely EF 600 MM . MK I is my Weapon, Plus 70-200 F/ 2.8 IS on my 2 Camera, Plus On the third Camera -85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II.
Good Luck for your Choice.
Your Friend.
Surapon
PS, Yes, If I wear the Press Badge( Some of my real Job--Not Just go to watch the excite Games), I use 70-200 mm fr/ 2.8, and 135 F/ 2.0 , because Short distant from the players.

PS-2, From Photo DB-2, I just Tired my monopod to the Metal hand rail with Tied Cords.


----------



## surapon (Jan 4, 2014)

I am not the Sport shooter or Birders, But , When I need to shoot this Both Job, My Lovely EF 600 MM . MK I is my Weapon, Plus 70-200 F/ 2.8 IS on my 2 Camera, Plus On the third Camera -85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II.


----------



## surapon (Jan 4, 2014)

I am not the Sport shooter or Birders, But , When I need to shoot this Both Job, My Lovely EF 600 MM . MK I is my Weapon, Plus 70-200 F/ 2.8 IS on my 2 Camera, Plus On the third Camera -85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II.

Enjoy
Surapon


----------



## Eldar (Jan 4, 2014)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Ken B said:
> 
> 
> > OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> ...


I do not see how the 800/5.6 can be an alternative to the 600 f4L IS II. Combined with the 1.4xIII the 600 is sharper than the 800. But if you can get the 800 for a good price ...


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 4, 2014)

Okay, I quickly read the replies but mostly to see if the OP had given any more info on what he shoots and it looks like he hasn't yet. Therefore, all I can do is sum up the pros and cons as I own the 70-200 f/2.8II, 300II and 600II and TCs. So I think I can provide some good background info and if the OP has the time to reply to his own thread at some point then I may be able to help a little more with specifics......

First off the 70-200 with a 2.0TC (and I have the latest versions of both) is pitiful for AF speed. My 100-400 runs circles around it at 400 f/5.6. The 300II with 2.0TC is phenomenal at AF and the hit is there but it doesn't affect shooting. I just finished using it over the holidays to shoot small chickadees and songbirds handheld through lots of branches and the AF on the 1DX and 5D3 is spectacular (other bodies may not perform as well). The 600II bare lens at 600 f/4 is faster at AF and the IQ is a bit better than the 600 f/5.6 II IS(as I like to call it) but the IQ of the 600 f/5.6 is still pretty remarkable. No lens made by Canon, Nikon, or others in the 300 and above FL can touch the bare 300II for IQ and AF. That combo is simply unbelievable. The 420 f/4 IS II (300II + 1.4III) is also pretty fricken amazing.

The 840 f/5.6 IS II is also very, very good for both AF and IQ. The 1200 f/8 IS II is also very, very good for IQ....BUT, AF does take a hit because of the f/8. I have great shots of large birds in flight (eagles and swans) but anything smaller is a lost cause. For perched birds, the combo is phenomenal however.

If you really need 600 and want even more reach at times and can handle the bulk of the 600 then just go and get it. The weight is a bit of a problem (I handhold about 75% of the time and use a gimbal for certain times) but the real issue is the actual size and not the weight. This is where the 600 f/5.6 wins hands down as it is much smaller and lighter and I can handhold it for hours without fatigue.

These are my initial scramble of thoughts.....IMHO....YMMV

Posted below...Junco with the 600 f/5.6 IS II and Bald Eagle with the 1200 f/8 IS II both handheld.


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Hesbehindyou said:
> 
> 
> > Ken B said:
> ...



I totally agree....
600II pros:
lighter
more FL flexibility
more available AF points on 5D3 and 1DX
shorter MFD and better MM at 840mm
Equal or better?? IQ even with the 1.4TC than the 800 (this is splitting hairs but there is definitely no loss in IQ from what I have seen out there from the 800)
Equal AF even with the 1.4 or at least no appreciable or effective difference.

800 f/5/6 pros:
????????????????????????????????
Better price, maybe??


----------



## DaveMiko (Jan 4, 2014)

Ken B said:


> OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
> 
> Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?
> 
> ...



For wildlife, enough is never enough. If IQ is paramount to you, then get the 300. You can crop all you want then. Otherwise, buy the 600.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2014)

DaveMiko said:


> If IQ is paramount to you, then get the 300. You can crop all you want then. Otherwise, buy the 600.



So if I crop a shot with the 300 II to the FoV of the 600 II, will the cropped shot have better IQ?


----------



## DaveMiko (Jan 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > If IQ is paramount to you, then get the 300. You can crop all you want then. Otherwise, buy the 600.
> ...



Well, to be honest, Neuro, I haven't tried making this sort of comparison. But I've used the 300 f2.8 II extensively and I've cropped a few of its pics even 100%. The results have been very good.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 4, 2014)

Wow, that's some high praise for the 300 2.8 II.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 4, 2014)

IMHO, there is no way I can crop my 300 to a 600 FOV and be thrilled, as much as I wish I could.  I see the 300 as simply the best compromise for portability. A major issue with cropping is that in getting the original shot, if the subject is not prominent then there is a great tendency for the AF to lock onto other items. If you don't manual focus then the shot is lost. When I shoot 300 X2 this problem is largely absent and my exposures tend to be better as well. 

I would be lusting for 600 but I refuse to pack that kind of bulk and as a result I don't get those distant shots that others do. However, I'm getting some of what others do not when I'm creeping through the grass and bush and sitting in the briar patch smelling the roses. It's always about compromises. This is an endless debate. 

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 4, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> I would be lusting for 600 but I refuse to pack that kind of bulk and as a result I don't get those distant shots that others do. However, I'm getting some of what others do not when I'm creeping through the grass and bush and sitting in the briar patch smelling the roses. It's always about compromises. This is an endless debate.


+1 for my needs.

Also, cropping a 300mm to get a sharper 600mm? Nope.

Also, back to what I said about environmental factors. I shot a lighthouse this morning from about 1 mile away with my 300+2x combo and even though it was 35°F, the humidity (somewhere around 50-70%) mucked up the shot with a lovely mirage pattern (waves), so depending on where you live it can be a small or a huge factor. See below for a 100% crop, straight out of the camera.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2014)

Jack and Mac
I'm with you on this - I miss some long range shots but when hiking there are so many opportunities for photoing birds if you have a camera and lens at the ready, so it's horses for courses.

Here is a possible solution to cover all eventualities. A couple of years ago I received an award in Shanghai and one of my extremely kind hosts made a speech in which he said "behind every great man is a strong woman". Little did he know that I had hurt my back and my wife had been having to lift my luggage into the overhead bins in the 747s. So, what I suggest is that you carry your 300/2.8 + 2xTC and get a strong partner to accompany you carrying a 600/4.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 5, 2014)

While I understand the 300/2.8 II is an excellent lens, I can't understand why this lens is being trumpeted without the 200-400/1.4x also being mentioned. At 560mm with the built in extender it is just as sharp as the 300/2.8 II + 2x III and at 300mm is very close. Add in the flexibility to go between 200mm and 560mm and this is a no brainer choice of the 300/2.8 II unless you are photographing sports where you need the bare 2.8.

