Quote:
Originally Posted by troypiggo
Ah, it was the 300 f/4 I was thinking of. Nice.
|
yeah, it's a good lens, although mine should go back to Canon for adjustment as it's not accurate on its AF imho. Never has been from the moment I got it. The IS is really clunky sounding and annoying too (this is the original IS 300mm f4 lens, not the mark II version, which I believe is better). Most times, I have IS turned off, not a fan of it. If the light is that bad that you need to resort to using IS, then you need to try again on a different day when conditions are better imho.
I very much like my 70-200 (non IS version), although I believe the Mark II IS version is sharper, especially when wide open.
Love my Sigma 150 - Canon 180mm 3.5 L performance at half the price. A good balance between the working distance of the 180mm and that of the 100mm. I'm too lazy to use a proper flash gun and diffuser etc, been there, done that, so my lighting with macro sucks these days. I mostly use the 60D with the onboard flash and no diffusion, but I'm rarely using the camera these days. Just laziness and a lack of motivation on my part, plus my garden is CRAP.
For birding, 300mm is simply too short a focal length. Yes, you can work with it, but it's not conducive to great results. Minimum lens is a 500mm f4 imho, preferably Canon's 800mm f5.6, which a lot of serious birders have moved to. Yes, you can make a 300mm work with patience and a hide, but I don't have the patience to sit in a hide for six hours to get a shot. Kudos to those that do, but I don't. My attention span is simply not capable of dealing with that! Like, ever.