Cannon 300 f4 or some other zoom?

[Chris S.]

I rented a cannon 300mm f/4 IS this weekend. Research on the web suggests this prime lens is a good one and it was fun trying it out.

My question to those that do alot of outdoor/wildlife photography....is this a good tradeoff between quality/flexibility/price or in your experience is the lack of zoom an issue?

I would use this for wildlife when I'm out scouting, hunting etc for deer, turkey, maybe even on elk hunts (not sure I really want to carry it for elk though).
I currently have a tamron 28-200.   Thanks, Chris

[Chris S.]

Anyone?    

[Iron/Mtn]

Chris in the same vain I just traded a 100-300 f4 sima( great lens IMOP) for a nikon 80-400 just to get the extra reach and VR, as of this writing the verdict is out as I have yet to field test it,but I did know there was times the 300 even with Nikon digital X factor did not give me the reach. F4 yas great and the price of the sigma for the quality of the glass I thought was very good. In the end I am hoping I made the right choice as I tired waiting for nikon to come out with an advanced s lens with reach in my price range......... Let us know how you make out..... PS I did recently look at one of Tokina I think 80-500 with the upgraded glass and the price was right and I almost bit but in the end waited saved and sold some stuff for the nikon glass to couple with the D200....... Take care John.

[jeff w]

I have owned that lens and it is very nice.  It  works really well with the 1.4 teleconverter, making it a 420 5.6.   As you know it is fairly compact but isn't something I would want to carry while hunting.  I think most will tell you the more reach you have the better, but I think you will find larger lenses a burden to carrying and take care of while hunting.  I have found 300mm's and a 1.4 teleconverter to do pretty well overall, a good compromise between focal length, lens speed and price.

  A zoom lens that may be worth checking is the new version of the Tokina 80-400 5.6.    It is probably the most compact lens for it's focal length and unlike some other 80-400's, or 100-400's, it has internal focusing which keeps it comapact even at 400mm.  Most of the reviews I have read said the build quality is great and the optical quality very good.   Most said for the price(@$650 at B&H) it was well worth the money.   Probably not as highly rated as a Canon 300mm or 100-400mm, but it cost less than half of those lenses.   Good luck but be careful, photography can be very addictive---the season never closes and it provides even more excuses to get outside.

[stickbowhntr]

the secerete between good and great outdoor photography is not in the size of the lens(focal  length) but in the closeness of the object.Gerry and Phil you guys can back me up on this can't you?

[Phil Magistro]

Close is great but not always possible.  I can't afford a 300 f2.8 or I'd own one.  A 200-400 f4 would be nice too but that's $5000.

A Nikon 300 f4 is a great lens.  I'm sure that the same Canon model would be fine.  I do have some concern about using any lens slower than f4.  For most of my photography, whether people, sports or wildlife, I want to isolate the subject by throwing the background out of focus.  

On most of today's digital bodies the smaller sensor size adds depth of field over a full frame (or 35mm) sensor.  That means that f5.6 on my Nikon D2x seems more like f8 on my old Nikon F4 film camera.  By using a f5.6 lens on a digital body the depth of field is increased too much for my likes.  I'd much rather shoot a deer or elk or rabbit at f4 and blur the background than at f5.6 or f8 and have all the background clutter sharp.  That is one reason why I've never owned an 80-400 Nikon (the other is because it focuses too slow).

Given a choice between a 70-200mm f2.8, a 300mm f4, or any longer lens that's slower I'd prefer to get closer and use the faster lens.