Is anyone shooting smaller birds with this lens? If so, I'd love to see some of your shots.

Thanks!

The pics on the link weren't taken with this camera (I don't think so, anyway). It does give intro information for it and and the matching lens though.

Canon does it all for wildlife photographers, and at a mere 28K.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/

Believe me, I love being tempted. But to answer your correct observation, I think it might be more honest to say that I "wasn't happy" with it for the wrong reasons. Unrealistic expectations, which I understand better now. A 300 with a 1.4x isn't going to give me any more reach than my 100-400 so it's not going to solve any real world problems. Ergo, my first move is to get a 1.4 extender for my 100-400. I'll be able to use the 1.4 with other lenses in any case, so nothing is lost and I'll practice more with my monopod and tripod (just ordered a new Gitzo too). And then we'll see how it goes from there. P.S. Did the price of the 300 2.8 IS II just go up on B&H? I thought I remembered a price in the upper 6K range. Now it's over 7. Maybe I'm just confused.

Oh, you're making life difficult !! I agree with you, a tripod is very limiting. I would love to justify grabbing the 300 IS II. I can't even find a Canon 300 w/o ANY IS like yours. Yours doesn't have IS at all?? I don't trust myself to go without any IS. The older IS model is tempting at half the price. I wonder what it weighs. You say yours is very versatile and manageable but it might be substantially lighter than the older IS model. Anyway, since I have the 100-400 anyway, it makes sense to keep working with it another year and see how I feel. Even with a 300 of some incarnation, I'd still want the 500 F4 eventually. They're not redundant.

You might be thinking of the old 500. Specs on the new one show 7.03lbs., i.e., 7.

Thanks. I'm extremely attracted to the 300. But I already have the even lighter 100-400 for a grab and go. The 500 may be the better compliment when I want more reach. Not bad at 7 pounds.

Thanks for your supportive comments, and great testament for the 100-400. Arthur Morris introduces it in his Lenses for Nature lecture at B&H as the "Much Maligned 100-400." But he's a fan of it. Nice cycling shot too.

THUNK! This is the sound of a basic photographic building block finally slipping into place in my brain. How many times have you guys said "fill your frame with a subject in good light"? How many times have I read about the advantages of a crop sensor for wildlife (especially birds) and scratched my head? Finally these two ideas managed to collide in my grey cells. Birds are smaller than buffalo. Easier to fill a crop sensor than a FF sensor. So I postpone a FF in good conscience, and feel really good about my 7D to boot. Someone should write a required reading article for beginners entitled, "Why you want to fill your frame." I think a lot of us newbies believe that digital magic will take care of everything for us. It obscures so much.

Now, the next step in "filling your frame": choosing a lens. Arthur Morris says that "slower and longer is better than faster and shorter." It can't get simpler than that on the surface. The next questions are personal: how much weight do I want to carry on a regular basis? Is the weight difference between the new 300 2.8 and the new 500 F4 a deal breaker? So I go somewhere and pick them up. Duh. How much money do I feel comfortable spending? Am I willing to rent occasionally, and if so, which lens would I rather own. This is the hallmark of learning. Questions being replaced with questions, but better questions.

Thank you guys!

(Damn, my oatmeal is cold.)

Thanks. It's really a subjective issue (as I intended to convey in my OP). It's true, I haven't felt comfortable with it personally, or felt that it delivered consistently good results for me. However, it does occasionally deliver very good results so I don't think it's the lens per se. It's sharp when I'm sharp. Now that I've had the benefit of all this great input and perspective (and considered weighty and expensive alternatives), I'm more inclined to keep exploring with it for now. I'm actually thinking I should stick with it until I'm ready to make a commitment to using a tripod and/or monopod. The lens doesn't exist that does what I want it to do at this point. I've now learned this! As you probably know, Arthur Morris and his wife loved the lens esp. for BIF, except he stated it was inclined to needing frequent repair. He was encouraging about bringing it to Bosque with my 7D though. It would be kind've cool to have him help me with the lens. Still lusting after the Mark III which I could pair with the 16-35 for the trip without flirting with financial disaster. And then build gradually.

Dude! What body are you shooting with, if you don't mind my asking? I scanned your earlier emails but didn't see it mentioned. Nice shot! Maybe my new song should be "Me and My Tripod." Thanks for posting.

I haven't done a focus calibration. Gotten enough satisfactory pics that I didn't think it was necessary. I went to the Juliom/300mm site. The comparisons are closer than I imagined, but I thought the contrast for the 300 was better then either the 100-400 or the 400 DO. There's a "good deal" on a DO at the moment but I have it in my head that the lens produces flat pictures, though correctable in PP they say.

I do, though.

So, which choice would have made this picture more successful? Whether you're using a crop sensor or a full-frame sensor, all else being equal, the subject would be the same size with more or less "surround." And if the priority is maximum enhancement of a relatively small central subject, it seems to me that having a more highly resolved original would provide greater potential for enhancement of the subject. That being done, the degree of cropping the photo is a secondary, aesthetic consideration. My priority seems to be more focused on documenting a subject, not producing an aesthetically stunning photograph.

Original

(Download)

Crop

Yes, thanks. My eyes are opened. I'll be happy with B&H. Just not the sales tax.