I am deliberating between getting this F/2.8 or the new 100-400 F/4.5. Will use on 7D2 for shooting birds. Which is a better choice?
257466
This is a very personal choice. The f/2.8 300 mm is a an outstanding lens and can be coupled with an extended to yield 600mm at f/5.6. This was my choice for use with the 5DIII because primes have higher IQ than zooms. However it is a big lens because of the aperture. I would say that most birders would go for the 100-400 because it is lighter and more versatile.
257467
Olá Scarlett, eu estou usando uma lente 300mm 2.8 e uma máquina canon 6D. Acho que para fotografar pássaros quanto mais abertura melhor. Quanto a 100-400 desconheço o equipamento.Boa sorte na sua escolha.
257468
if you can afford the 2.8, get it one of the best lenses Canon makes--1.4 extender will get as good results as the 400 4.5 and you will not miss the 1-300 f4 zoom flexibility for birds.
1542166
I love the camera it was a good step up from the older Rebel. I shoot allot of action sports photography and it works great when I shoot in a gym that is poorly lit and you can't use a flash during the game. I use a 70-200 f2.8 lens and I get good Basketball photos. I want to upgrade to the 1D mark4 as soon as I can afford it!!
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
362714
If you are going to be using the lens for wildlife and bird photograpy, chances are the zoom is going to spend all its time at the 400mm setting. That being the case, the 400mm prime lens is cheaper, lighter and sharper. Unless you can actually afford one of Canons "big" 400mm lens (which are $3-5K more), the 400mm f5.6L is probably your best choice.
1346883
I have the 50mm f1.8 and love everything about it. My only problem is the focusing speed. I don't mind spending $340 for the 1.4 but I read alot of people had problem with it and have to send it in for repair. This made me very nervous. Anybody familiar with this problem? One more thing, if you want to choose between the 50mm or 85mm, check the crop on your camera first. Ex. T3i have a 1.6 vs 5D have a 1.0 meaning a 50mm on a T3i is equal to a 80mm on a 5D.
195300
No. I would go with the 55-250mm lens. I got the 18-55mm and I wish I could do close-ups with birds, but it just isn't possible!
1475391
every camera body is a compromise to some extent. 5d2 is excellent is several areas, but hardly the best in any. Its a great all around camera. If you are looking to shoot sports on birds in flight, not your best choice. canon 1dII and 1dIV, and even 7D are as well as the crop cameras from nikon (d300x) are better at that. However, if you know the advantages of full frame, and want one, I you cant go wrong with it. I have been shooting with it for 2.5 years, and have shot with a nikon d700, d3x, and canon original 5d, and for the price, resolution, video, overall image quality, its truly an excellent camera. every camera body is a compromise to some extent. 5d2 is excellent is several areas, but hardly the best in any. Its a great all around camera. If you are looking to shoot sports on birds in flight, not your best choice. canon 1dII and 1dIV, and even 7D are as well as the crop cameras from nikon (d300x) are better at that. However, if you know the advantages of full frame, and want one, I you cant go wrong with it. I have been shooting with it for 2.5 years, and have shot with a nikon d700, d3x, and canon original 5d, and for the price, resolution, video, overall image quality, its truly an... » Read More every camera body is a compromise to some extent. 5d2 is excellent is several areas, but hardly the best in any. Its a great all around camera. If you are looking to shoot sports on birds in flight, not your best choice. canon 1dII and 1dIV, and even 7D are as well as the crop cameras from nikon (d300x) are better at that. However, if you know the advantages of full frame, and want one, I you cant go wrong with it. I have been shooting with it for 2.5 years, and have shot with a nikon d700, d3x, and canon original 5d, and for the price, resolution, video, overall image quality, its truly an excellent camera. « Show Less
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
1329391
no, i would recommend something around a 70 -200 f/2.8 yuor choice on what you want to spend. i can tell i have a tamron in this and i love ,a little heavy but smoking fast glass , shot my kids sporting events for years , great pics
1904691
the gf1 has shutter speeds up to 4000, which is fast enough for virtually any situation. i am able to get birds in flight at 2000 or below, and in daylight fast moving boats with no blur are no problem. as the other poster says, night shots out of a taxi could be a problem, but i haven't tried it.
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.
543320
I had the 1.8 and switched to the sigma and LOVE IT!! My pictures are more colorful and sharper plus I love the depth of field!!!
575775
If you can afford it I would definitely keep both. First, the 85 1.8 gives you the wide aperture that you do not get with the 70-200 f/4. It is also much more compact and allows you to be less noticeable when shooting. The size and color of the 70-200 make stealth next to impossible. If you are indoors in low light you will definitely be reaching for the 85 1.8.
503711
I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a... » Read More I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. « Show Less
1578620
I am not aware of a review that compares those 2 configurations, but I would be amazed if the 400 f/2.8 AFS with converter was as sharp as the 800. I have read a review that might shed some light on the question, but cannot access it without my laptop.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
542771
If you are looking to update and stick with the a-mount system, the A99 is the way to go. I have both and the full frame sensor on the A99 along with the added features and better low light performance makes it my go to camera. The only thing the a A77 is better at is speed, Fps. Your other option is to go mirrorless like the A7 series and use an adapter like the LEA4 to use your A - mount glass. It's an amazing camera for the money I have the A7. The only negative is the lack of in-body stabilization which is remedied by the A7 mk 2 that just came out. Hit up your local camera store and play If you are looking to update and stick with the a-mount system, the A99 is the way to go. I have both and the full frame sensor on the A99 along with the added features and better low light performance makes it my go to camera. The only thing the a A77 is better at is speed, Fps. Your other option is to go mirrorless like the A7 series and use an adapter like the LEA4 to use your A - mount glass. It's an amazing camera for the money I have the A7. The only negative is the lack of in-body stabilization which is remedied by the A7 mk 2 that just came out. Hit up your local camera store and play