Canon 300 f/2.8 OR 400 f/4 DO?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Jay,

While the 300 f/2.8 is a bit heavier than the 400 DO... it is sharper and with greater contrast, lower in cost, and extremely sharp with both 1.4 and 2x converters.

Choose carefully!

Best,

Chas

---

Hi Chas, thanks for your thoughts.

I have to laugh. I am a retired atty and one of the usual atty jokes is put "x" number of attys in a room and you will get "X + Y" opinions. :D

I have given up on worrying about weight. What's another pound here or there?! ;)

I am after quality and the best for my photography overall which is not exclusively anything! It is primarily nature from the mountains to the seashore and from wide angle to macro. Prior to finding BPN the last thing I thought I would be doing is buying a new 1D3 and a lens physically longer and heavier than the 100 - 400 which I jokingly called the Canon's canon.

I thought I had resolved the big issues: 1D3, 400 DO, and 70 - 200 f/4.

Now, and don't get me wrong because I absolutely appreciate what you said about the 300 f/2.8.

So now I have to ask everyone to see if there is some BPN expert's consensus: 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO? I will do it in a new thread as this is supposed to be about camera bodies. :D

Regards, Jay

---

OK, I haven't ordered any lenses YET! Pls share your thoughts on the pros and cons of these two lenses.

Which would you buy given that the the 300 is $1,400 less than the 400; 1 lb heavier; a bit longer; and 1 stop faster.

For me the only issue is IQ with and without a teleconverter.

Thanks for all input. Jay

Hi Jay - I have a 300 2.8 (Nikon) and find it a little short for all but the times when I can get really close - that extra 100mm doesn't sound a lot - but it will make a difference.

Tough desecion :)

Jay, I can't speak to the 400 DO having never owned one or even held one in my hands. But I do have the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS and it is one remarkable lens. It's as sharp as you'll ever want. And I use it with a 2x Canon teleconverter much of the time. All I can say is that I have never once had image quality come up in a critique of an image made with the 300 and 2x. Everything else you can imagine, I've been criticized for :) but never IQ.

If Artie backs the 400 then it must be a great lens but the 300 2.8 is cracker jack as well. You won't go wrong if you choose the 300 2.8.

Good luck.

Thanks Lance and Ed,

I am sure that the IQ of the 400 DO with the teles is very good to excellent or Artie wouldn't have recommended the lens.

Lance has raised the singular issue of focal length; the plan is/was that I am selling the 100-400 and filling the hole between the 400 and the 24-105 with the 70-200 plus tcs.

Assuming that both lenses have very good to excellent IQ with or without the teles, and accepting that according to Chas the IQ of the 300 is visually better than the 400, at the end of the day can I see the difference? I just took a look at Artie's images with the 400 and I should be so lucky as to ever (he has been doing it a long time and I am just starting) achieve that IQ.

So, is the IQ of the 300 so much better than the 400 as to justify permanently eliminating the 400 focal length from my gear?

I do not know!

Lance says the extra 100mm will make a difference. Well, 100 x 2.0 = 200 x 1.3 (1D3) = 260mm.

The real question Chas or anyone else is: Is the IQ of the 300 so much better than the 400 as to justify permanently giving up an extra 260mm?

Look forward to reading what is written while I am sleeping down under and you all are starting to stir :D.

Good night!

Cheers, Jay

I'm about to trade in my 300mm f2.8L IS towards a 400mm DO. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the 300 except the weight. In fact, it's perhaps the sharpest lens I've ever owned! But I've almost never used it bare, and always used it with either a 2x TC or a 1.4. With the 1.4, there's no loss of anything: items snap into focus, and IQ is as good as the lens without it. With the 2x, things get a little dicier. It takes a little longer to acquire focus, and sharpness drops a tad. The attached image was made with the 300 + the 2x, and I think you'll agree that it's adequate... The reason I am making the move to the 400 DO is two-fold: the weight difference for me is significant, and I can get the same IQ with the 400 +1.4x as I did with the 300 + 2x albeit with faster image acquisition.

Chris, that is exactly the kind of information was looking for. The assistance everyone gives to each other on the BPN sets the standard for all other forums.

I hope that WE find that the IQ of the 400 with a 1.4 is equal to the IQ of the 300 with a 2.0, and that the IQ of the 400 with a 2.0 is so close to the 300 as to have justified both of our decisions to buy the 400! Cheers, Mate

Jay

Jay,

My only real suggestion is to buy used and try them both for yourself. Re-sale value remains quite high on well kept glass, but you will loose nominal amounts shipping to and fro down under.