Personally, I bought this lens over the 600/II. It was a tough choice but the flexibility makes the lens more valuable. I would of course like more reach but it does a decent job with a 2x extender. If I were photographing exclusively birds then the 600/II would have been the better choice but the fact is I photograph a wide variety of things.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> While I understand the 300/2.8 II is an excellent lens, I can't understand why this lens is being trumpeted without the 200-400/1.4x also being mentioned. At 560mm with the built in extender it is just as sharp as the 300/2.8 II + 2x III and at 300mm is very close. Add in the flexibility to go between 200mm and 560mm and this is a no brainer choice of the 300/2.8 II unless you are photographing sports where you need the bare 2.8.
> 
> Personally, I bought this lens over the 600/II. It was a tough choice but the flexibility makes the lens more valuable. I would of course like more reach but it does a decent job with a 2x extender. If I were photographing exclusively birds then the 600/II would have been the better choice but the fact is I photograph a wide variety of things.



Because it is far too heavy for the 300mm + TC fans who are looking for a portable hiking companion and it is too short for the tarzans who want every mm of length with their 600s and TCs and the sharpest combinations.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 5, 2014)

Isn't it funny how we all love to kick this can round and round endlessly. 

I say buy something/anything in your price range that's recognized as having high IQ and then simply force yourself to make the most of what it is capable of and have fun with it. 

I've had so much pleasure out of my 300 and extenders this season I have to keep pinching myself to believe it's true! My love of nature has been renewed and I can't wait to get back to the pond in the spring.   

Jack


----------



## dslrdummy (Jan 5, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> While I understand the 300/2.8 II is an excellent lens, I can't understand why this lens is being trumpeted without the 200-400/1.4x also being mentioned. At 560mm with the built in extender it is just as sharp as the 300/2.8 II + 2x III and at 300mm is very close. Add in the flexibility to go between 200mm and 560mm and this is a no brainer choice of the 300/2.8 II unless you are photographing sports where you need the bare 2.8.
> 
> Personally, I bought this lens over the 600/II. It was a tough choice but the flexibility makes the lens more valuable. I would of course like more reach but it does a decent job with a 2x extender. If I were photographing exclusively birds then the 600/II would have been the better choice but the fact is I photograph a wide variety of things.


According to DXO Mark the 300/2.8 II is sharper by some margin @300 than the 200-400 @ the same focal length (22 vs 19) and of course a stop faster. I think if you're looking at spending the significant extra money on the versatility of the 200-400 a more useful comparison on sharpness would be the zoom at 400mm and the 300 with the 1.4X ext. Only those who have tried the two can usefully compare. DXO also rates the 500 II as sharp at 500mm as the 200-400 at 400 f/4. Presumably the 200-400 at 560 wouldn't be quite as sharp.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I would be lusting for 600 but I refuse to pack that kind of bulk and as a result I don't get those distant shots that others do. However, I'm getting some of what others do not when I'm creeping through the grass and bush and sitting in the briar patch smelling the roses. It's always about compromises. This is an endless debate.
> ...


Well, if your prime use is distant architecture, then you´d run into these problems in most places on the planet 

If I disregard a few moon shots, I have hardly ever shot anything more than 100-150m away. The majority of bird shots are probably on average 50m away. I believe you would be able to do that in most places, regardless of heat and/or humidity.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...


I was definitely using an extreme example and just thought it would be an interesting test while I was out yesterday in the really unusual cold weather. In the summer, I'm typically limited to about 30-50m, however, for my wildlife photos. When I borrowed the 800mm from Canon and tried to shoot more distant subjects, it was very noticeable. I'll see if I can find some examples.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 5, 2014)

Oh, the agony, indeed... this discussion is a bit rich for my blood ... but arbitrage, those 2 bird shots you put up, HANDHELD, are astounding. I don;t know what your denominator is; but those two are just gorgeous. Mazel tov. 
I myself use the 300 2.8 II and absolutely love it--IQ is unparalleled and it is easy for me to manage (I'm pretty strong); I seem to seem some IQ falloff with TC's though. It is about the only lens I use routinely that is sharper than my 70-200 II. Makes me wonder whether that falloff is a function of barely-noticeable camera motion vs the extra 2 air-glass interfaces ... my distance stuff is mostly sports and mostly handheld or monopod.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 5, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> Posted below...Junco with the 600 f/5.6 IS II and Bald Eagle with the 1200 f/8 IS II both handheld.


These two are both very good, especially the bald eagle. At 1200mm, that is mighty impressive!


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 5, 2014)

Interesting points about the 300 2.8 II and the 200-400. But...the 300 2.8 II is almost half the cost of the 200-400, and it's a sharper, faster lens. Which makes me wonder, why even bother with the 200-400? At 12k, shouldn't it have the performance of the 300?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 5, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Interesting points about the 300 2.8 II and the 200-400. But...the 300 2.8 II is almost half the cost of the 200-400, and it's a sharper, faster lens. Which makes me wonder, why even bother with the 200-400? At 12k, shouldn't it have the performance of the 300?


the 200-400 is actually a razor sharp 200-560mm f4-5.6 lens. I was thinking really hard about getting the 300 at the time I bought it. But today I don´t regret it. It gives you a flexibility that is unsurpassed. Because it is a zoom lens, I throw away much less image area due to less need for cropping. So in practical terms, I make up for the (very minor) IQ penalty. But for very fast action, the AF on the 300 is still the one to beat. It is still high on my wish list, but there is a limit to how many lenses I can justify having ... :


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting points about the 300 2.8 II and the 200-400. But...the 300 2.8 II is almost half the cost of the 200-400, and it's a sharper, faster lens. Which makes me wonder, why even bother with the 200-400? At 12k, shouldn't it have the performance of the 300?
> ...



And for a lens at such a price level, it's great if it can offer this kind of flexibility. Perhaps in the future I can justify purchasing the 200-400. It will help when and if the price comes down some...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 5, 2014)

Only one year into Canon via my 6D and I realized that I had a serious gap between 70 and 300 so bought the 70-200 2.8 II. This impulse came when I learned of the opportunity to shoot bison as they are being handled at the national park here. In agonizing over this, just like the 300 in February, I read lots on CR and am hoping that the new lens plus my already purchased converters would be useful for BIF since my ability to lock on a with the 300 X2 has been dismal. 

As Eldar and others point out a zoom is flexible. I generally don't need that flexibility for the little birdies perched in the tree but sometimes I have a bit of a challenge finding them initially.

Which brings me to another item that maybe should be in a new thread but I'll mention it here. 70 -200 2.8 - almost as heavy as 300, and I immediately missed having my Jobu lens mount "handle". So I put in a day fooling around with a scrap of aluminum and came up with this. Now here's where it gets interesting. I can sight down this "handle" like a gun barrel and be very close to dead on the center of my viewfinder and I'm thinking, hey I can shoot from the hip so to speak without the viewfinder. Is this potentially useful, from you folk who have done a lot of BIF, or a totally dumb idea??

Jack


----------



## candc (Jan 6, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Only one year into Canon via my 6D and I realized that I had a serious gap between 70 and 300 so bought the 70-200 2.8 II. This impulse came when I learned of the opportunity to shoot bison as they are being handled at the national park here. In agonizing over this, just like the 300 in February, I read lots on CR and am hoping that the new lens plus my already purchased converters would be useful for BIF since my ability to lock on a with the 300 X2 has been dismal.
> 
> As Eldar and others point out a zoom is flexible. I generally don't need that flexibility for the little birdies perched in the tree but sometimes I have a bit of a challenge finding them initially.
> 
> ...



I see this issue brought up here, not being able to get the subject in the viewfinder at long focal length, finding the target and then zooming in. Instead of that as in rifle shooting with a scope. Try shooting with both eyes open and not concentrating on the viewfinder. You will then see your AF points floating in your normal vision. Once you see that you are on the subject then shift your visual concentration to the viewfinder.


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 6, 2014)

Eldar said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting points about the 300 2.8 II and the 200-400. But...the 300 2.8 II is almost half the cost of the 200-400, and it's a sharper, faster lens. Which makes me wonder, why even bother with the 200-400? At 12k, shouldn't it have the performance of the 300?
> ...



First off, thanks to those who left comments about the eagle and the junco. I don't always handhold the 600II but it is fun to challenge myself especially framing a bird at 1200mm....that shot is almost FF with only about 10% of the upper right sky cropped out.

Well in my case the 200-400 is the next lens on my hit list. But I'm happy I went for the 300II before it because I really wanted a lens that I could get up to 600 and hike with. I can't hike with the 600II very far and the 200-400 also is just as heavy (although much more compact). I got to handhold a 200-400 in AK this November shooting eagles and it felt very nice to hold, way easier than the bulky 600II that I already handhold a large portion of the time.

I'm planning a trip to Antarctica this next November and I'm debating if I should get the 200-400 for that trip along side or instead of the 300. I won't be packing the 600II on that trip as it is not needed but having the flexibility to get up to 784mm with the 200-400 would be nice. Most likely I will buy it before the trip next summer to test it out or rent it first if I'm smart ;D

But I do think the 300II and the 200-400 aren't direct competitors and both can be owned as I'm sure you've considered also!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

candc said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I can sight down this "handle" like a gun barrel and be very close to dead on the center of my viewfinder and I'm thinking, hey I can shoot from the hip so to speak without the viewfinder. Is this potentially useful, from you folk who have done a lot of BIF, or a totally dumb idea??
> ...



Right, except that it's not much of an issue with a 200mm lens. Now...a 600mm lens, perhaps with a TC, finding the subject in the VF becomes an issue. I've used a hotshoe-mounted 'red dot' sight to assist with that - the ~50mm FoV and long eye relief make it easy. Alternatively, positioning the hood attachment thumbscrew exactly at vertical can help substantially.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist, would you mind providing a bit more information. I don't doubt the 200 will not be much of an issue although I might be using it X2. However, my 300 X2 has been an issue for me and I'm interested in this. Is this the unit and what mount??

http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Trophy-TRS-25-Reticle-Riflescope/dp/B00200E0HM/ref=sr_1_3?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1388992770&sr=1-3&keywords=red+dot+sight

I have tried shooting with eyes open and sometimes it seems to work great and other times not so great, maybe because of the lighting, I can't recall. I know the brain can adjust to it fairly well.

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Jan 6, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> I got to handhold a 200-400 in AK this November shooting eagles and it felt very nice to hold, way easier than the bulky 600II that I already handhold a large portion of the time.
> ...
> But I do think the 300II and the 200-400 aren't direct competitors and both can be owned as I'm sure you've considered also!!


I actually don't agree on the first statement. I find the 600 easier to handhold than the 200-400, because it becomes difficult to efficiently operate the zoom ring when you handhold. For hikes they are both big, but I'm used to big backpacks and heavy loads when I hike, so I can manage. The issue with the 600 is the size though. It consumes a Lot of backpack space.

Unfortunately there are too many practical examples to choose from, to justify owning both the 300 and the 200-400 ...  (and I am drooling every time I hold the 300..)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> neuroanatomist, would you mind providing a bit more information. I don't doubt the 200 will not be much of an issue although I might be using it X2. However, my 300 X2 has been an issue for me and I'm interested in this. Is this the unit and what mount??



I use this Truglo sight. Actually, I use the green dot more than the red, since it's more easily visible in daylight. 

Almost all sighting aids for rifles have a Weaver mount, so I also use this Weaver-hotshoe adapter to mount the sight to the camera.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Practice makes perfect. I just use the knob on the lens hood for my sighting. I can pickup a BIF immediately with 600mm or 700mm focal length. These lenses are already heavy enough and bulky enough without adding more gear. I respect those who find benefit by adding the sights, but putting lots of time behind the glass has worked for me.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 6, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I respect those who find benefit by adding the sights, but putting lots of time behind the glass has worked for me.


+1, it took me lots of practice, but it definitely gets easier with time. I'm intrigued by the hotshoe sight idea, though - sounds pretty interesting for the really long lenses.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 6, 2014)

Thanks neuroanatomist!

Jack


----------



## lenstrack26 (Jan 7, 2014)

This thread has been fascinating to follow, especially the merits of the 300 f/2.8 vs. the 200-400 vs the 500/600. Since one of the issues is the relative masses of the lenses, I am curious if anyone has tried the Bush Hawk shoulder mount to facilitate hand holding these beasts. see: http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk . Granted hiking with a heavier lens would not be easier, but in terms of the flexibility of hand holding for capturing moving targets, a shoulder mount seems like it could increase the "keeper" rate. Any experience out there? Thanks.


----------



## candc (Jan 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



If you keep both eyes open and don't favor the eye in the viewfinder you will see what is best described as a heads up display of your AF points superimposed in your normal field of vision, this is really useful at long focal lengths of 600+ when you are trying to follow and aquire a distant moving object. It's a technique used in long range rifle/high powered scope shooting and it works equally well with a camera at long focal lengths. If you give it a try I think you will find it more natural than external sights and such.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 7, 2014)

I'll definitely be trying both eyes wide open, that is, if I can find any birds that are flying. I think they're all huddled hidden in the trees trying not to freeze!

Another BIF question, you can laugh at me having a 6D but that's what I'm stuck with for now, I assume the best bet is to have all the focus points active but that seems to present problems. Is it DOF that saves the day, not shooting wide open, plus not filling the frame? 

Typically I'd have 300 X2 and be really challenged unless I was back off a ways such as in this uncropped shot.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 7, 2014)

Another question/comment on the red dot gun sight. Seems to me that having that extra weaver adapter to the hot shoe is just dumb. Should be possible to remove the gun mount and replace it with a hot shoe mount - no?? I'm thinking smaller/lower is better.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Another question/comment on the red dot gun sight. Seems to me that having that extra weaver adapter to the hot shoe is just dumb. Should be possible to remove the gun mount and replace it with a hot shoe mount - no?? I'm thinking smaller/lower is better.



On mine, the Weaver mount bracket provides a base for the angular adjustments (elevation/rotation to align the sight), so removing it might not work. Also, the reticle selection dial hangs below the body of the sight, behind the Weaver mount - a lower profile mount would have to go forward of that dial, meaning the sight would protrude behind the camera, likely causing a problem when you try to look through the viewfinder (the adapter I linked above places the hot shoe mount underneath the dial, so the back of the site is flush with the hot shoe). 

I know of only one red dot sight which comes with a hot shoe mount integrated. It's the FastFinder, made by Shield - it looks like a nice little item, but it seems to be available only direct from the manufacturer in the UK, and costs >£200.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 7, 2014)

Neuroanatomist, thanks for that. Neuro (or others), how often have you felt a need for a sight and on what lenses and in what circumstances? How do you set AF and which points are active and is it a matter of luck some/most of the time having the eye in focus? I plan for another camera but have been satisfied with the 6D for now. My friend just bought 1DX with 300 X2 based on portability (and from observing my 300) and boy the camera adds quite a bit of weight but is impressive. How often do you find yourself willing to crop as opposed to filling the frame with 600? Do you often use 600 X1.4, why, why not. Are you thinking more MP relative to more cropping capability or is that the wrong line of reasoning relative to acquiring longer lenses/new camera? You get the gist of what's going through my head I'm sure.

Expecting a lot for free aren't I!  Thanks in advance.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2014)

300 or 600 ?

This is a snowy owl, the heaviest member of the owl family and almost the biggest. The first picture was taken from fairly close to the owl at 300mm (actually 280) on a crop camera. The second picture is a 1 to 1 crop of the center 1000x667 pixels. The third picture is close to what you would see with a 600mm lens and a 2X teleconverter....

If you are going to take pictures of birds you really need longer lenses than 300mm... and keep in mind that on a FF camera the owl will be only .6 times as high or wide.... 600MM plus a teleconverter is the way to go.

Please forgive the poor image quality... the picture was taken in a snowstorm and visibility was poor... no sharpening, no white balance, no noise reduction... I just wanted to make a point about how little of the frame will be occupied with a shorter lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Neuroanatomist, thanks for that. Neuro (or others), how often have you felt a need for a sight and on what lenses and in what circumstances? How do you set AF and which points are active and is it a matter of luck some/most of the time having the eye in focus? I plan for another camera but have been satisfied with the 6D for now. My friend just bought 1DX with 300 X2 based on portability (and from observing my 300) and boy the camera adds quite a bit of weight but is impressive. How often do you find yourself willing to crop as opposed to filling the frame with 600? Do you often use 600 X1.4, why, why not. Are you thinking more MP relative to more cropping capability or is that the wrong line of reasoning relative to acquiring longer lenses/new camera? You get the gist of what's going through my head I'm sure.



Initially, I used the sight pretty often (only with my 600mm lens). But it's sort of like training wheels on a bike - once you get used to finding the subject with assistance, you can start to forego the assistance. 

For setting AF points, it depends on whether the bird is perched or flying. For perched, I use Spot AF and focus on the eye. For BIF, I use the center point with 8-point expansion, and use an aperture to give sufficient DoF that the eye(s) are sharp even if the AF point is on the body.

Over 80% of the time, I'm using the 1.4xIII on my 600 II, and I still usually need to crop (I sometimes use the 2xIII, but only for static birds as you're limited to just the central 5 AF points). For shooting birds, you really want as much focal length as you can get. Even with 840mm, it's really hard to fill the frame with a bird. So far, there has been one time – just one – when 840mm was too long; it was with a great egret who flew too close. I'm sure it will happen again, but not often enough for me to choose a shorter lens for that reason (as opposed to portability). There was another occasion where it was close to being too long (some frames had a wingtip cut off) - images from that series are posted in this thread (which is a topic relevant to your question!).

More MP gives you more cropping ability, true. But if you can afford it and can carry it, a longer lens is better. Optical magnification is better than digital magnification. Importantly, optical magnification helps your AF system acquire, lock onto, and track the subject, whereas a higher MP sensor does not.


----------



## jasonsim (Jan 7, 2014)

I originally got really excited about the 200-400mm f/4L IS + 1.4x converter. But after the delays, steep pricing, and darn heavy weight, decided to skip it. I instead got the lovely 300mm f/2.8L IS II with its relative light weight and the amazingly well balanced 600mm f/4L IS II. I think they are the best combo going now on the Canon side. I must admit that I rarely ever use the 600mm bare. I always have one of the version 3 extenders on it. Seldom do I use the 300mm f/2.8L IS II bare either, but it is so buttery and sharp when it is bare! 

The 300mm II + 2x III is my go to wildlife combo, when I want to travel light and expect to hike around looking for my subjects. I would not try doing the same with my 600mm II + 1Dx. I typically will walk around with the 300mm II + 2x III + 1Dx on the RRS monopod with their very nice and useful monopod head. 

The 600mm II + 1.4x III + 1Dx is my birding rig when I have a set subject and plan on being in one general spot for a while. The rig is supported by a Gitzo GT4542LS Series 4 tripod, RRS universal leveling base with lever clamp and a Wimberley full gimbal head.

If I ever stopped wanting to bird, I'd probably get rid of the 600mm II and keep the 300mm II with the two converters. 

If you want to save money and your primary subject are birds, I suggest finding a nice condition used 800mm f/5.6L IS. They have the 4th gen IS system and is super sharp wide open. They are going for around $8500 - $9500 used. 

Hope this helps the original poster make a wise decision.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 7, 2014)

Thanks jasonsim and neuro,

I know I strayed (a little) off topic but I expect that whomever is debating 300 vs 600 probably is not much further along than me and has many of the questions I do. These comments are VERY helpful, especially given the major outlay of money all of this entails! 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 7, 2014)

surapon, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your posts, willingness to share and your good attitude. I also appreciate that you don't let English as a second language deter you - you're easy to follow and it provides a little smile sometimes -pardon me for saying this. 

Jack


----------



## Arkarch (Jan 7, 2014)

I am enjoying this thread, as I am saving my pennies and most likely picking up a 300 f/2.8 II in sometime in February. 

While most of the subjects discussed relate to wildlife and birding - some things I may run into as part of landscape work; my intended primary use for the lens is motorsports. The rationale for the lens is mobility - being able to move out of the way very quickly (either in the pits or along the track) - and wide aperture for capturing fast action in darkened conditions such as dirt tracks at night. 

I've had a chance to play with the 300 and the 200-400 at various tradeshows such as CES and NAB, and yeah, the 200-400 just seems too heavy and long for effective run and shoot work. In a stationary location (blind or sports risers) the 200-400 could be a winner; but then I might be looking at a 500mm or 600mm for the price. With the 300, I think I can hand-hold that all day (well, with breaks every 10 minutes).

