Reading mode: Light Dark

Anybody have EF 300mm f/2.8L IS ???

Go to last post
W

Wynn Aker

Leading Member
Messages
732
Reaction score
0
Location
Long Island, NY, US
Does anybody have the f/2.8L lens in 300mm? I made the decision this weekend to buy a 300mm EF lens for the D10, as I was lucky enough to borrow an f/4L version from a friend. Since the purchase of this lens is an investment in the future for years to come, I'd like to be assured that the f/4 is "good enough."

But how good is "good enough?" Does anybody have the f/2.8L? If so, and you can set aside the obvious pride that goes along with a lens that has a $4k street price, was it worth the money? In retrospect, could you have lived with the f/4L?

And for those that have the 300mm f/4L, do you notice anything that makes you wish you had enough cash for the f/2.8L? Or are you like me, and always wish you could get the absolute best?

How much stock to put into the two respective MTF charts? Certainly if you look at it stricly from that standpoint, the f/4 charts are much worse than the f/2.8 charts, relatively speaking. Is it significant?

Lest anyone worry, I'm not a chart-analyzer for my purchases. I'm looking for some objective information to form a cost-benefit. Of course I'd like the biggest and bestest. But do I need to spend the incremental $3k, or not?

I appreciate any constructive comments.

Wynn
 
Wyn. I had both of these lenses. Let me say the 2.8L IS version is probably the sharpest or next to sharpest lens made by canon. The f4 is also an outstanding lens for the value but not quite as sharp as the former. Here are the issues. 1) Cost-- you mentioned this. 2) Size and weight-- the 2.8L IS version is much much heavier and not something you are going to be carrying around for long distances or hand holding too often.

The question you need to ask yourself is what are you going to be using the lens for? If you are shooting sports, night photography, or something that requires a shallow DOF, then this lens is unbeatable. If you want something you can walk around with and easily carry, the f4 is perfect.

I use my 600mm lens for wildlife and found that it replaced the need for my 300/2.8L IS. If i am going light and hiking, the 300/4 with a 1.4xTC is what i take with me.

Hope this helps. Mark
WynWynn Aker said:
Does anybody have the f/2.8L lens in 300mm? I made the decision
this weekend to buy a 300mm EF lens for the D10, as I was lucky
enough to borrow an f/4L version from a friend. Since the purchase
of this lens is an investment in the future for years to come, I'd
like to be assured that the f/4 is "good enough."

But how good is "good enough?" Does anybody have the f/2.8L? If
so, and you can set aside the obvious pride that goes along with a
lens that has a $4k street price, was it worth the money? In
retrospect, could you have lived with the f/4L?

And for those that have the 300mm f/4L, do you notice anything that
makes you wish you had enough cash for the f/2.8L? Or are you like
me, and always wish you could get the absolute best?

How much stock to put into the two respective MTF charts?
Certainly if you look at it stricly from that standpoint, the f/4
charts are much worse than the f/2.8 charts, relatively speaking.
Is it significant?

Lest anyone worry, I'm not a chart-analyzer for my purchases. I'm
looking for some objective information to form a cost-benefit. Of
course I'd like the biggest and bestest. But do I need to spend
the incremental $3k, or not?

I appreciate any constructive comments.

Wynn
Click to expand...
 
Wynn Aker said:
Does anybody have the f/2.8L lens in 300mm? I made the decision
this weekend to buy a 300mm EF lens for the D10, as I was lucky
enough to borrow an f/4L version from a friend. Since the purchase
of this lens is an investment in the future for years to come, I'd
like to be assured that the f/4 is "good enough."

But how good is "good enough?" Does anybody have the f/2.8L? If
so, and you can set aside the obvious pride that goes along with a
lens that has a $4k street price, was it worth the money? In
retrospect, could you have lived with the f/4L?

And for those that have the 300mm f/4L, do you notice anything that
makes you wish you had enough cash for the f/2.8L? Or are you like
me, and always wish you could get the absolute best?