IMO- They are both great lenses. However, I have to agree with Chas on this one (re: previous thread).

If you plan to have either of these serve as your longest lens, I would say go with the 300/2.8IS. It is significantly heavier- no two ways about it. But, it serves as a stellar 3 in 1: 300mm, 420mm, 600mm (with the help of tc's). Arguably, the 300 also produces more favorable color, contrast, saturation, sharpness (evolving debate as postprocessing technology increases).

I find the 300/2.8 + 2x + 25mm ext tube very usable - handheld.

http://joemilmoe.com/nsn/NZP_bullfrog.jpg

The 400/4 is a fantastic compliment to a longer lens (e.g. 5,6,800mm)- especially when you 1. you want to pack both or 2. you want to use both simultaneously (1 for flight shots, 1 for perched). While the 400/4 is decent with 1.4x, I would not want to rely on it as my main lens.

You may soon come to find that both serve as a gateway to purchasing longer glass anyhow :D

Jay,

I've owned both lenses. I sold the 400 DO only because I thought its resale value might crash given the bad publicity the lens used to get because you can see its diffraction rings in OOF highlights. For me, that defect was only really noticeable in about eight frames (all one series) out of 320 rolls of film (this was in 2003). In an age when everything else gets fixed in Photoshop, that seems a minor problem indeed. Like Chas, Canon's charts say the DO lens is is slightly inferior to the 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800 L telephotos. But in practice, I found the 400 with a 2X equal to the 600 with a 1.4 at a hummingbird nest (I started with the 600, switched to the 400 to get a little closer).

While I still own the 300 f2.8, it gets almost no use. I always travel with either the 500 f4L or 600 f4L, and given weight and space restrictions, when flying I almost always take the 400 f5.6 instead of the 300 f2.8. If I were choosing between the 300 2.8 and 400 DO as my longest lens, I'd definitely go with the 400, knowing that even 800mm won't be long enough at times,even in places like the Galapagos and Antarctica.

Jay -

I would have never considered the DO had it not been for images I saw during an eagle viewing trip several months ago where a gentleman was using a 400 DO + 1.4x on a 1Ds MkII. He happened to have some images he made with the combo with him and I was just blown away by the IQ! Then I saw what Artie did with the lens.... Although the weight factor is a big plus for me, my primary need will always be IQ and if I can get it with the DO, I'll be thrilled!

No way the 400 DO produces the same quality images with a 2x as the 300 f/2.8. Had'em both!
That said...if you are mostly after birds the lighter weight and extra focal length may very well prove your best choice. Sharpness is relative, but I am a very picky son-of-a-gun.

FYI- you can make "PUBLISHABLE QUALITY" images with less than the top pro quality lenses ;)

Chas

Chas -

What I am personally hoping is that the 400 DO + 1.4x equals the same IQ as the 300 + the 2x with faster AF. I'd only use the 400 + a 2x in situations where I could manually focus (I have a 40D), and there was no other way to make the shot...

Chris

I've had both the DO and the 300/2.8. I never completed a neck and neck AF comparison between the two, (400/1.4x vs. 300/2x), but felt the two combos to be comparable with AF acquisition speed.

I admit, I am a color and saturation buff. I find the bright (+white) colors to be one of Canon's most desirable features (subjective at best). Given that, attaining these super saturated colors is much harder with the 400 (regardless of how hard you push the files in post).

If the two lenses were equal cost, it'd be a tougher decision to make. At nearly $1500 less, I wouldn't hesitate to go with the 300/2.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

. . . I just took a look at Artie's images with the 400 and I should be so lucky as to ever (he has been doing it a long time and I am just starting) achieve that IQ. . . .

---

Jay,

Just to be clear, I'd guess that (1) small JPEGs won't reveal minor differences between two lenses, and (2) the "IQ" of Artie's images with the 400 have much more to do with time of day, light, and skill than with the optics of the 400m DO.

This thread is making me crazy! For those of you who've commented on the lack of sharpness, contrast, color and saturation with the DO, couldn't some of those characteristics be programmed into your camera of choice as a personal setting?

Again, it may just be me nitpicking.

re: in-camera saturation boost- I believe I am correct that NO- shooting RAW precludes these "benefits"

Hi Joe, while I appreciate your suggestions, you do not understand my lifestyle! I am saying this tongue in cheek :D

I travel full-time. When in Australia I live in a box on wheels - a caravan/trailer - and that is about 50% of the time; the other 50% is traveling around the world. Basically, we are in Oz 6 - 12 months and then we go on a trip for 6 -12 months. The next trip is around the world for a year departing in October.