So while one loses a bit of flexibility with the 300, it seems to be the best tool for my job and the forum discussion has helped cement that.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Jan 7, 2014)

For those that don't want the expense or weight of the Canon big guns, just order one of these:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1252389/0


----------



## Jeffrey (Jan 7, 2014)

I purchased the 300mm f/2.8 after going through every argument that everyone else has gone through. I would have purchased the 600mm lens if I was a very dedicated bird shooter, but I'm not. I shoot a little bit of this and of that. I am extremely happy with the sharpness of the 300mm lens. Truly outstanding. However, I admit that there are times when I would love to have the 600mm lens. That will have to wait because I've ordered the new Zeiss Otus lens for Canon. There goes some of the funds I would have used to purchase the 600mm lens. Boys and their toys, right!


----------



## Eldar (Jan 7, 2014)

Jeffrey said:


> I purchased the 300mm f/2.8 after going through every argument that everyone else has gone through. I would have purchased the 600mm lens if I was a very dedicated bird shooter, but I'm not. I shoot a little bit of this and of that. I am extremely happy with the sharpness of the 300mm lens. Truly outstanding. However, I admit that there are times when I would love to have the 600mm lens. That will have to wait because I've ordered the new Zeiss Otus lens for Canon. There goes some of the funds I would have used to purchase the 600mm lens. Boys and their toys, right!


You will not regret it. The Otus is just magnificent!


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2014)

Wow both the 300mm and Otus 55. That's quite a set - I'm sure you'll love them both. I've been using the 300 lately for portraits as well and I've been really pleased with the results. It's a great all around lens.


----------



## jmphoto (Jan 8, 2014)

*Re: Real World Subject*

Encountered lazy hawk this morning and almost got thru all options, in the car, before it flew. 60D/70D and 6D; w/300 2.8L IS II, 500 4L IS II, 70-200 4L IS @200; plus 1.4x III. Anyone interested?
Since how I would do it will not suit some (most?) of you, I'm not going to do a comparison. But I'd be happy to upload the sharpest frame of each combo. 
I've only sent a couple of snaps to this site, so you guys tell me what's standard upload for this "serious" work. Full frame? Is some resizing/compression in order?

A couple people have mentioned it, but ability to achieve precise focus is big factor in this debate. 3D feathers are much tougher than brick walls. Also, anyone on a budget is making a huge mistake if they don't, at least, consider the ol' 400 5.6L.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 9, 2014)

Here's another angle. 600 X1.4 vs. 300 X2 A strange comparison admittedly but if one was in the habit of using 840 to avoid the effort of getting into 600 range then the results are not much better than 300 X2 and 600 X2 appears to be quite a bit worse sharpness than what you get with 300 X2, FWIW, apples and oranges.

What's the feeling of those shooting both 600 and 300 relative to the performance when extended?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Here's another angle. 600 X1.4 vs. 300 X2 A strange comparison admittedly but if one was in the habit of using 840 to avoid the effort of getting into 600 range then the results are not much better than 300 X2 and 600 X2 appears to be quite a bit worse sharpness than what you get with 300 X2, FWIW, apples and oranges.
> 
> What's the feeling of those shooting both 600 and 300 relative to the performance when extended?
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3



The problem with using the TDP crops in this case is that ISO 12233 chart shots must fill the frame - the 300+2x is shot closer to the subject. If you shot from the same distance, cropped those 300+2x shots to the 840mm FoV, then enlarged then to the same size, the difference would be more apparent (advantage to 600+1.4x), more so with the 600+2x. But if you compare at half the distance, the 300 takes the 2xIII better than the 600. 

So...if you can get close enough to your subject, the 300 II is the better lens. But most people who choose the 600 do so because they _can't_ get closer. For the same reason, bird shooters chose the 800/5.6 over the 600/4 MkI (but the 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the 800/5.6, so until an 800 II comes along, the 600 II is a better choice).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 9, 2014)

Once again, thanks Neuro. That makes sense and is good to know. These things make me wonder and I don't have the background so it's easy to get off track.

Since you're such a nice guy always willing to answer  here's another question. In doing AFMA on Canon tele's have you found it matters which direction focus comes from MFD or Inf??

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Since you're such a nice guy always willing to answer  here's another question. In doing AFMA on Canon tele's have you found it matters which direction focus comes from MFD or Inf??



Thanks! 

It might. The key is you shouldn't take just one shot per value, and when you take several shots, use both methods. 

When I was using a LensAlign Pro, I would shoot single shots starting from infinity focus and review at maximum zoom on the rear LCD, in increments of 5 units then narrowing further, until I have a tentative AFMA setting for that lens. Then I would shoot at a total of 11 AFMA settings – 5 units on either side of my preliminary choice – for computer review. At each setting, I would shoot eight shots, two starting from infinity, then two without refocusing, then two starting from the MFD, then two more without refocusing. I generally found that as I stepped through the images on the large monitor, when approaching the best adjustment, the shots from infinity will be off, then at the best adjustment they’ll all be spot on, then as I move away the shots from the MFD will be off, or vice versa. 

Now that I use Reikan FoCal, I capture images myself and load them into the software in Manual mode. I shoot two shots at each even AFMA value from |20| to |12|, one each from infinity and MFD, then three shots at all AFMA values from –10 to +10, one from infinity, one from MFD, the third without refocusing. Similar to my observations with the LensAlign, when plotted in FoCal all three shots for each value are clustered at and near the optimal setting, but on the shoulders of the peak I often see two of the three shots adjacent with the third a slight outlier (but...I haven't actually checked to see if the outliers are infinity on one side of the peak and MFD on the other). 

Thinking about it, although the above observation suggests there might be a difference, I don't really know if it matters - I just assumed it would be better to twist the ring both ways, since in the real world you don't always focus one direction. The real test would be to do a set AFMA tests with all shots starting at infinity, and another set with all shots starting from the MFD, and see if the result is the same.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 9, 2014)

Wow, now I won't sleep worrying about how accurate my AFMA is!  Thanks.

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 9, 2014)

Speaking of FOCAL, has anyone tried using larger (i.e. 11x17" / A3) targets with their long lenses? The standard letter / A4 target is pretty hopeless at 50x and FOCAL's guides recommend larger targets. I've been thinking about this now that I have a large format printer, but haven't gotten around to trying it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Speaking of FOCAL, has anyone tried using larger (i.e. 11x17" / A3) targets with their long lenses? The standard letter / A4 target is pretty hopeless at 50x and FOCAL's guides recommend larger targets.



I don't understand... If you place the printed target at a distance of 50 times the focal length, the target will be the exact same size in the image whether you're using a 16mm lens or a 1200mm lens. 

The reason to print larger target is if you are testing at distances _greater_ than 50x the focal length, and the reason you'd be doing that is if you usually use that lens at those distances. Note that FoCal suggests that with long telephoto lenses, you can actually test at less than 50x the focal length.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of FOCAL, has anyone tried using larger (i.e. 11x17" / A3) targets with their long lenses? The standard letter / A4 target is pretty hopeless at 50x and FOCAL's guides recommend larger targets.
> ...



Actually I have found that the supertele's are the easiest to do the AFMA with. The regular size target is fine.
The hardest part is finding a spot inside that I can get 50x the distance away from. I need a bigger house so I do not have to go outside to do this.


