jim_mueller2 Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I always keep my Canon 300D and EF 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC II ready when in the house. We have a couple of bird feeders in our suburban backyard and one never knows when a photo-op will present itself unexpectedly. Sure enough! This rose-breasted grosbeak appeared suddenly and unexpectedly. He stayed long enough to grab some sunflower seeds and off he went. If I had to set up a tripod I would have never been able to grab this shot. The comotion alone would have scared him off.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I am sure I told you not to do this any more. You are really going to cost me money ! Was this shot auto-focused or did you use manual focus (the JPEG has no EXIF data). Nice focus on the bird with all those distracting branches around. Nice shot again Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 The 300 F/4 L IS is indeed a sweet lens, especially combined with the 1.4x TC! Some folks say that the AF is slow, even with the AF range limiter set to 3m-? but I disagree.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mueller2 Posted May 9, 2004 Author Share Posted May 9, 2004 <auto-focused or did you use manual focus > This was manual focused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mueller2 Posted May 9, 2004 Author Share Posted May 9, 2004 <Some folks say that the AF is slow, even with the AF range limiter set to 3m-? but I disagree> I find the speed of the AF quite fast with IS Off or On, although when the Image Stabilization is turned on, this will slow down the AF a bit. I have read that the the AF speed on the 300/4 IS is faster than the 100-400/4.5-5.6 Zoom but I've never done a direct comparison. My 300/4 IS is getting a lot of use! It was expensive (for me) but worth it IMHO. The two features that make this lens a great performer is the Image Stabilization and its ability to work with teleconverters and still maintain excellent optical performance. The next step up for me would be the EF 500/4 but I don't see that happening unless I win the Power Ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Jim, do you remember what shutter speed you used? Just curious, that is where IS really comes into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mueller2 Posted May 9, 2004 Author Share Posted May 9, 2004 I went back and looked at Canon's "File Viewer" and got the information for that RAW. Shooting Date/Time 5/8/2004 3:00:50 AM Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/125 Av( Aperture Value ) 11 Metering Mode Evaluative Exposure Compensation +2/3 ISO Speed 200 Lens 300.0 mm Focal Length 420.0 mm Image Size 3072x2048 Image Quality RAW Flash Off White Balance Auto AF Mode Manual Focus Parameters Contrast +1 Sharpness +1 Color saturation +1 Color tone Normal Color Space sRGB I hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 AHA! f/11, NOT f/8!! (Nice bokeh @ f/11 ... the power of the long lens!) 3:00:50 AM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mueller2 Posted May 9, 2004 Author Share Posted May 9, 2004 <3:00:50 AM?> oops..had the time set about 12 hrs. off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I have handled the 300/4L-IS. This lens is so big and heavy, I could not imagine using it without IS. Also, the amount of bokeh at F11 should be eye-opening to all the F2.8 fanatics out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 It is interesting though, that both photos in this forum could be taken at an effective aperture of f5.6, one at 1/1000, and one at 1/500, using a non-IS lens and still given similar if not the same results, just less depth of field in one case. It is also fair to say that in both cases the asa could have been dialed down 1 or 2 stops to really make use of the IS feature. So IS was not absolutely necessary, in these cases, but it is now possible to invision how it could have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferensen Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Jim, nice shot. I use the same camera, lens combination. Some recent shots at: http://www.pbase.com/ferensen/bird_walks&page=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 <<So IS was not absolutely necessary, in these cases,>> He could've used a 127 Box Brownie too (assuming the bear wasn't hungry). Or a 40 year old relic with a long-focus lens resembling a clarinet. There are those who either for financial or mental reasons can't or won't acknowledge the enormous advantage of IS. That's fine, it's a personal choice. Plus it's a laugh riot reading their defensive "arguments". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 <p>I find AF to be slow on this lens under one circumstance - if the distance at which the lens is currently focused is so far from the subject's distance that the view is basically completely blurry. In that case, my Elan 7e often has to resort to hunting for focus until the subject starts to appear out of the fog. This, I presume, is a result of the shallow DOF and strong background blur of a 300mm f/4 lens.</p> <p>But if the subject is already somewhat visible, AF is very quick - the subject snaps into focus. It does slow down somewhat with the 1.4x (which is by design; AF slows down somewhat with a 1.4x, more with a 2x) but it's still pretty quick.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 No defensive remarks from me, simply disillusionment. I thought the days of turning autofocus off, were over years ago, and now to see IS photographs that may very well have survived without it? Is photography really as difficult as the manufacturers would have us believe? I understand that all these innovations are directed at pros who want to save a small percentage of their shots and perhaps make their workflow easier. I also understand that the amateur photographers who visit this site should be properly educated about the various technologies and their specific applications to their own photography. My applause goes out to the photographers like Jim who enthusiastically share their experiences to contribute positively to this site! Keep up the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 IS is a tool like any other. I think it is a question of using IS for the *right* reasons. This is why I don't favor or advocate IS for the cheap prosumer lenses. . .people tend to use it for the *wrong* reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_erne Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 "IS" was THE tool that drove me from Minolta to Canon! For a long time the 100-400mm IS has been a "dream-lens" for me. Now I own said lens plus the 28-135mm IS, and I do not want a lens without IS anymore! Pity me that Minolta announced a D7 with in-camera stabilizer 2 month after my Canon purchase! But what the xxxx, I went digital and I am happy now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now