Unlike the USA, the ability to rent or buy used equipment is very difficult.

To keep all of this in perspective and responding to your statement that the 300 is significantly heavier:

300 (2550gr) + 1D3 (1155gr) = 3705 gr = 8.10 lbs.

400 (1940gr) + 1D3 (1155gr) = 3095 gr = 6.76 lbs.

I am trying to be scientific like cybermate Roger! :D

8.10 - 6.76 = 1.34 lbs

Yup, significant weight difference!! An issue but significantly different IQ overrides this issue.

Yup, significant price difference - $1,400!! Not an issue as this is a one-time (ROTFL :D) purchase.

Quote:

---

The 400/4 is a fantastic compliment to a longer lens (e.g. 5,6,800mm)- especially when you 1. you want to pack both or 2. you want to use both simultaneously (1 for flight shots, 1 for perched). While the 400/4 is decent with 1.4x, I would not want to rely on it as my main lens.

You may soon come to find that both serve as a gateway to purchasing longer glass anyhow

---

1. This isn't a "compliment dance" - my lifestyle only permits ONE LENS AND ONE LENS ONLY!! Not that I am complaining about my lifestyle ;):D

A month ago I was saying that the 1D3 was "out of the question" because of weight AND I am buying a 1D3.

A month ago I was saying that selling the 100-400 and buying a prime heavier and larger lens was "out of the question" because of weight and size and here we are discussing heavier and larger prime lenses.

Chas, you are one of the top experts in the country. Would you sacrifice 260mm focal length because of the difference in the image quality between the two lenses.

As a newbie I have never consistently HH that much weight and attempted to spend a day shooting BIF. HH 6 3/4 lbs all day long seems daunting; HH 8 lbs just that much more. Since I am selling the 100-400, once I depart in October there is no turning back and what I buy now (300 or 400) must be used and carried for a full year.

Those of you that have the 300, how would you feel about carrying it day in and day out EVERYTIME you went out for a shoot?

Sorry to keep beating the horse; this is the last big gear purchase decision and I appreciate everyone's input.

Anyone else care to comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Milmoe

Again, it may just be me nitpicking.

re: in-camera saturation boost- I believe I am correct that NO- shooting RAW precludes these "benefits"

---

Joe, nitpicking is the way we learn!!!

Better here than in the field after purchases have been made.

Cheers, Jay

Is your intent to now handhold 100% ? If yes, I would say go for the 400DO. My perception of "handholdability" may be skewed as I am young, stand 6' and 215lbs.

Are birds now the primary focus?

Based on your "1 AND ONLY 1!" requirement, and willingness to use a tripod, I would diverge from the original decision and go for the 500mm.

Sorry to get too off topic :D

Jay,

It is 200mm difference w/ 2x (camera aside), and yes that can be significant. If you intention is to mostly shoot at the greatest focal length the 300 w/2x will produce a higher quality in-camera image than the 400 DO w/2x. I personally, would rather have the best image to start, cropping in afterward if necessary to achieve the desired result. However, I often leave room around my wildlife subjects, as this provides the viewer with a sense of time and place and tells more of the story than just the subject in your face. I prefer the subject be no greater than 1/4 of the frame. This is not to say I will not shoot tight when I deem it appropriate. Remember, I do not only shoot birds, and have all lenses from 300-600 to draw upon when needed. Incidentally, I can often be found a field carrying a 600 and 300 f/2.8, a 70-200 and converters.

Get the Black Rapid Strap w/ RRS quick release and your carrying worries will be over.

BTW- If 600mm is not long enough for most of your images you are doing something wrong. ;)
LONGER FOCAL LENGTHS are more problematic... requiring a heavier tripod and better stabilization, compress more atmosphere, magnify shake, etc.

My 300 f/2.8 will be my last to go!

Best,

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Milmoe

Is your intent to now handhold 100% ? If yes, I would say go for the 400DO. My perception of "handholdability" may be skewed as I am young, stand 6' and 215lbs.

Are birds now the primary focus?

Based on your "1 AND ONLY 1!" requirement, and willingness to use a tripod, I would diverge from the original decision and go for the 500mm.

Sorry to get too off topic :D

---

Nothing to be sorry about!

I am not young; I am not old!!!! Age: 66.

I will not be HH 100% of the time; a lot of the time.

Did you mean go for the 400 when you said 500?