How much stock to put into the two respective MTF charts?
Certainly if you look at it stricly from that standpoint, the f/4
charts are much worse than the f/2.8 charts, relatively speaking.
Is it significant?

Lest anyone worry, I'm not a chart-analyzer for my purchases. I'm
looking for some objective information to form a cost-benefit. Of
course I'd like the biggest and bestest. But do I need to spend
the incremental $3k, or not?

I appreciate any constructive comments.

Wynn
Click to expand...
Wynn, I do not own either lens but I can tell you what I know anyhow.

The 300 2.8 is Sharp!!! Very sharp...

Is F4 good enough? Depends on what your shooting... For myself, F4 is enough but the 300mm is not... (I require a minimum of 400mm for shooting birds)

I have heard nothing but good things about the 300 2.8 and I understand that it is shaper than the 300/f4.

Sorry I can not provide more info.. I have been doing research on these lenses for the last 3 months and have decided to get the 400/2.8 when I am ready.

Murphy
 
I've had the f4 (non IS) for some years. I find it quite heavy enough and always use it supported on a monopod. The f2.8 is much heavier - something which won't go away even if your bank account recovers quickly!

As regards MTF curves, the Canon MTF curves I believe, are theoretical, and don't take any sample variation into account. I frequently use the f4 on Canon's 1.4TC and found yesterday that this combo AFs very well on my 10D - like a sequence of 7 out of 7 sharp of a goose landing a short distance away from me. (The low noise high ISOs from the 10D make this much more feasible than pushing slide film.)

I'd love to try the 300 f2.8 L IS some time but that doesn't seem likely. I only ever see these lenses at exhibitions or in the windows of specialist London dealers.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
Home of concrete cows and artificial snow all the year round
 
When I was using the 300f/4L last Friday, I disabled the IS feature since I was on a tripod. It was disconcerting to have the image wander around on me while I was framing the picture. I'm sure that it has a benefit when handheld, though.

Notwithstanding the bank account implications, I just want to be totally satisfied that the investment will be worthwhile, if I decide to buy the lesser-priced f/4L IS model. Hard to think of a $1100 lens being "down scale," though!

Do you think that on a monopod that the added mass (over 5lbs!) would be a benefit to stabilizing the camera? I played around with my 70-200L on a monopod, and I found that it moved around more than I expected it to.

Also, what things do you find 300mm to NOT be enough zoom for? What do you photograph that you think: "I wish I had more reach!"? I'm not a bird photographer, so I'm not reaching into those lofty 400/500/600 ranges. I do, however, plan to also get the 1.4xII converter.

Thanks!
Wynn
Malcolm Stewart said:
I've had the f4 (non IS) for some years. I find it quite heavy
enough and always use it supported on a monopod. The f2.8 is much
heavier - something which won't go away even if your bank account
recovers quickly!

As regards MTF curves, the Canon MTF curves I believe, are
theoretical, and don't take any sample variation into account. I
frequently use the f4 on Canon's 1.4TC and found yesterday that
this combo AFs very well on my 10D - like a sequence of 7 out of 7
sharp of a goose landing a short distance away from me. (The low
noise high ISOs from the 10D make this much more feasible than
pushing slide film.)

I'd love to try the 300 f2.8 L IS some time but that doesn't seem
likely. I only ever see these lenses at exhibitions or in the
windows of specialist London dealers.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
Home of concrete cows and artificial snow all the year round
Click to expand...
 
That is the question you should be asking yourself. Once we know what your photographing we can better advise if 300mm is typically enough.

I think you'll find that most users will agree that the 300/2.8 is in a completely different class than the 300/4. I'm speaking image class, you're already aware of the size, weight and cost difference. :-)
Wynn Aker said:
Notwithstanding the bank account implications, I just want to be
totally satisfied that the investment will be worthwhile, if I
decide to buy the lesser-priced f/4L IS model. Hard to think of a
$1100 lens being "down scale," though!

Do you think that on a monopod that the added mass (over 5lbs!)
would be a benefit to stabilizing the camera? I played around with
my 70-200L on a monopod, and I found that it moved around more than
I expected it to.

Also, what things do you find 300mm to NOT be enough zoom for?
What do you photograph that you think: "I wish I had more reach!"?
I'm not a bird photographer, so I'm not reaching into those lofty
400/500/600 ranges. I do, however, plan to also get the 1.4xII
converter.

Thanks!
Wynn
Malcolm Stewart said:
I've had the f4 (non IS) for some years. I find it quite heavy
enough and always use it supported on a monopod. The f2.8 is much
heavier - something which won't go away even if your bank account
recovers quickly!

As regards MTF curves, the Canon MTF curves I believe, are
theoretical, and don't take any sample variation into account. I
frequently use the f4 on Canon's 1.4TC and found yesterday that
this combo AFs very well on my 10D - like a sequence of 7 out of 7
sharp of a goose landing a short distance away from me. (The low
noise high ISOs from the 10D make this much more feasible than
pushing slide film.)

I'd love to try the 300 f2.8 L IS some time but that doesn't seem
likely. I only ever see these lenses at exhibitions or in the
windows of specialist London dealers.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
Home of concrete cows and artificial snow all the year round
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Until yesterday I used my EF300 f4 L only with film, and it was a continual struggle in the UK's somewhat damp climate to balance fine grain & medium contrast versus sufficient speed for decent action stopping when shooting birds. I even began to question whether my sample of this lens was flawed (EOS3 used as a film body). Checks with it tripod mounted against a scaffolding type of target completely dispelled those fears. The lens/body combo was sharp.

(I agree about the IS sick making feature. I hardly use it on my 28-135 IS.)
Wynn Aker said:
Also, what things do you find 300mm to NOT be enough zoom for?
What do you photograph that you think: "I wish I had more reach!"?
I'm not a bird photographer, so I'm not reaching into those lofty
400/500/600 ranges. I do, however, plan to also get the 1.4xII
converter.

Thanks!
Wynn
Click to expand...
Small birds are almost impossible - very lucky to get a decent pic of a house sparrow yesterday. First time I've managed to get something other than a smudge. (You've guessed that I'm not into making bird hides.)

Yesterday I was using the 1.4TC & 300 f4, with great success. So I tried my old Sigma 500 f7.2 on my 10D this morning. Big disappointment. Yesterday I managed to get one handheld 500mm shot of neighbour's cat basking on my lawn. This morning I kept on getting the Err 99 message and the camera didn't record any images despite making suitable shutter / mirror noises! ... and the battery needs charging after only 10 exposure noises.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
Home of concrete cows and artificial snow all the year round
 
Great question, but not one I can totally, accurately answer yet. Reason being, I'm on the front-end of a developing photography start-up business. Right now, it's a part-time thing, and I'm doing team pictures and high school sporting events. I want to develop that into Prom, Graduation and other school-related photog activities. I do not have plans for in-home studio capability. "have lens, will travel." I have access to a small, light plane, and want to photog people's homes and property for them, and get $75 a pop for a picture.

I'm not a bird photographer. But in my "real" job, I travel the world a fair amount, and I want to be able to have whatever tools I may need, depending on the situation. I've carried my Minolta D7 to many countries, and it's just not up to the task. Even with the longest zoom (200mm effective), it can't reach out to some things I'd like to get ahold of. And the AF at 200mm on the D7? Forget it!

What drove me to DSLR in the first place was finding that even with 200mm effective in the D7, pictures of my children on the risers in the auditorium had 20 people in them, due to the field of view being so wide. The only real way to get fewer people in the picture (i.e., filling more of the image with only what I wanted) was to go DSLR, and some good lenses. So that's what I got.

So, to make a short story long, I really don't know where I'll be in 2, 3, or 5 years with photography, but I don't want to find out then that I wished I had gotten a different lens. Based on the one-night loan of the 300f/4, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it's "good enough," or not.

