# Really bad GAS



## nonac (Nov 20, 2014)

The GAS is so bad today that I thought I needed to call a gastroenterologist! The pain started when I received my Canon evaluation loan today, a 300mm f/2.8L II. The attached x-rays, I mean pictures, summarize the pain. The image, in both full and cropped version, was shot right out of the shipping box on a 5d III with a 1.4x teleconverter. I have been looking hard at a 400mm f/2.8 II, but I do believe this prescription, I mean lens, may take care of my GAS for a while. A lot of money, probably more than it would cost to check out normal gas symptoms by the gastroenterologist. But, this lens will be a lot more fun than a colonoscopy, so well worth the $$.


----------



## meywd (Nov 20, 2014)

really, out of the box? where do you live? well, if you have the budget get it, if you don't, then you know what you need to sell


----------



## instaimage (Nov 20, 2014)

... you're looking for support from the largest group of GAS enablers on the planet... wish you luck... I have one of each, kinda like a two car garage... wait, that would be cheaper, sorry... Good Luck trying to control the GAS!


----------



## nonac (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm really glad I borrowed one of these before committing to the 400mm. This one fits the bill just fine and will save me some cash and be lighter to pack around.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 20, 2014)

totally agree....$4500 more for an extra 100mm is just not worth it, especially when you consider the weight and hand hold advantage of the 300mm over the 400.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 20, 2014)

nonac said:


> I'm really glad I borrowed one of these before committing to the 400mm. This one fits the bill just fine and will save me some cash and be lighter to pack around.


Smart decision. Congrats and enjoy


----------



## FEBS (Nov 20, 2014)

Congratulations

This is a real topper. One of the best lenses of Canon. But be aware once you start with one of the big whites, your GAS will only disappear temporary .


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 20, 2014)

I feel your pain, nonac!
The 300/2.8L has crawled into my wish list too. It's probably the only lens I would consider sticking a 2x TC behind, and the 1.4x TC would be on almost always. It's one heck of a lens!


----------



## SPL (Nov 20, 2014)

Oh the vexing annoyance of GAS,..I feel it quite often! Nice images though! Please post some more….I’m sure we would all like to see what it can do….and more images of the lens itself too!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 20, 2014)

The cure for GAS is to always pay for your stuff with one dollar bills. ;D


----------



## Jane (Nov 20, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> The cure for GAS is to always pay for your stuff with one dollar bills. ;D



I think that is a remedy that might actually work!


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 20, 2014)

I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2. Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.


----------



## meywd (Nov 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2. Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.



its not that big difference price wise, but i guess a big one IQ wise with the TC.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 20, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2. Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.



With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2? The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280. Just curious...


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 20, 2014)

If you are attracted to the 300 2.8ii and plan to use it with converters most of the time, the 400 2.8 is to heavy and to expensive for you, then maybe you should try the 500 4.0. This one is not so much more expensive and will have better AF and better IQ at 500 than the 300 at 420 and 600. It will be a better 700mm with extender than the 300mm with 2x and a compromised 1000mm with no or poor AF


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 20, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2. Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.
> ...



I'll respond later, provided I remember to do so.


----------



## nonac (Nov 20, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> If you are attracted to the 300 2.8ii and plan to use it with converters most of the time, the 400 2.8 is to heavy and to expensive for you, then maybe you should try the 500 4.0. This one is not so much more expensive and will have better AF and better IQ at 500 than the 300 at 420 and 600. It will be a better 700mm with extender than the 300mm with 2x and a compromised 1000mm with no or poor AF



My two main uses for this lens will be sideline football and birds/wildlife. From experience with others I know, a 500 is too long for football. I can believe this as I found that I rarely used my prior 100-400 at 400 on the sidelines. Also, that extra stop of light is critical to me for night games. So, a 500 would limit its use to just birds/wildlife for now. I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600. Extenders will give me reach on the 5d, and I an gain even more reach with my 7d II for birds. I haven't shot anything yet with the 300 and 7d II.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 20, 2014)

Sorry about the GAS, but it happened to me too, and the 300 + extenders is an AMAZING combination. The lens costs over a grand less than it did when I bought it last year, so take some solace in that, at least!


----------



## LJ3Jim (Nov 20, 2014)

I went to the local camera store a couple of years ago intending to get the 400 2.8 ii. I left with the 300. My typical shooting style is handheld, and the 400 was just too heavy. That said, I'm very happy with the 300 and the extenders. Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6. Both of the shots below were handheld.