BIF are not my "primary" focus. Nature is my primary focus and I would guesstimate BIF would be less than but close to 50%. Landscape, macro, and other critters are the other 50% +-.

Cheers, Jay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Brennan

This thread is making me crazy! For those of you who've commented on the lack of sharpness, contrast, color and saturation with the DO, couldn't some of those characteristics be programmed into your camera of choice as a personal setting?

---

Chris here is another positive take on the 400: http://www.wildlifeimagesbyles.net/T...#techniquestop

Cheers, Jay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Jay,

It is 200mm difference w/ 2x (camera aside), and yes that can be significant. If you intention is to mostly shoot at the greatest focal length the 300 w/2x will produce a higher quality in-camera image than the 400 DO w/2x. I personally, would rather have the best image to start, cropping in afterward if necessary to achieve the desired result. However, I often leave room around my wildlife subjects, as this provides the viewer with a sense of time and place and tells more of the story than just the subject in your face. I prefer the subject be no greater than 1/4 of the frame. This is not to say I will not shoot tight when I deem it appropriate. Remember, I do not only shoot birds, and have all lenses from 300-600 to draw upon when needed. Incidentally, I can often be found a field carrying a 600 and 300 f/2.8, a 70-200 and converters.

Get the Black Rapid Strap w/ RRS quick release and your carrying worries will be over.

BTW- If 600mm is not long enough for most of your images you are doing something wrong. ;)
LONGER FOCAL LENGTHS are more problematic... requiring a heavier tripod and better stabilization, compress more atmosphere, magnify shake, etc.

My 300 f/2.8 will be my last to go!

Best,

Chas

---

Chas, I feel like the proverbial donkey between two bales of hay knowing I only get one!

The strap: Very interesting; not in stock yet at Adorama. I didn't see anything about the quick release on either Adorama's site or the Black Rapid site. I have written to BR; where did you get the strap and quick release? Cheers, Jay

Jay -

Yes, I have been in touch personally with Les. He's a superb photographer and technician, and when I posted my inital query about the DO lens back in November on Fred Miranda, he responded to me personally, and we've exchanged quite a few emails since. I do trust his opinion... I'm starting to sense that lenses are like ice cream: some like chocolate and some like vanilla, and never the twain shall meet... Honestly, I still think I'm going to get the 400 and live with it for a while. If it doesn't work out for me, the resale value is high enough that I won't lose my shirt in the "experiment".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Brennan

Jay -

Yes, I have been in touch personally with Les. He's a superb photographer and technician, and when I posted my inital query about the DO lens back in November on Fred Miranda, he responded to me personally, and we've exchanged quite a few emails since. I do trust his opinion... I'm starting to sense that lenses are like ice cream: some like chocolate and some like vanilla, and never the twain shall meet... Honestly, I still think I'm going to get the 400 and live with it for a while. If it doesn't work out for me, the resale value is high enough that I won't lose my shirt in the "experiment".

---

Chris, that is kinda the way I feel at this point. In the past 12 months I have gone from a G9 to a 40D and now I have a 1D3 on order. I have also gone from a g9 telephoto (:D a contradiction in terms) to a 40D with the 100-400, and now since I am selling the 100-400 and buying the 70-200, I have to decide which lens to carry for a year. I have never carried more than one camera and a couple of lenses compared to carrying two bodies, five lenses, tripod et cetera et cetera.

Still on the fence; I have to make my decision in the next week or so as I want the lens to play with and use in a series of workshops in June.

Cheers, Jay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

For me the only issue is IQ with and without a teleconverter.

---

Jay, if that truly is the only issue, then the choice is quite clear: 300/2.8.

The 400 DO is well suited for those who don't like the weight of the long 2.8 lenses. or whose arms grow tired easily hand holding the tele's. But as for image quality the 300/2.8 is the winner.

Jay,

If, as you said before, weight is the primary concern, then the 400mmDO is likely the best choice. The 300mm2.8 wins otherwise.

Have you consider the 300mm f/4 IS? The lens is extremely sharp and light weight. Take a look!

[IMG]http://www.********.org/bpn/40D/_MG_2140.jpg[/IMG]

This is wide open at f/5.6 and some fill flash.

Another lens would be the 400mm f/5.6. No IS but the lens is EXTREMELY sharp. If weight is an issue, you have two lenses to work with.

Good luck!

Jay,

STRAP IS ONLY AVAILABLE FROM www.blackrapid.com and the Mini Clamp B2-FAB from www.reallyrightstuff.com neither have distributors.