Also, I think people forget that in 5 years, my prediction is that all DSLRs will have full-frame sensors. At present, we're not seeing the edges of these giant telephotos on our pictures, because they're cropped off. When we're ALL shooting with full-frame sensors, we'll ALL start noticing more CA and other effects, when the resolution is sufficient to betray marginal telephoto lens performance at the outer edges. My 2 cents worth.

Wynn
John-G said:
That is the question you should be asking yourself. Once we know
what your photographing we can better advise if 300mm is typically
enough.

I think you'll find that most users will agree that the 300/2.8 is
in a completely different class than the 300/4. I'm speaking image
class, you're already aware of the size, weight and cost
difference. :-)
Click to expand...
 
Wynn Aker said:
I'm not a bird photographer. But in my "real" job, I travel the
world a fair amount, and I want to be able to have whatever tools I
may need, depending on the situation. I've carried my Minolta D7
to many countries, and it's just not up to the task. Even with the
longest zoom (200mm effective), it can't reach out to some things
I'd like to get ahold of. And the AF at 200mm on the D7? Forget
it!

What drove me to DSLR in the first place was finding that even with
200mm effective in the D7, pictures of my children on the risers in
the auditorium had 20 people in them, due to the field of view
being so wide. The only real way to get fewer people in the
picture (i.e., filling more of the image with only what I wanted)
was to go DSLR, and some good lenses. So that's what I got.

So, to make a short story long, I really don't know where I'll be
in 2, 3, or 5 years with photography, but I don't want to find out
then that I wished I had gotten a different lens. Based on the
one-night loan of the 300f/4, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know
if it's "good enough," or not.

Also, I think people forget that in 5 years, my prediction is that
all DSLRs will have full-frame sensors. At present, we're not
seeing the edges of these giant telephotos on our pictures, because
they're cropped off. When we're ALL shooting with full-frame
sensors, we'll ALL start noticing more CA and other effects, when
the resolution is sufficient to betray marginal telephoto lens
performance at the outer edges. My 2 cents worth.

Wynn
John-G said:
That is the question you should be asking yourself. Once we know
what your photographing we can better advise if 300mm is typically
enough.

I think you'll find that most users will agree that the 300/2.8 is
in a completely different class than the 300/4. I'm speaking image
class, you're already aware of the size, weight and cost
difference. :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I very much appreciate your response. It obviously comes from someone with direct experience and knowledge. Thank you.

I'm just continuing the "research," pulling from other contributors and their respective experiences. So far, yours is by far the greatest, though.
mark kay said:
Wynn Aker said:
I'm not a bird photographer. But in my "real" job, I travel the
world a fair amount, and I want to be able to have whatever tools I
may need, depending on the situation. I've carried my Minolta D7
to many countries, and it's just not up to the task. Even with the
longest zoom (200mm effective), it can't reach out to some things
I'd like to get ahold of. And the AF at 200mm on the D7? Forget
it!

What drove me to DSLR in the first place was finding that even with
200mm effective in the D7, pictures of my children on the risers in
the auditorium had 20 people in them, due to the field of view
being so wide. The only real way to get fewer people in the
picture (i.e., filling more of the image with only what I wanted)
was to go DSLR, and some good lenses. So that's what I got.

So, to make a short story long, I really don't know where I'll be
in 2, 3, or 5 years with photography, but I don't want to find out
then that I wished I had gotten a different lens. Based on the
one-night loan of the 300f/4, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know
if it's "good enough," or not.

Also, I think people forget that in 5 years, my prediction is that
all DSLRs will have full-frame sensors. At present, we're not
seeing the edges of these giant telephotos on our pictures, because
they're cropped off. When we're ALL shooting with full-frame
sensors, we'll ALL start noticing more CA and other effects, when
the resolution is sufficient to betray marginal telephoto lens
performance at the outer edges. My 2 cents worth.

Wynn
John-G said:
That is the question you should be asking yourself. Once we know
what your photographing we can better advise if 300mm is typically
enough.