----------



## Ken B (Jan 9, 2014)

I have been away for a little and came back today. I am impressed with al lthe information that has been provided to my question. All of you, I offer my deepest thanks. You have given me allot to think about regarding this purchase.

I can rule out the 200-400 I am not on the side lines of a football game photographing the action. Allthough it would be useful in Motorsports it's cost for now is prohibative. I think it's 3-4K to high price for me to justify it.

While I want the 600 after reading everything here the 300 sounds like a great choice for me. This next week is the Phoenix Imaging Expo and I am hoping to get my hands on some of these lenses to real get an idea of what I am in for. 

I do have 1 question, *does anyone have a Moon shot with the 600mm by it's self and a Moon shot with the 600 and 2X?* I can use this in a way to gauge my reach. I would love to do some Moon shots and there is a full moon comming up on the 16th of Jan. I will be using my 70-200 with a 2X this time around to give me an idea on how much more reach I want to achive.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of FOCAL, has anyone tried using larger (i.e. 11x17" / A3) targets with their long lenses? The standard letter / A4 target is pretty hopeless at 50x and FOCAL's guides recommend larger targets.
> ...


I guess I posted this a bit out of context - for longer lenses, bigger targets allow longer distances, but as you posted, I have been using FoCal at less than 50x for my longest lenses. I've noticed that I get better results with all lenses by going closer than 50x, particularly my wider lenses. It seems that the target size is just too small for enough pixels of data to be collected. I'm thinking a larger target with larger patterns will help FoCal produce more accurate results at all distances, so long as the entire target can be shown in the viewfinder. I would use the vector image to print it so it would scale correctly without interpolation. The new version of FoCal allows you to calibrate your target size, so I think this would work well.

I guess ultimately, this just jogged my memory and I was wondering if anyone had used larger targets


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 9, 2014)

This is 300 X2 of the moon (data included) taken late evening, hand held JPG, no sharpening, FWIW. I really don't know if this is good or bad as I haven't done much with stars, moon, etc.

Jack


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



50x focal length for distance is what FoCAL originally stated. In subsequent versions of FoCal they have made mention of shooting at closer distances then 50x. 
http://s449182328.websitehome.co.uk/focal/dl//Docs/FoCal%20Test%20Distance_1.1.pdf


I personally calibrate my tele's at 20-25x focal length. This way If I am shooting song birds (That are often at that distance from my camera) then the lens is calibrated for that situation. When I shoot wildlife that is much farther away, I might not have quite the optimal AFMA setting as it can slightly vary with shooting distances, but I do have a larger DOF to make up for this variability, therefore all shooting distances are just fine with a close AFMA calibration distance.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 11, 2014)

Shot handheld yesterday afternoon, 300 X2. I took only the one shot so maybe this isn't quite as good as it could be.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2014)

Jack
Here is the moon from my 300mm 2.8 II + 2xTCIII on 5DIII. Hand-held at iso 400, f/5.6 and 1/1000.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 13, 2014)

My view from Florida - LiveView / remote release - 1/500s @ f/5.6 ISO400 - 100% crop view - 5DIII + 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III:


----------



## weixing (Jan 13, 2014)

Ken B said:


> I do have 1 question, *does anyone have a Moon shot with the 600mm by it's self and a Moon shot with the 600 and 2X?* I can use this in a way to gauge my reach. I would love to do some Moon shots and there is a full moon comming up on the 16th of Jan. I will be using my 70-200 with a 2X this time around to give me an idea on how much more reach I want to achive.


Hi,
Hmm... Full Moon at high magnification don't look nice... the surface contrast is very low during Full Moon, so the image will look flat.

Have a nice day.


----------



## jrista (Jan 13, 2014)

Ken B said:


> I do have 1 question, *does anyone have a Moon shot with the 600mm by it's self and a Moon shot with the 600 and 2X?* I can use this in a way to gauge my reach. I would love to do some Moon shots and there is a full moon comming up on the 16th of Jan. I will be using my 70-200 with a 2X this time around to give me an idea on how much more reach I want to achive.



Here is my most recent moon shot (from a while back, last time we had clear night weather with the moon in the sky). In this case, at 840mm. I'll scrounge up the uncropped version, and see if I have any 600mm shots, so you can compare magnification. Shot with the EF 600mm f/4 L II with 1.4x TC. Tripod, manually focused with live view, processed in Lightroom (click it to enlarge to full size):







I'll see if I can get a shot with the 2x TC...not actually sure if the moon will fit...it is pretty darn big at 840mm, and camera shake at 840mm already makes it pretty difficult to focus sharply. I suspect getting sharp focus at 1200mm will be a chore... :-\ We've had cloudy weather pretty much every night here in Colorado for weeks, and only had a two-day window Jan 1-3, but no moon those nights.

Here are full size crops with feature labels, for those interested in the kind of detail you can extract from the moon with a 600mm lens and 1.4x TC. ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 13, 2014)

jrista, that is truly remarkable and shows why a 600 would be nice to have! And I guess it never ends as something longer is going to give even more detail. It certainly can be challenging for one to be satisfied with what one has.

Funny, I shot my Grey parrot recently with an extension tube on the 300, allowing about 1/2 closer focus and then I was pixel peeping and wondering why his little eyelash feathers weren't that sharp. Then tonight I was holding him close and looking at his eye and I couldn't even detect any eyelash feathers. It caused me to think twice about what kind of resolution I really need to fret about. Why do I keep doing this to myself when I've already been having so much fun with my 300 and converters. I guess I'm not alone in this! 

Jack


----------



## jrista (Jan 13, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> jrista, that is truly remarkable and shows why a 600 would be nice to have! And I guess it never ends as something longer is going to give even more detail. It certainly can be challenging for one to be satisfied with what one has.
> 
> Funny, I shot my Grey parrot recently with an extension tube on the 300, allowing about 1/2 closer focus and then I was pixel peeping and wondering why his little eyelash feathers weren't that sharp. Then tonight I was holding him close and looking at his eye and I couldn't even detect any eyelash feathers. It caused me to think twice about what kind of resolution I really need to fret about. Why do I keep doing this to myself when I've already been having so much fun with my 300 and converters. I guess I'm not alone in this!
> 
> Jack



It's not just the lens. The moon is a bit of a specialty of mine...I've spent a lot of time photographing it, and I'm a stickler for excessive sharpness. Also, keep in mind that seeing conditions affect how sharp you can get the moon in the first place. The night I took this shot was EXCEPTIONAL seeing (atmospheric clarity), so I was able to get very good results. Certainly, more focal length helps, but I have managed to get very sharp results at 400mm, 500mm, and 700mm as well. Your 300mm with a 2x TC is more than capable of getting very sharp results...the most important factor, really, is the atmospheric clarity. Poor clarity, and it really doesn't matter what the quality of the lens. Keep at it, use a tripod, manually focus with live view at maximum zoom, and use a shutter release. Make sure you shelter from the wind or shoot on windless nights...and you'll be able to get good results.