Chas

On the BPN the time that the "Pros" give to the learners is nothing short of amazing.

For those of you still on the fence, I would like to share Phil's description:

Quote:

---

The 300/2.8 is consider one of Canon's legends, it is fantastically sharp. Granted, you need to use it properly like any other lens, but when you do, it is razor and the contrast is superb. When I was shooting eagles recently I found that the 300/1.4 combo was a better fit for the distances the eagles were at than either a 300 alone or a 500. So, most of the shooting I did was with a 300/1.4, and when I returned I found that the images are very sharp.

Yes, the 300/2.8 is heavy. But not much less than a 400 DO. Its the price you pay to use the best lens. ... The 300/2.8 is razor on its own, very sharp with a 1.4 and is sharp with a 2x but in that case you need to stop down a stop and use good technique. A 300/2.8 (and 400 DO) are both light enough that you do not NEED a gimbal, a good ball head will work well. On the other hand, both are long enough that if you want to use a gimbal it will work well. In other words, the 300-400mm range of lenses work well on both types of heads. The question is the tradeoff of weight for sharpness.

---

Again, I have finally reached a decision and thank you all for the input both on the net and privately.

Decision made: I am opting for sharpness over weight. I will purchase the 300 f/2.8, develop a little more muscle, and save $1,400.00. Not a bad trade-off given all that I am spending. :D

Chris, I will experiment with the 300 and you with the 400 and we will both be happy with our decisions.

For me the end result highlights how important this type of thread is to the members. I started this thread with a mind set that I was buying the 400 and ended changing my mind and I am buying the 300. Thanks BPN owners, members, and nonmember posters too!

Cheers, Jay


<o></o>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Jay,

STRAP IS ONLY AVAILABLE FROM www.blackrapid.com and the Mini Clamp B2-FAB from www.reallyrightstuff.com neither have distributors. Chas

---

Hi Chas,

Adorama is now carrying the Black Rapid Strap for $48: http://www.adorama.com/CZSBRRS4.html...fo=Black+Rapid.

Cheers, Jay

<tt>In choosing a lens to travel around the world with,
consider total bulk and weight as well as desire for
focal length and image quality.

Lens_______weight__diameter__length minimum_focus
___________pounds___inches___inches___feet

400 f/5.6____2.8_____3.5______10.1____11.5

400 f/4 DO___4.3_____5.0_______9.2____11.5

300 f/2.8____6.0_____5.0_______9.9_____8.2

300 f/4______2.6_____3.5_______8.7_____4.9

100-400______3.0_____3.6_______7.4_____5.9

So, how big a backpack do you want to carry (or roller equivalent) and if traveling by air, can you fit in the carry-on weight limits?

I travel with various combinations, depending on objectives. Of course everyone has their own objectives and limits, so this is only my own.

A light trip would be a Lowepro computrekker AW photo backpack 13.4 x 9.1 x 17.7 inches, 4.39 pounds empty
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications
with the 300 f/4 L IS, one body, 28-135 IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 20 mm f/2.8, 1.4 and 2x TCs. Plus a laptop in the computer slot.

A more serious expedition would be with the above but switch the 300 f/4 with a 300 f/2.8 and add a second body. That requires a significantly larger backpack. I use the Lowepro computrekker Plus AW backpack 14 x 8.5 x 19.8 inches, 6.06 pounds empty
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications

Next level is 500 mm f/4 and switch to Lowepro phototrekker AW backpack with a separate laptop bag.

If your travels include trudging through cities, how big a backpack or roller bag do you want to carry, balanced against desire for focal length and aperture?

Having said all this, I chose the 300 f/2.8 over the 400, but then I already had a 500 f/4 and wanted the wider aperture. I am very impressed at how sharp the 300 f/2.8 lens is, even over the 500 f/4.
</tt>

Although I have sent Jay a PM regarding this, I felt it was important to mention it to everyone who has contributed to this thread:

I had to go up to north Jersey for business yesterday and, quite by accident, ran into an old friend who happens to have a recent vintage 400 DO as well as a 40D like I do. After my business was concluded, I went over to his house and I filled a card full of images. After very careful study into the wee hours of this morning (losing sleep over this decision was never part of the option!), I've decided that my 300+2x is just sharper and crisper than the DO+1.4x, and that the 300+1.4x blows the DO away in terms of sharpness! Since I don't hike through the woods frequently, and I've already invested in a good tripod with gimbal head, I've realized that the weight difference isn't huge when it comes right down to it, and the thought of spending thousands of $$ for a lighter weight but softer lens vs. a heavier but much sharper lens just doesn't make any sense to me...

