What difference will there be?
Discussion
Hi
Newbie alert!
I was out taking pictures on Saturday with a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 and I was chatting to a bloke there who had a 300mm f2.8. His lens was about twice the size and weight of mine (obviously!). The conditions were overcast with a bit of rain in the air. I was wondering, if we both took the same picture, what difference the f2.8 lens would make to the resulting shot. I presume my lens would demand a higher ISO and therefore maybe more grainy and that his shot would be brighter - but may have less DOF. If the two shots were put side by side, would there be a massive difference - bearing in mind his lens was twice the size, weight and probably cost of mine?
Newbie alert!
I was out taking pictures on Saturday with a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 and I was chatting to a bloke there who had a 300mm f2.8. His lens was about twice the size and weight of mine (obviously!). The conditions were overcast with a bit of rain in the air. I was wondering, if we both took the same picture, what difference the f2.8 lens would make to the resulting shot. I presume my lens would demand a higher ISO and therefore maybe more grainy and that his shot would be brighter - but may have less DOF. If the two shots were put side by side, would there be a massive difference - bearing in mind his lens was twice the size, weight and probably cost of mine?
His lens lets more light so, all else being equal, his camera body will get more accurate focus faster in low light. Generally 'fast' lenses tend to be of higher innate quality than zooms too.
If you both took a photo at the same focal length and aperture I doubt you'd see any significant difference. He just has the advantage in low light or if a shallow DOF is required. Conversely if you're both shooting a moving subject and that subject gets closer, he'll be stuck as it will overflow his VF whilst you can go wider and get the shot. You can frame things nicely in a second, he has to walk backwards or forwards 20 yards. So whilst your lens isn't fast it's more versatile IMHO.
I wouldn't see the 300mm f2.8 as an upgrade, more a different lens for a different job.
If you both took a photo at the same focal length and aperture I doubt you'd see any significant difference. He just has the advantage in low light or if a shallow DOF is required. Conversely if you're both shooting a moving subject and that subject gets closer, he'll be stuck as it will overflow his VF whilst you can go wider and get the shot. You can frame things nicely in a second, he has to walk backwards or forwards 20 yards. So whilst your lens isn't fast it's more versatile IMHO.
I wouldn't see the 300mm f2.8 as an upgrade, more a different lens for a different job.
maccboy said:
Hmm. I'm not sure if his was a zoom. I know what you mean about him having to step back to get more in; I had to switch between lenses a few times. He said he usually photographed jets in Wales so maybe his lens was more aimed towards that than cars on a track.
Depends how far away from Wales he is when he takes the photos (sorry !!
) maccboy said:
Hmm. I'm not sure if his was a zoom. I know what you mean about him having to step back to get more in; I had to switch between lenses a few times. He said he usually photographed jets in Wales so maybe his lens was more aimed towards that than cars on a track.
What colour was it? The only zoom that has 300 and 2.8 is the Sigma 120-300 2.8.The main difference you'll see between the 300 prime and your zoom is that wide open the IQ will still be very good, also, the out of focus areas will be nicer, the 2.8 will be able to render backgrounds as more of a blur, so good for subject isolation.
Plus, all the other large prime benefits, AF, weather sealing solid build etc etc....
nellyleelephant said:
What colour was it? The only zoom that has 300 and 2.8 is the Sigma 120-300 2.8.
The main difference you'll see between the 300 prime and your zoom is that wide open the IQ will still be very good, also, the out of focus areas will be nicer, the 2.8 will be able to render backgrounds as more of a blur, so good for subject isolation.
Plus, all the other large prime benefits, AF, weather sealing solid build etc etc....
It was camouflaged so difficult to tell. I could only just make it out against the background! The main difference you'll see between the 300 prime and your zoom is that wide open the IQ will still be very good, also, the out of focus areas will be nicer, the 2.8 will be able to render backgrounds as more of a blur, so good for subject isolation.
Plus, all the other large prime benefits, AF, weather sealing solid build etc etc....
He said he had a 7D mk2, I think, which is full frame. I don't know if that makes a difference to which lens it might be.maccboy said:
It was camouflaged so difficult to tell. I could only just make it out against the background! He said he had a 7D mk2, I think, which is full frame. I don't know if that makes a difference to which lens it might be.
7D2 is an APS-C, so a crop sensor, not full frame. He said he had a 7D mk2, I think, which is full frame. I don't know if that makes a difference to which lens it might be.My biggun is camouflaged too, mainly so I don't scratch it up when in a hide, plus they're nicer to handle in the cold.
Simpo Two said:
His lens lets more light so, all else being equal, his camera body will get more accurate focus faster in low light. Generally 'fast' lenses tend to be of higher innate quality than zooms too.
