[Albert Siegel]

Have any of you ever considered selling your super tele due to size and weight?

Would any of you ever sell a 300/2.8 in favor of a 300/4 strictly for size and weight?

With digital and high ISO as great as it is, do YOU really need a 2.8 over a 4 at all?

I do find there are times when 2.8 is considered a must, but that's not often enough and even then I question whether or not one could get away with just upping the ISO one stop. I never go beyond 1600 but 3200 on the K20 is really not all that bad in my opinion.

What say you? Not taking money into consideration, would you rather have only a 2.8 or 4? The 2.8 is one stop faster and better AF speed, but the 4 is much smaller and lighter plus weather sealed.

[summonbaka]

Well, even at iso 3200 the 2.8 will still be one stop faster. Also, a f/2.8 stopped to f/4 is usually sharper than a f/4 wide open.

It boils down to what is your application for it. If you need a lighter lens and wheather sealing the f/4 could be better choice.
But if you're looking for faster AF and brighter viewfinder the 2.8 might be a keeper, even taking weight into account. An appropiate backpack to carry it in might diminish the weight size problem a little.

That all is of course, just what i think. I'm not normally using telephoto so I don't know how much bigger the 2.8 is.

[creampuff]

Well I recently used a Canon 300mm f/2.8 setup for a sporting event and the f/2.8 definitely makes a telling difference. Practically speaking, going with an f/4 lens is gonna save you money, is easier to lug around and works just as well in most situations, but the larger aperture lens will have a better threshold for hand holding especially in falling light. Easier for the camera to lock focus too. BTW this lens is already stellar at f/2.8.
But it is a big and heavy setup (5kg) and I definitely needed the monopod.

[dadipentak]

What say you? Not taking money into consideration, would you rather have only a 2.8 or 4? The 2.8 is one stop faster and better AF speed, but the 4 is much smaller and lighter plus weather sealed.

I've got an A*400mm f2.8 and a DA*300mm f/4. If I were forced to choose, I'd end up keeping the DA*. Sure, there would be times I'd miss the speed and extra length but I value the mobility more. However, I've never shot with a 300mm f2.8: the difference may not be as marked.

[PePe]

There is definitely no universal answer to this.
People shoot in different conditions, and have different needs. I personally do a lot of wildlife shooting. Animals have an annoying habit of showing up when the light is anything but perfect. You very often come to the point where light - or rather lack of it - is the limiting factor. Going to higher ISO`s just pushes this limit a bit further, but you still hit the same limit. And even this comes at a cost in terms of IQ.
Therefore for this type of work there is no substitute for lens speed.
For different use the benefits of slower lenses may well outbalance speed.
But I do find it a major limitation that Pentax currently has no fast long glass to offer.

[Albert Siegel]

I've got an A*400mm f2.8 and a DA*300mm f/4. If I were forced to choose, I'd end up keeping the DA*. Sure, there would be times I'd miss the speed and extra length but I value the mobility more.

I feel the same way. I am starting to consider listing my 300/2.8 on the marketplace. While the 2.8 is nice to have, I have only used it at 2.8 for work a few times. All other times have been stopped down. I would have been better off with my DA* 300/4 as the lighter weight and lower PF would have been appreciated.

The FA* 300/2.8 is a fantastic lens, but I am just as happy with the DA* 300/4 when it comes to IQ. The lighter weight and weather sealing are a big plus for the DA, but then again the FA is 2.8 and has nicer bokeh in my opinion.

Another reason I may consider selling the FA is that I might move back to Tokyo and travel a bit through Asia. The FA would be too much trouble to take with me and I might be better off selling it before I make my move next year.

On the other hand, the FA I have may not look mint since I use it as a work tool, but the lens is perfect as far as optics and mechanics are concerned. No BF or FF, focus is fast, glass is perfect. It was maintained by Pentax and was owned by a Pentax sponsored photographer, so I know I have a great copy and wonder if I would be able to get another one as good if I ever decided I wanted one again.

Oh well.... I have time to decide. I still regret selling my FA limiteds last year. I might pick those up again after my move.

[Lowell Goudge]

I feel the same way. I am starting to consider listing my 300/2.8 on the marketplace. While the 2.8 is nice to have, I have only used it at 2.8 for work a few times. All other times have been stopped down. I would have been better off with my DA* 300/4 as the lighter weight and lower PF would have been appreciated.

The FA* 300/2.8 is a fantastic lens, but I am just as happy with the DA* 300/4 when it comes to IQ. The lighter weight and weather sealing are a big plus for the DA, but then again the FA is 2.8 and has nicer bokeh in my opinion.

Another reason I may consider selling the FA is that I might move back to Tokyo and travel a bit through Asia. The FA would be too much trouble to take with me and I might be better off selling it before I make my move next year.

On the other hand, the FA I have may not look mint since I use it as a work tool, but the lens is perfect as far as optics and mechanics are concerned. No BF or FF, focus is fast, glass is perfect. It was maintained by Pentax and was owned by a Pentax sponsored photographer, so I know I have a great copy and wonder if I would be able to get another one as good if I ever decided I wanted one again.

Oh well.... I have time to decide. I still regret selling my FA limiteds last year. I might pick those up again after my move.

I used to think that high ISO and AF would improve fast enough that I would not want an ultra fast super tele, I am still hoping, but also still watching and wishing for something in what I call the 100mm plus club by this I mean lenses with front elements bigger than 100mm.

I still find myself in too many situations at ISO1600 and wide open on my 300F4 although it is a good perfromer, the extra stop has to have some use, either in sharpness at F4, reduced ISO, increased shutter speed or a little of all of the benefits one gets

[Albert Siegel]

I still find myself in too many situations at ISO1600 and wide open on my 300F4 although it is a good perfromer, the extra stop has to have some use, either in sharpness at F4, reduced ISO, increased shutter speed or a little of all of the benefits one gets

That's one thing about the FA* 300/2.8 I have not noticed... I see very little difference from wide open and stopped down a bit. The FA is very impressive wide open and may get very slightly better stopped down, but not much and really not much better if at all than the DA* 300/4 in my opinion.

[dadipentak]

Oh well.... I have time to decide. I still regret selling my FA limiteds last year. I might pick those up again after my move.

I can understand your reluctance to part with the f2.8: note that I said if "I were forced to..." It's a "pry my cold, dead fingers" sort of thing ;~)

To my mind, one of the attractions of these fast, sharp lenses is that, with a good TC, you can trade some of the speed for length. I regularly use the a TC with the A*400mm (the DA* 300mm, too for that matter.)

I guess it should be said that the faster--but more cumbersome--lenses are certainly the ticket for consistent, very high-quality wildlife and sports photography.

[deadwolfbones]

For sporting events I tend to use my Sigma 100-300/4 paired with my D700, which gives great results in most lighting conditions. But I'm not really a heavy sports shooter.