5D3 + 300 (slightly cropped):






70D + 300 + 2x tc iii = 960mm (no cropping):


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 20, 2014)

I made a huge "mistake" and rented a 300 f/2.8ii for a birding trip. By the first evening of photos in a setting sun, I was totally hooked. Why the mistake? Because within a year I bought one.

Remember that this lens with a 1.4TC yields about a 420 F/4 and the IQ really holds up. I can handhold this with a 2x TC on my FF and it is still great. If you are getting one, this is the one to get.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2014)

LJ3Jim said:


> Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9. Both of the shots below were handheld.



I fixed that for you. 

Great shots, BTW.


----------



## LJ3Jim (Nov 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LJ3Jim said:
> 
> 
> > Adding in a crop body gives another 1.6 factor. Thus we get 300 f/2.8 to 960 f/5.6 f/9. Both of the shots below were handheld.
> ...



I need a little help understanding the f/9. The 300 + 2x TC reports f/5.6 on both my 5D3 and 7D2. This is what I think I have with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters:

Lens: 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6
5D3: Same
7D2: 480 f/2.8, 670 f/4, 960 f/5.6 (FF equivalent)

How does the f/9 come into play?

Regards, Jim


----------



## meywd (Nov 20, 2014)

LJ3Jim said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LJ3Jim said:
> ...



600 on FF = 960 on Crop and
f/5.6 on FF = f/9 on Crop

The sensor doesn't receive the same amount of light, because the sensor size is smaller.

Read more


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 20, 2014)

My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.




LJ3Jim said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LJ3Jim said:
> ...


----------



## LJ3Jim (Nov 20, 2014)

meywd said:


> 600 on FF = 960 on Crop and
> f/5.6 on FF = f/9 on Crop
> 
> The sensor doesn't receive the same amount of light, because the sensor size is smaller.





jdramirez said:


> My understanding is as follows... when SImilarly framed, the dof changes because you are farther from your subject, but I don't subscribe to that because I often have to crop.



Kind of makes my brain hurt...
I think I'll just stick with taking my pictures. 

Regards, Jim


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 21, 2014)

My two main uses for this lens will be sideline football and birds/wildlife. From experience with others I know, a 500 is too long for football. I can believe this as I found that I rarely used my prior 100-400 at 400 on the sidelines. Also, that extra stop of light is critical to me for night games. So, a 500 would limit its use to just birds/wildlife for now. I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600. Extenders will give me reach on the 5d, and I an gain even more reach with my 7d II for birds. I haven't shot anything yet with the 300 and 7d II.
[/quote]

I think you are travelling down the same road as I did. The 300 F2.8 L IS is a stunning lens (even my Mk1) but where you need reach a longer lens is better. I went for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and am absolutely loving it! When funds allow, also give the 1DX a try out - but not until you have the funds as you will want it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2014)

nonac said:


> I'm thinking about buying the 300 and a couple years down the road adding a 600.



I bought the 600/4 II a couple of years ago, and the 300/2.8 is on my short list.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 21, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2. Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.
> ...



I remembered.

I can probably afford the mk i version of the 300 f/2.8... so that's the one I'll compare.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

And with the 1.4x, the 300 still wins... but it isn't a blowout victory. The 300mm f/2.8 mkii is closer to a blowout... 

But, what the 300mm can't do is shoot at f/2... and that extra stop of light means and 1 less stop of iso.

I'll still use the 70-200, but I do shoot some sports where there is quick movement, but at specific locations... volley ball for instance. The serve is always from the same location... the net is always at the same location, though the players obviously move up and down the net.

Ditto with tennis. I just like having the flexibility of f/2, f/2.8, and f/4... I know the stand alone primes are better individually, and I can use the converters on them... but I generally don't shoot at f/5.6 unless I have to... so give me 400 f/4 v. 600 f/5.6... 

though I may be capricious about the whole thing... so I might change my mind tomorrow.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 26, 2014)

You guys are killing me. Every time I think I've decided on the 500 mki I see a 300 mkii with 2x tc picture and think that's actually the way I should go.


----------



## nonac (Dec 17, 2014)

Sending this eval lens back a few weeks ago was difficult. That said, I ordered my own today.


----------