If you both took a photo at the same focal length and aperture I doubt you'd see any significant difference. He just has the advantage in low light or if a shallow DOF is required. Conversely if you're both shooting a moving subject and that subject gets closer, he'll be stuck as it will overflow his VF whilst you can go wider and get the shot. You can frame things nicely in a second, he has to walk backwards or forwards 20 yards. So whilst your lens isn't fast it's more versatile IMHO.
I wouldn't see the 300mm f2.8 as an upgrade, more a different lens for a different job.
As a fellow owner of a the 120-400mm sigma lens, and occasional user/borrower of Canon primes i have to whole-heartedly disagree. I am Assuming this chap had the Canon 300mm 2.8 (never seen anyone use the Sigma primes)If you both took a photo at the same focal length and aperture I doubt you'd see any significant difference. He just has the advantage in low light or if a shallow DOF is required. Conversely if you're both shooting a moving subject and that subject gets closer, he'll be stuck as it will overflow his VF whilst you can go wider and get the shot. You can frame things nicely in a second, he has to walk backwards or forwards 20 yards. So whilst your lens isn't fast it's more versatile IMHO.
I wouldn't see the 300mm f2.8 as an upgrade, more a different lens for a different job.
If so, OP, you are talking about a lens that is more like 8-10x the price, not twice the price. I would imagine it is significantly sharper than the Sigma from 2.8 all the way to f/8.0 (where the sigmas starts to be sharpish) It is also going to focus a lot faster, focus accurately more often and being 2.8, allow faster shutter speeds in lower light. I would say for birding / wildlife, my "keeper" rate would be significantly higher with such a lens and i would definitely see it as a (huge) upgrade over the Sigma. The only downside is that it is probably a bit big to handhold for any length of time, whereas the Sigma can be handheld all day no issues.
Simpo Two said:
Fair enough, but how do you see it?
The Sigma is my lens, i use it for wildlife and very occasionally motorsports. The canon stuff i borrow is for sports (people). Both make similar demands from the lens, the canon ones are head a shoulders above my sigma. Mostly because i can shoot them at f/2.8 or f/4.0 and they are as sharp as the sigma is at f/8.0.But then the sigma cost about £650 (it has now been discontinued) the current Canon 300mm 2.8 (i haven't actually used this lens... but i imagine it will behave in a similar way other Canon L Primes) is around £5,000. It should absolutely wipe the floor with the Sigma! Obviously the law of diminishing returns comes into play, its not 10x better.
Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 21st December 13:57
maccboy said:
Well, at that price, he must be verging on a professional. Does that make it strange that he 'only' had a 7DII? I realise that the glass is more important than the camera, but wow! My lens was £300 second-hand and I thought that was a huge amount!
Don't fall into that trap! My priciest lens was 5k, but I'm no professional. Less than people spend on motorbikes....that's how I rationalised it anyway! Also, the 7D2 is being touted by quite a few as a mini 1DX, so that's pretty high praise.
nellyleelephant said:
Also, the 7D2 is being touted by quite a few as a mini 1DX, so that's pretty high praise.
Plus being crop, it effectively transforms the 300mm prime into a 480mm Prime(1) so gives him longer reach than a 1DX would.(1) Yes, I know that's not really true, but you know what I'm getting at.
LC2 said:
Plus being crop, it effectively transforms the 300mm prime into a 480mm Prime(1) so gives him longer reach than a 1DX would.
(1) Yes, I know that's not really true, but you know what I'm getting at.
Yep, I'd love one. HDEW have them very cheap, tempted to chop in my 1D3 and a couple of other bits.(1) Yes, I know that's not really true, but you know what I'm getting at.
LC2 said:
Plus being crop, it effectively transforms the 300mm prime into a 480mm Prime(1) so gives him longer reach than a 1DX would.
(1) Yes, I know that's not really true, but you know what I'm getting at.
I bought a 7D2 at the end of September for just this reason. Until then I was using a 1Dx with a 5D2 as 2nd body. Bought it as I wanted to increase the power of existing lenses (mainly for wildlife). Seemed a lot more cost-effective than buying umpteen £k worth of super telephotos, and a lot less hassle for travelling.(1) Yes, I know that's not really true, but you know what I'm getting at.
Had to think about it for a while as I wondered if going back to crop would be a backward step. Went to Canada in October with 1Dx and 7D2 with 70-200 F2.8 and 400 F5.6 as long lenses and it seemed to be a perfect combination of bodies and lenses and I was delighted with the quality from the 7D2. Shooting bears, wolves, eagles the 7D2 got more use than the 1Dx. In particular I frequently used to use the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender but just stuck it on the 7D2 when required instead.
The 1Dx is still the favourite when length isn't an issue but I have no qualms about using the 7D2.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff