Originally posted by Marc Langille Regarding the 300/2.8 usability: it is definitely
not a loss! The viewfinder brightness is amazing, as is the low-light capabilities. [...] Depends on your needs and/or requirements...
[...] I too believe that portability is the sacrifice you make if you do a lot of travel and are not equipped or prepared to carry a larger amount of equipment. Obviously it's not a light travel lens compared to the smaller aperture 300's.
I do understand, Marc. Every telephoto lens is a compromise, I guess - a fast, long lens will be large and heavy, while a compact, light, long lens is gonna be slower. However, the best lens for the job is not the one that got left at home (again), but is the lens that's with you when you're ready to shoot - <g>.
Originally posted by Marc Langille I've seen it done - shooting the FA* 250-600/5.6 hand held...
Only for 3-4 shots of course - you need some strength to hold an 11 pound lens steady!
"Been there, done that..." (more or less). I used to have a gorgeous A* 600/5.6, and I even used it hand held on rare occasion (back in FF film days, and in very bright light only). But, most of the time it got left at home (along with the tripod, which also often got left home).
I eventually replaced the 600/5.6 with an A* 300/2.8 (comparatively "smaller"), which, with an A 2X-L TC, gave me a "more practical" (even though somewhat less sharp) 600/5.6. But, it was ~still~ a bit big to carry most of the time.
But, the F* 300/4.5 is small enough and fast enough (and certainly sharp enough) for ~most~ situations (even if not bright enough for ~all~ conditions). And, the bottom line is that an F* 300/4.5 (or, at an earlier time, an A* 300/4) can go with me ~most~ of the time.
In a sense, because of its excellent optical and mechanical qualities, but also because it is not overly large (or overly fast), an F*/FA* 300/4.5, compared to one of the 300/2.8's is sort of a "Limited" long telephoto lens...