I think you'll find that most users will agree that the 300/2.8 is
in a completely different class than the 300/4. I'm speaking image
class, you're already aware of the size, weight and cost
difference. :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
having the 100-400 IS, and the 10D....

My conclusions are simply that the 300 F4 is a fantastic lens. Especially with the IS feature. If you find yourself a little on the shy side on shutter speeds, simply bump up the ISO on the 10D. You'll find that the images are superb compared to the same rated film. Take the $3000 you save, and invest in additional lenses, bags, flashes, and flash cards.

My .02 worth.
 
I have used "lesser" 300 f/4 lenses, although not the present Canon IS model.

Now, I use the EF300 f2.8L IS. Make no mistake . . the 300/2.8 is a different animal entirely than a 300/4.

The 2.8 comes into its own when used with the EF1.4 teleconverter.
You still have extremely sharp images at 420mm magnification and a still

very usable f4. Very useful for in-flight bird photography without the distasteful need to go to high ISO film/settings. Results are excellent! Less so with the EF2X II TC, but still pretty fair.

Yes, it IS very sharp wide open. Only DOF considerations prevent the more frequent use of f2.8 with this lens. However, DOF problems can ruin an image as quickly as any other problem so one can not use it wide open as often as one would like. This somewhat negates the advantage of this lens's optical speed.

Yes, it is hand-holdable. Obviously for short periods of time.

It is FAR MORE a handful than the f4 lens! Guess we all know that.

Is it worth the much greater cost than the 300/4? Only you can decide that . . according to your ability to pay and your demand for excellence.

Most of the hummingbird images on my site were taken with this lens. I would not give it up and do not regret for an instant laying out the dollars for it.

I do not miss the 300m F4 Auto Nikkor I used until a few years ago.
--
Terry Danks
Nature & Wildlife (Hummingbirds!) Photography
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/n1dcmc78/home.htm
 
Wynn Aker said:
Great question, but not one I can totally, accurately answer yet.
Reason being, I'm on the front-end of a developing photography
start-up business. Right now, it's a part-time thing, and I'm
doing team pictures and high school sporting events. I want to
develop that into Prom, Graduation and other school-related photog
activities. I do not have plans for in-home studio capability.
"have lens, will travel." I have access to a small, light plane,
and want to photog people's homes and property for them, and get
$75 a pop for a picture.

I'm not a bird photographer. But in my "real" job, I travel the
world a fair amount, and I want to be able to have whatever tools I
may need, depending on the situation. I've carried my Minolta D7
to many countries, and it's just not up to the task. Even with the
longest zoom (200mm effective), it can't reach out to some things
I'd like to get ahold of. And the AF at 200mm on the D7? Forget
it!

What drove me to DSLR in the first place was finding that even with
200mm effective in the D7, pictures of my children on the risers in
the auditorium had 20 people in them, due to the field of view
being so wide. The only real way to get fewer people in the
picture (i.e., filling more of the image with only what I wanted)
was to go DSLR, and some good lenses. So that's what I got.

So, to make a short story long, I really don't know where I'll be
in 2, 3, or 5 years with photography, but I don't want to find out
then that I wished I had gotten a different lens. Based on the
one-night loan of the 300f/4, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know
if it's "good enough," or not.

Also, I think people forget that in 5 years, my prediction is that
all DSLRs will have full-frame sensors. At present, we're not
seeing the edges of these giant telephotos on our pictures, because
they're cropped off. When we're ALL shooting with full-frame
sensors, we'll ALL start noticing more CA and other effects, when
the resolution is sufficient to betray marginal telephoto lens
performance at the outer edges. My 2 cents worth.

Wynn
Click to expand...
A. You want focal length

B. You believe you'll be shooting FF in the future

Like Mark, I have (or had) both. I sold the f/4 & kept the f/2.8. (Non IS)

If you typically shoot off a monopod or tripod, it's a no brainer. The extra f-stop means you can have a fast 300mm, a 420mm f/4.0 or a 600mm f/5.6.