Chris

:)

It's hard to put your finger on what exactly the differences in the images are. As others mentioned, I always found the 300/2.8IS images to be more desirable to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Brennan

Although I have sent Jay a PM regarding this, I felt it was important to mention it to everyone who has contributed to this thread:

I had to go up to north Jersey for business yesterday and, quite by accident, ran into an old friend who happens to have a recent vintage 400 DO as well as a 40D like I do. After my business was concluded, I went over to his house and I filled a card full of images. After very careful study into the wee hours of this morning (losing sleep over this decision was never part of the option!), I've decided that my 300+2x is just sharper and crisper than the DO+1.4x, and that the 300+1.4x blows the DO away in terms of sharpness! Since I don't hike through the woods frequently, and I've already invested in a good tripod with gimbal head, I've realized that the weight difference isn't huge when it comes right down to it, and the thought of spending thousands of $$ for a lighter weight but softer lens vs. a heavier but much sharper lens just doesn't make any sense to me...

Chris

---

Other than the 400 f/2.8 (even better IQ, but a whole different can of worms ;)) the 300 f/2.8 is the de facto standard you will judge all others against.

Best,

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Other than the 400 f/2.8 (even better IQ, but a whole different can of worms ;)) the 300 f/2.8 is the de facto standard you will judge all others against.

Best,

Chas

---

Yes, that is clearly the case!

As the worm turns!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

<tt>In choosing a lens to travel around the world with,
consider total bulk and weight as well as desire for
focal length and image quality.

So, how big a backpack do you want to carry (or roller equivalent) and if traveling by air, can you fit in the carry-on weight limits?

I travel with various combinations, depending on objectives. Of course everyone has their own objectives and limits, so this is only my own.

A light trip would be a Lowepro computrekker AW photo backpack 13.4 x 9.1 x 17.7 inches, 4.39 pounds empty
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications
with the 300 f/4 L IS, one body, 28-135 IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 20 mm f/2.8, 1.4 and 2x TCs. Plus a laptop in the computer slot.

A more serious expedition would be with the above but switch the 300 f/4 with a 300 f/2.8 and add a second body. That requires a significantly larger backpack. I use the Lowepro computrekker Plus AW backpack 14 x 8.5 x 19.8 inches, 6.06 pounds empty
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications

Next level is 500 mm f/4 and switch to Lowepro phototrekker AW backpack with a separate laptop bag.

If your travels include trudging through cities, how big a backpack or roller bag do you want to carry, balanced against desire for focal length and aperture?

Having said all this, I chose the 300 f/2.8 over the 400, but then I already had a 500 f/4 and wanted the wider aperture. I am very impressed at how sharp the 300 f/2.8 lens is, even over the 500 f/4.
</tt>

---

Hi Roger,

All hard decisions made! 1D3, 300 f/2.8, 70 - 200 f/4 and the gear I already have. Since Chris and I have decided to go with the 300 f/2.8 to discuss backpacks would be a gross hijack - therefore I will use you post to start a new thread. Cheers, Jay

Jay you should take a picture of all the gear with spares !!! Will be fun packing !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Other than the 400 f/2.8 (even better IQ, but a whole different can of worms ;)) the 300 f/2.8 is the de facto standard you will judge all others against.

Best,

Chas

---

Good that you don't use Nikon. Otherwise, it will be their 200 f2 that is the de facto standard to judge all others against :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

Good that you don't use Nikon. Otherwise, it will be their 200 f2 that is the de facto standard to judge all others against :)

---

I had Nikon's 400 f/2.8 and it was one amazing piece of glass, as is the 200 f/2.

Chas

Quote:

---

I am not young; I am not old!!!! Age: 66.

---

Jay I am into my 60's as well and do not drive (M/Bike related injuries ) but surprisingly I own and ride 3 motorbikes two of which have panniers designed to carry my camera gear.

I always carry with me.

1 300 F/4 IS L, 1 135 f/2, 1 400 f/5.6 L (my favorite BIF lens by far) 1 70-200 f/4 non IS, 1X 1.4 Canon converter and 1 X 2times Kenko converter, 1 Manfrotto Monopod with Ball head, 1 Carbon fibre tripod (don’t ask the price)
<o></o>
2 X 1D MK III’s, 2 30D’s
<o></o>
Does it for me and it all fits nicely on two of my bikes, the third is a race bike which can only fit a point and shoot in my top pocket