Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 300 f/4 vs 300 f/2.8

  1. #1

    Default 300 f/4 vs 300 f/2.8

    Well, had the chance to try the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/4 at the Zoo and am scrutinising the images. The 300 f/2.8 has very fast AF, but image quality was otherwise unremarkable. Can't say that its obviously superior to my 300 f/4. Maybe if I mounted both on a tripod and shot a brick wall I would see a difference. Would say the same for the 400 f/4.

    Since there were loads of other photographers who tried those lens, lets hear other views... did those lens blow away the existing lenses you own?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    I doubt u can find much difference under that kind of light condition, i.e. harsh sun and distracting background. Fast primes are designed to be excel at wide open. I found view finder is much brighter, and foucsing speed is faster (with 1Ds, of course). If u have used 50-500 on a gloomy day, u know what I mean, realy difficult in getting focus for moving subjects. Image quality... yes, there is a difference. But to me color rendition and contrast are more obvious. Maybe 300/f4 is closer to f2.8 version. Also do consider the built quality. Those professional lenses may be weather sealed. But they are definitely not for general purpose, even u just consider the weight. It would be very strange if u lug a 600/f4 around in the zoo, kind of funny.
    Last edited by tomshen; 27th January 2003 at 11:37 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    You buy a 300/2.8 to use it at f2.8. At which point it produces MUCH MUCH MUCH better pictures than a 300/4.

    You should also invest in a EOS1Ds, to resolve even more detail. But then you still wouldn't get as much red detail as your old S2. Pity.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    You buy a 300/2.8 to use it at f2.8. At which point it produces MUCH MUCH MUCH better pictures than a 300/4.

    You should also invest in a EOS1Ds, to resolve even more detail. But then you still wouldn't get as much red detail as your old S2. Pity.
    But hey, a 1Ds outperforms 6x7 film. By a large margin.

    "Goodbye film, goodbye Medium Format. - Michael Reichmann, 2003"

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5

    Default Re: 300 f/4 vs 300 f/2.8

    Originally posted by erwinx
    Well, had the chance to try the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/4 at the Zoo and am scrutinising the images. The 300 f/2.8 has very fast AF, but image quality was otherwise unremarkable. Can't say that its obviously superior to my 300 f/4. Maybe if I mounted both on a tripod and shot a brick wall I would see a difference. Would say the same for the 400 f/4.

    Since there were loads of other photographers who tried those lens, lets hear other views... did those lens blow away the existing lenses you own?
    What do you mean by unremarkable ? It's hard to tell when you did not give any details of how you conducted the test or what criteria you used to judge the quality ? Saturation ? Sharpness ? Resolution ? Distortion ? Chromatic aberrations ? What ? Was your 300/f4 also a L or professional level lens ? If so, it too would be capable of very good performance, minus the large apeture.

    Many lenses do not perform well at its max aperture. This is an inherent problem for all lenses since the distortion is greatest near the edge of the lens due to the lens curvature. So if you stopped your 2.8 lens down to f/4, it will probably outperform your 300/f4 at the same aperture, since your 300/f4 will be at its weakest (widest) aperture, while the 2.8 will be nearer its sweet spot.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    I have used the 300 f4.0L... wonderful, fast AF and sharp to the core.. I used it on a sporting event earlier in Jan... must say, very impressed with the quality. The IS helped a lot also...

  7. #7

    Default

    I agree with the posters views generally, but would still like to hear from more of those who attended the Zoo outing. Time to confirm or dispel the myth of the L lens

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Originally posted by erwinx
    I agree with the posters views generally, but would still like to hear from more of those who attended the Zoo outing. Time to confirm or dispel the myth of the L lens
    Nah, dun let this bother u too much. Unless u publish on magazine, the slight difference between your f4 and f2.8 is neglectable. When shooting digital, I can even post process L quality pix with Sigma lenses in PS. But there IS a huge diff. in price, sad but true.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •