Thanks - I was really pleased with it.
You're quite right about the price difference. Professionals tend to rent lenses, too, unless they use them all the time. I"ve done it in the USA, where it's easier, but it's not really a cheap option long term.
I've had that lens for about 18 years now, and it's still in Canon's range, I think, which must say something about the design. f/4 makes the field just shallow enough for me. As I said, I have a set of neutral density ("ND") filters for the front, but I have no idea about what you might do for the f/2.8 version - the front element is huge and the filter would be very expensive. Also, the f4 just about fits in my camera bag, which the 2.8 never would (people leave them on monopods and carry them about over the shoulder!). After a day of lugging about, I know I've got it with me(!), but it's still do-able.
You're right about the feather detail - the full-size is pretty crisp. It's one of the advantages of shooting raw images*: if I did overexpose (and I do, often!), chances are some detail can be recovered, but there's nothing that can be done for the jpeg version. My software (Corel AfterShot and/or one of the free Linux tools) will find detail in the least over-exposed colour, and convert that to greyscale detail. You don't notice the de-saturation close to 100% white. It works really well, and is especially handy for clouds and flesh tones (good with caucasian foreheads!). I'm sure Photoshop has something similar, but I don't use it.
I"m being a bit mean about not using the 300 for small wildlife though. it's no good at a distance, but can do some acceptable close-ups. The min focus is about 4ft, which is just about OK.
This below was taken using my old 30D body, which is (a) an APS-C sized sensor, and (b) horribly noisy:
- Dragonfly, Zion national park, UT (copyright SDM 2013)
- (402.18 KiB)
It's the same 300, but used at f/8 and as close to the insect as I dared get (they spot movement with the compound eye, so you have to be good at grandmother's footsteps...). There's barely enough depth of field in this case (deep shade by a waterfall pool in a canyon), but stopping down further would've risked blurring because of camera shake.
It's still an interesting photo, as we were there with our then-future son-in-law, who's a professional and had a 5D mkII (full frame). We shared lenses and a lot of the subject matter of the trip. Simon's photo of the same insect has a lot more detail than mine, and was one reason I finally swallowed hard and bought the 6D. I don't regret it, except for the much bigger body size, which is frankly a PITA.
E.
*I usually do both raw and jpeg in the camera automatically, as having something instantly viewable is helpful.