[borno]

Those look good to me steve
I found a crop of a shot with my old FA*300 f2.8 stopped down to f5.6 with no additional sharpening applied, and I think anyone would agree it's soft. This was one of the best manually focused from a series of shots and it was as good as it got. They just wouldn't admit to it being off. (still ticks me off)

[dadipentak]

No processing beyond resizing and conversion to jpg.

Full size


100% crop

[rvannatta]

My FA*600/4 was soft with my K10D. No other lens was. I sent it in and got it adjusted but no effect. Strangely, when I upgraded to the K-7 the lens became sharp. I have no idea as to why the FA* lens was incompatibe with my K10D. With any other lens there was no difference between the K10D and the K-7 in terms of lens performance.

Precisely, and when you get to the 600 f/4 which I also own, it becomes a question of 'which eye'. don't get me wrong the big glass
and big light gathering abilitly has it's place, but flooding the world with f/2.8 photos isn't it. One must continue to make
the trade offs between f stops, ISO, and shutter speed.

the other thing that is totally under estimated on these long lenses (profoundly with extenders) is the impact of camera shake.
last spring I spent some time exploring camera shake, and found that if you put on the converters, shake was going to be the
issue even with mirror lock up and a remote release. ---- I could see the difference between the camera set on a tripod
(a very good heavy duty Bogen), and a bean bag support. with stacked converter/extenders.

while it is true that the 300/2.8 can be hand held in a pinch, if one wants to evaluate the optics as compared to one's ability
not to shake, securely bolted to a block of concrete is the the way to go.

[borno]

Here's one (canon) wide open with a 2x converter about 40% crop hand held. (I hate tripods)

[pacerr]

. . . shake was going to be the issue even with mirror lock up and a remote release. I could see the difference between the camera set on a tripod (...) and a bean bag support.

That's my experience as well. I have much better and more consistent results with a vibration damping support (a soft bean bag or some sort of high-viscosity liquid "pillow") than any tripod or hard surface support.

"(I hate tripods)" , too.

I value a tripod only when I need the ability to work hands-free away from the camera and prefer bi-pods (modified tripods) for their lighter weight, convenience and mobility when such support is needed.

If you haven't tried a bi-pod, find a reasonably tall and sturdy but cheap aluminum tripod, remove one leg and connect the remaining two legs with a cord or light chain. Using the camera strap as a tether you can even work mostly hands-free using the bi-pod mode. In most situations the bi-pod's as steady as all but the heaviest tripod and a lot more portable.

Closed, the legs become a sturdy mono-pod. Sometimes with a little persuasion the reduced 'footprint' of the bi-pod even passes in places that don't allow tripods because they obstruct traffic. (Yes sir, but this is a mono-pod. See?)

A MagMount Pro ball head (or even a simple unattached V-support) makes disconnecting and collapsing the bipod very easy when on the move and the camera remains on the strap for security.

H2

[Stickl]

Why? The reason you see very few images at 2.8 is that the DOF is too shallow to be much useful. Most of the time people want all of the subject in focus. Not just the eyes....

Yeah, maybe you know that I'm living in Finland and there is not much of light.. so I need to know how does it works with 2.8 aperture and see if it's useful for me. Now I have an DA 55-300, and yeah, I'm not able to take photos I like and want to. For example in winter I'd like to photograph an bird in moonlight so.. and now, eventhough I have an K-5, it's hard to photograph after sunset.

I dont mind any kind of DOF, it's the big aperture what I need and you can always photograph with the way like 100 feet.

And latest I'd like to tell you that I'm not photographer who is going with all of rules which the photographing has..

[dadipentak]

in winter I'd like to photograph an bird in moonlight

Now that would be quite a feat and I'd certainly like to see that photo!

[Pål Jensen]

Here's a canon 300mm at f2.8 from the other day

The lens has a bokeh indistinguishable from a mirror lens....

[Pål Jensen]

Yeah, maybe you know that I'm living in Finland and there is not much of light.. so I need to know how does it works with 2.8 aperture and see if it's useful for me. Now I have an DA 55-300, and yeah, I'm not able to take photos I like and want to. For example in winter I'd like to photograph an bird in moonlight so.. and now, eventhough I have an K-5, it's hard to photograph after sunset.

With todays high ISO performance you're much better off with a 300/4. They weight and cost much less and will be with you and not stay at home. The heavy lenses novelty have a strong tendency to wear off fast. Thats why they change owners so often.
There's only one stop difference bwteen a 300/2.8 and a 300/4. It comes at a horrific cost and weigth penalty- 300/2.8 lenses were popular at the time when fine photography was done at 100ISO max. They were also frequently used with converters. Now the APS sensor itself is the converter practically speaking...

[borno]

The lens has a bokeh indistinguishable from a mirror lens....

Yes they look like bubbles because they are bubbles

[Stickl]

Now that would be quite a feat and I'd certainly like to see that photo!

I'm sure you'll see it! If I only be able to take it so than I'd like to.

The lens has a bokeh indistinguishable from a mirror lens....

Doesn't hear nice..

With todays high ISO performance you're much better off with a 300/4. They weight and cost much less and will be with you and not stay at home. The heavy lenses novelty have a strong tendency to wear off fast. Thats why they change owners so often.
There's only one stop difference bwteen a 300/2.8 and a 300/4. It comes at a horrific cost and weigth penalty- 300/2.8 lenses were popular at the time when fine photography was done at 100ISO max. They were also frequently used with converters. Now the APS sensor itself is the converter practically speaking...

Maybe yes..
Yeah I know, but.. dunno. have to think this thing again.. so thanks you for your opinion!

[borno]

Here is one I really liked at f2.8

[Stickl]

^yeah, just perfect DOF.

I'd like to know if your photo was taken by canon/pentax 300/2.8?

[tabl10s]

Here is one I really liked at f2.8

Nice. Going on my desktop.

[borno]

Nice. Going on my desktop.

Thanks for the props Howard