That's THREE focal lengths, ALL usable & AF in ONE lens. (+ TCs)

As Terry said, the f/2.8 is in a whole 'nother league vs. the f/4.0. Given the choice, I reach for my 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC before my 400mm f/2.8 85% of the time. Why?

It's easily as crisp as my 400mm f/2.8, even with the 1.4x. It's

I'll sell my 400mm f/2.8 before I'd consider selling 300mm f/2.8 ANY DAY. Have I regretted sell the 300mm f/4.0? Nope...
 
Somehow I feel like spending that much money, whatever you're buying should come with wheels, tires and at least 200hp.

Anyway, I bought the 300f2.8L. I suppose I was looking for some really positive reinforcement (read: excuse!) to buy the big boy, and a couple of you guys really convinced me. Yes, it's heavier, but I'm big enough and strong enough, so I don't think it'll be an issue.

I evaluated my usage profile, and decided that for my international travel, I'll leave the 300 at home and take the 70-200f2.8L and 1.4xII instead. But anywhere that doesn't require international travel, I'm taking the whole kit 'n kaboodle.

Thanks for the information and words of encouragement. I just hope to do it justice.

Wynn
 
It's like this... you never regret buying the best. Had you bought the f4 you would always be second guessing yourself and saying woulda, coulda, shoulda. Now you have no excuses. If the images aren't superb it's YOUR fault. heh heh

I hope someday to pickup the 300/2.8 myself.
Wynn Aker said:
Somehow I feel like spending that much money, whatever you're
buying should come with wheels, tires and at least 200hp.

Anyway, I bought the 300f2.8L. I suppose I was looking for some
really positive reinforcement (read: excuse!) to buy the big boy,
and a couple of you guys really convinced me. Yes, it's heavier,
but I'm big enough and strong enough, so I don't think it'll be an
issue.

I evaluated my usage profile, and decided that for my international
travel, I'll leave the 300 at home and take the 70-200f2.8L and
1.4xII instead. But anywhere that doesn't require international
travel, I'm taking the whole kit 'n kaboodle.

Thanks for the information and words of encouragement. I just hope
to do it justice.

Wynn
Click to expand...
 
As much as I like my "toyz" to be the best possible, this was still such a chunk of green that it made me sweat when I clicked the buttons. That e-shopping sure makes it easy to spend money!

I decided to take the approach that these lenses better last years and years, and the digital back will ultimately become the smallest portion of the overall investment, over time. I firmly believe that within 5 years, we'll only be buying full-frame sensors as the costs to manufacture continue to go down. When that happens, we'll all start seeing the edges of the lenses that we haven't seen before in our digital pictures. Since the MTF charts curve exponentially downward as you go out from the center, we're currently in the "near-linear" range of the charts. Won't be the case when we all are shooting full-frame, and the weaknesses will start to show.

So like I said, it's an investment in the future, and you're right: had I bought the lesser lens, I would always be questioning whether or not the lens or my brain caused a poor picture. No excuses now!

All the best,
Wynn
John-G said:
It's like this... you never regret buying the best. Had you bought
the f4 you would always be second guessing yourself and saying
woulda, coulda, shoulda. Now you have no excuses. If the images
aren't superb it's YOUR fault. heh heh

I hope someday to pickup the 300/2.8 myself.
Click to expand...
 
Carl Piesch said:
having the 100-400 IS, and the 10D....

My conclusions are simply that the 300 F4 is a fantastic lens.
Especially with the IS feature. If you find yourself a little on
the shy side on shutter speeds, simply bump up the ISO on the 10D.
You'll find that the images are superb compared to the same rated
film. Take the $3000 you save, and invest in additional lenses,
bags, flashes, and flash cards.

My .02 worth.
Click to expand...
I think the answer is obvious. If you don't mind being a tripod shooter and want the absolute best images, go for the 2.8. If however you don't want to be tied to a tripod and will settle for merely excellent images, go for the 4.0. I'm in the 4.0 camp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top