Also, I process my moon images to extract the maximum amount of detail. I have a special technique, and I process a certain way to enhance color a bit, exaggerate and attenuate tones to separate different levels of highlight and shadow, etc. That has nothing to do with the lens, and everything to do with knowing your PP software and having an end vision.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 13, 2014)

jrista, thanks for the hints and encouragement. I'm seriously thinking of buying the iOptron 3302B SkyTracker Camera Mount so that I can have more fun with the night sky. Any thoughts on that idea?

Jack


----------



## jrista (Jan 13, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> jrista, thanks for the hints and encouragement. I'm seriously thinking of buying the iOptron 3302B SkyTracker Camera Mount so that I can have more fun with the night sky. Any thoughts on that idea?
> 
> Jack



Definitely go for it. I am in the market for a tracking mount myself, as I've been wanting to get into deep sky astrophotography. You really can't do much without a tracking mount, for sure...if it's something you like, invest in it.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > jrista, that is truly remarkable and shows why a 600 would be nice to have! And I guess it never ends as something longer is going to give even more detail. It certainly can be challenging for one to be satisfied with what one has.
> ...



Also, you are using a 7D, and it is in situations like these that the extra "reach" of the crop comes into play and beats FF - there is fine detail at the limits of resolution and essentially monochrome.


----------



## 20Dave (Jan 14, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> jrista, thanks for the hints and encouragement. I'm seriously thinking of buying the iOptron 3302B SkyTracker Camera Mount so that I can have more fun with the night sky. Any thoughts on that idea?
> 
> Jack



Jack,

Regarding astrophotography, I would recommend that you research a little before you invest any money into something like this. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, just that you should know before you spend. This is a good site to start with: http://www.astropix.com/INDEX.HTM

I'm sure that there are many ways of categorizing astrophotography, but off the top of my head, here are a few different types:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Lunar imaging - you likely won't need a tracking mount, just a good tripod and a good telephoto lens (+ teleconverter if you have it). The moon is bright enough that you shutter speeds will be relatively fast. This is a great place to start. 
[*]Wide angle sky images (e.g. the Milky Way) - This is where the iOptron could be useful, but even this can be successfully done with just a good tripod. See the link that I posted earlier for some great advice on how to do it. This is also a great place to experiment.
[*]Planetary imaging (notably Jupoter, Saturn , and Mars) - a DSLR is not the best camera for this. You need loooong focal length ( > 1000mm) to magnify the planets enough to see detail, and a webcam or similar device is better than a DSLR. That is because you'd be cropping out 95% of the DSLR image, and you'd want to stack at least dozens, preferably hundreds of images. 
[*]Images of galaxies, nebula, clusters, etc - This absolutely needs a tracking mount, but it would definitely push the limits of the iOptron, depending on what you are looking to get out of your photos. To get a really sharp image like you see some of the advanced folks getting, you're talking at least the $1k range just for the mount. Yes, it *can* be done for less, but you'd need to put a fair amount of sweat and tears into your effort.
[*]Solar imaging - the key requirement is to get a specialized solar filter to go on the FRONT of your lens/scope. If you're talking sunspot images, it isn't too bad. If you want beautiful pictures of solar flares, you're talking very specialized gear.
[/list]

Don't get me wrong, I strongly encourage you to give astrophotography a try, but I would see what you can do with your existing equipment first, then decide if you want to continue before spending money on any specialized equipment. 

Finally, if you're thinking about getting a 600mm for other reasons (e.g. birding), then you've already invested 80-90% monetarily of what you need for some good deepsky imaging. However, you're only 10-20% of the way through the learning curve (but that's half the fun, right?  ). 

Dave


----------



## jrista (Jan 14, 2014)

20Dave said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > jrista, thanks for the hints and encouragement. I'm seriously thinking of buying the iOptron 3302B SkyTracker Camera Mount so that I can have more fun with the night sky. Any thoughts on that idea?
> ...



You can do a lot more than just milky way with an iOptron. People have been using devices like that to get pretty darn good Messier "deep sky" results...larger galaxies and nebula, open clusters, etc. A 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens and an iOptron could get you some pretty phenomenal results of say Orion's Belt and Sword, which contains at least 5 nebula. Slap on a 135mm or 200mm lens (so long as the whole setup is under the 8lb weight limit), and you could zero in on say just the Orion Nebula. At 200mm, periodic error in the iOptron might limit how long you can expose, but exposing for a few seconds and excessive stacking can still get you some pretty phenomenal results. It can be quite a useful tool...I was actually planning to buy one not more than two months ago, when I decided instead to save my money for more ambitious goals (i.e. Celestron EdgeHD 1100 DX.) 

For $300-500, things like iOptron's devices are a good way to get started into both wide field and deep sky astrophotography without spending thousands of dollars. Now, Jack should be aware, there is no way in hell that little device is going to hold his 300mm lens...just in case he was thinking he'd slap on the 2x TC and do some hard core imaging of deep sky objects. You need a much sturdier mount with much more accurate tracking and much lower periodic error (and, probably, some autoguiding as well...and all of that mounts up to considerable cost...don't expect to get away with less than a $5000 investment.)


----------



## 20Dave (Jan 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> You can do a lot more than just milky way with an iOptron. People have been using devices like that to get pretty darn good Messier "deep sky" results...larger galaxies and nebula, open clusters, etc. A 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens and an iOptron could get you some pretty phenomenal results of say Orion's Belt and Sword, which contains at least 5 nebula. Slap on a 135mm or 200mm lens (so long as the whole setup is under the 8lb weight limit), and you could zero in on say just the Orion Nebula. At 200mm, periodic error in the iOptron might limit how long you can expose, but exposing for a few seconds and excessive stacking can still get you some pretty phenomenal results. It can be quite a useful tool...I was actually planning to buy one not more than two months ago, when I decided instead to save my money for more ambitious goals (i.e. Celestron EdgeHD 1100 DX.)



You are correct, I should have been clearer on my definition of wide angle sky photography, which is where I think that the iOptron is the best fit. Things like the North America Nebula and the Orion area are certainly doable with a moderate telephoto and some stacking/tracking. I took the attached image (assuming I successfully attached it...) of Comet 17p-Holmes with a 20D at 400mm on a tripod - single image with a 4 sec shutter, so you can definitely get much better images with a reasonable tracking mount. Just be ready for a new style of image processing, with stacking of multiple images.



> For $300-500, things like iOptron's devices are a good way to get started into both wide field and deep sky astrophotography without spending thousands of dollars. Now, Jack should be aware, there is no way in hell that little device is going to hold his 300mm lens...just in case he was thinking he'd slap on the 2x TC and do some hard core imaging of deep sky objects. You need a much sturdier mount with much more accurate tracking and much lower periodic error (and, probably, some autoguiding as well...and all of that mounts up to considerable cost...don't expect to get away with less than a $5000 investment.)



A Losmandy G8 mount (as one example) should definitely be able to handle the 300mm well, and those run around $1500 with the tripod. But yes, to get into the really deep sky stuff like galaxies, the 300mm isn't long enough, and you are getting into some big bucks. For good or bad, I took the splurge myself with a heavy duty mount, but I'm just in the beginning phase of my learning curve and not yet ready to put my images up for feedback :-[.

Dave


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 14, 2014)

Dave and jrista,

Thoughts turned into a momentary urge to purchase this AM, so I'm committed. Thank you both for this helpful commentary and eye opening initial dose of information. Since I'm retired I have a fair amount of time and am simply bitten by the bug of photography. I was bitten back in 1974 when I first bought a Canon Ftb but the responsibilities and cares of life just didn't allow it to materialize much, although I had purchased an F1 and a few lenses and always shot family and travels and a little wildlife. But now - wow. The technology has advanced so much that results are close to unbelievable.

In terms of star images, I love the scenes that include landscape and wide angles and have followed threads on CR and elsewhere. A friend who's a few years ahead of me in all areas or photography already knows the basics and so he's there in the background chompin at the bit. We've both splurged on some gear and he recently bought a 1Dx and a few lenses. Now I know why an eternity ago my mother said be careful about choosing friends, they can be a bad influence! 

Anyway, at my age I can now start to revert to my childhood flitting as a butterfly from flower to flower having fun and exploring more of our fantastic world. Birds have been great fun this year but in the winter snow I don't have many birds. However, I do have Northern Lights and lots of stars given that I'm about 15 miles from the city with not too much light pollution, so I'll be doing my best to learn with help from the many kind folk on CR like yourselves.  

Another friend who is a former student of mine in electronics technology is now in the photographic picture and he's a technology geek and programmer having fabrication skills and a creative spirit. We both have lathes, etc., and love doing metalwork and so with his recent motion control projects there are no end of possibilities. Personally, I'm trying to stick more with photograhy and not get sidetracked but fun is fun......

I hear good things about a Rokinon lens that I may buy but initially I was hoping my new 70-200 F2.8 would work on the mount, or my 24-70 F4. I guess only time will tell where all this leads me and I'll soon know what isn't working. Thanks again for the advice.

Jack


----------



## 20Dave (Jan 14, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thoughts turned into a momentary urge to purchase this AM, so I'm committed. Thank you both for this helpful commentary and eye opening initial dose of information. Since I'm retired I have a fair amount of time and am simply bitten by the bug of photography. I was bitten back in 1974 when I first bought a Canon Ftb but the responsibilities and cares of life just didn't allow it to materialize much, although I had purchased an F1 and a few lenses and always shot family and travels and a little wildlife. But now - wow. The technology has advanced so much that results are close to unbelievable.


Jack - Best of luck with your new gear and hobby, it can be very rewarding if you stick with it, and from the sounds of your comments, you will. I am a few years behind you, with retirement on the horizon, so I'm stocking up on equipment in preparation while I still have an income. ;D



> In terms of star images, I love the scenes that include landscape and wide angles and have followed threads on CR and elsewhere.


Besides just practicing general astroimaging, the next project that I'd love to tackle is a video of the night sky as it moves across the sky. I have a spot next to water that I'm eager to experiment with.



> ... I'll be doing my best to learn with help from the many kind folk on CR like yourselves.


If you haven't found it already, I recommend following the DSLR photography forum on www.cloudynights.com. There are a lot of terrific imagers on there.



> I hear good things about a Rokinon lens that I may buy but initially I was hoping my new 70-200 F2.8 would work on the mount, or my 24-70 F4. I guess only time will tell where all this leads me and I'll soon know what isn't working.


Both of your existing lenses are perfectly fine to start with.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 14, 2014)

Thanks again for the encouragement and links, Dave. 

What could be better than all the various options available within photograhy. Just the fact that I can shoot a bird and then research what it is and see it's features in detail and enjoy the whole experience in a week or a year is wonderful. 

A time to reflect on the life we are able to enjoy and a the freedoms we have, most thankful I am. 

Jack


----------



## jmphoto (Feb 16, 2014)

Be sure to do the math and read the (VERY) fine print regarding which extender combinations will auto focus with your body(s).


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Dave and jrista,
> 
> Thoughts turned into a momentary urge to purchase this AM, so I'm committed. Thank you both for this helpful commentary and eye opening initial dose of information. Since I'm retired I have a fair amount of time and am simply bitten by the bug of photography. I was bitten back in 1974 when I first bought a Canon Ftb but the responsibilities and cares of life just didn't allow it to materialize much, although I had purchased an F1 and a few lenses and always shot family and travels and a little wildlife. But now - wow. The technology has advanced so much that results are close to unbelievable.
> 
> ...



Oh, I missed this before. Congrats on getting the tracking mount. Make SURE you learn how to properly align it. I just received my Orion Atlas EQ-G mount, and just aligned it for the first time tonight. It's a complicated device, but once you get it aligned, oh it's amazing! I've got it set up so I can use my 600mm lens as a telescope to do deep sky imaging.

Read more about it here: http://jonrista.com/2014/02/13/atlas-eq-mount-600mm-telescope/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2014)

Thanks jrista, I'll be looking at your link shortly! I'm sure the investment will be well worth it, with your serious interests. 

Jack


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks jrista, I'll be looking at your link shortly! I'm sure the investment will be well worth it, with your serious interests.
> 
> Jack



It honestly wasn't too expensive. The mount is $1400 bran new. You can often find it for around $900-$1100 used. That's all I bought. You with your 300mm f/2.8 could benefit from such a mount (BTW, you won't be able to use the big lens on something like the iOpteron SkyTracker...too heavy). If you stacked teleconverters, you could have as much as an 840mm "telescope" with just your 300mm lens, your 6D, and a good equatorial tracking mount. The wide field of a 300mm scope is pretty good for some of the larger nebula, and at 600mm you'd be just the right field of view to image Orion and Running Man Nebulas. At 840mm you would be ideal for just Orion Nebula.

Now, I had to buy some additional accessories to make the lens setup work for a scope. If you ever get interested enough to do that, I can offer more details.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2014)

Thanks jrista as always! I was just viewing the shots of snow and ice and since it's only about -6 C I'm heading outside to see what's interesting (boy,what motivation comes from this forum!). Hopefully it will clear and I'll be posting some Sky Tracker shots one of these days.

I'm sure we'll be seeing good things from your setup soon!

Jack


----------



## eml58 (Feb 16, 2014)

Hi jrista, too cool, had a look at your link, this is definitely something I've wanted to try & your link has provided the knowledge base to get me started, appreciated & Thanks.


----------



## Surfwooder (Feb 17, 2014)

You have been following the Canon path to bankruptcy. There is another path, take a look at the Tamron SP 150-600 VC USM lens. I have seen many shots taken with this lens, some by myself, and others, they are stellar. Canon made a deal with Tamron to release the specs. for the Canon lenses, in turn Tamron had to release the first batch of lenses only with Canon mounts. Check it out you will definitely be surprised, with build quality, and glass.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 17, 2014)

Surfwooder said:


> Canon made a deal with Tamron to release the specs. for the Canon lenses, in turn Tamron had to release the first batch of lenses only with Canon mounts.


Where did you hear this? That makes no sense given that they are competitors. 3rd parties release Canon/Nikon mounts first because of sales volume (compared to Sony, for example), not because of a deal with the OEM.


----------

