Moderately better image and other benefits

I decided it was time to upgrade my field sports lenses. Someone wanted to sell me a used 400mm f2.8 but I didn't have much use for it. 400mm is awkward to use for volleyball and pretty much impossible to use in basketball, so I decided to upgrade my heavily used 300mm f2.8 to the Mark II version. It looked like it would have better resolution so it would work better with a 1.4X teleconverter. If you want to know about that, just skip to the photos below.

It's noticeably lighter. That surprised me since the specs aren't that much different. This will be nice because I pick up and put down my 300mm lens about thirty times in every basketball game. The switches for AF and AF distance are now near the lens mount, apparently to make them less likely to be changed in transport. You would be amazed at how many photographers have gaffer's tape over these switches. The bumpy saved-focus ring feels like it moves a little easier but it's still a ring and I still hate using it. Why isn't this function on a button? The tripod mount is thicker. I've never heard of the old ones breaking but thanks anyway.

The case is larger than the previous one. It has feet on the side so it can sit vertically and it has tabs for a carrying strap (included). It also comes with a very comfortable and padded strap for the lens, but the strap doesn't have any disconnect clips so there's no way to quickly take it off. Thanks, Canon, but there's no way I'm putting a strap on a lens that I can't take off quickly.

The lens cap is a great improvement. Instead of the sack-like leather thing that you tie onto the end of the lens, you now have a slip cover much like the one you get from LensCoat, except it has a Velcro strap that locks around the tightening knob on the lens hood so it definitely will not fall off. It's so much simpler than the old one.

The AF motor is much less noticeable. The motor in the old lens would give a slight torque movement but I feel almost nothing when this one focuses.

OK, here's a comparison of the old 300mm and the new 300mm, both with the 1.4X Mark III teleconverter and shot wide open. I even dusted off the old 1D Mark IV to make it fair.

First, the old lens:

And the new lens.

Of course it's not a perfect comparison because of the subject distance, but it does show that it's better yet far from perfectly sharp. Oh well, you can't expect it to look like a real 420mm f4 lens, right?

Hi, interesting feedback of course, just waiting for an used 300 2.8 II myself to substitute my 400 2.8 IS vI which is just too heavy for me to carry around, my back is clearly giving me signals that it is time to part with it (begrudgingly of course, as it's still super sharp).

So of course curious how this lens would fare against it at "equivalent FL". Yeah your shots with the TC aren't super-duper sharp, but they are wide open, have you tried to stop down to F5.6 with the TC on? My experience with the 2X is that with one stop down it's really night a day vs wide open, much sharper and contrastier (which another thing that seems to lack a bit in your shots).

Also if you want to shoot wide open and don't mind the resolution loss, try to use the bare lens and crop to 1.4x magnification, I suspect the vs using the TC wide open you will anyway get better results

That was my last field sports game for a while so I'll to try stopping down some other time, although if I want to shoot f5.6 then that would give me other more inexpensive options.

For the sake of fairness, here's the same combo with the 1DX Mark III. It looks better which makes me wonder if the antialiasing filter on the 1D Mark IV might be adding the softness.

1Dx4me wrote:

i don't understand why would you give it 4 star, based on what? this lens take tc 1.4 mk3/2.0x mk3 without noticeable degradation in IQ.

No noticeable degradation? Please read my review and view the attached images.

If you think that's perfectly sharp then great.

1Dx4me wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

If you think that's perfectly sharp then great.

focus is only on the head. foliage was covering the body!

I know you really love exclamation points, but that doesn't change that the image is close up of an animal that doesn't have a lot of fine detail. When I look at the finer fur like around its paws then I can see how soft the image is because it doesn't have the resolution to resolve those details. This is exactly what I'm seeing in my images.

Paws are softer because they are already out of the optimal focus plane, like the nose.

Look at the fur right under the ear zone and you will see that is quite sharp and detailed (even if some sharpening I guess was applied in post). To me for a 2X TC shot wide open it looks plenty good (but I guess it was quite a close-up shot, which is the optimal distance to see the less detail degradation when using a TC).

Scott Larson wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

i don't understand why would you give it 4 star, based on what? this lens take tc 1.4 mk3/2.0x mk3 without noticeable degradation in IQ.

No noticeable degradation? Please read my review and view the attached images.

Are sports/action subjects a good way to compare lenses for sharpness ?

I think a standard test pattern with the camera on a tripod and carefully focussed would tell us more about the relative sharpness.

Peter

Messier Object wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

i don't understand why would you give it 4 star, based on what? this lens take tc 1.4 mk3/2.0x mk3 without noticeable degradation in IQ.

No noticeable degradation? Please read my review and view the attached images.

Are sports/action subjects a good way to compare lenses for sharpness ?

If you want to shoot sharp sports photos then yes, they are the best way to compare lenses for sharpness.

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Paws are softer because they are already out of the optimal focus plane, like the nose.

The nose looks pretty sharp to me.

Look at the fur right under the ear zone and you will see that is quite sharp and detailed (even if some sharpening I guess was applied in post).

The fur around the ear is coarse so it needs less resolution so naturally it looks sharp. This is true of the entire body.

But if you're right and we're looking at a poorly focused image then it's hard to draw any conclusions from it. The photos I posted are in focus.

Scott Larson wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

i don't understand why would you give it 4 star, based on what? this lens take tc 1.4 mk3/2.0x mk3 without noticeable degradation in IQ.

No noticeable degradation? Please read my review and view the attached images.

Are sports/action subjects a good way to compare lenses for sharpness ?

If you want to shoot sharp sports photos then yes, they are the best way to compare lenses for sharpness.

That makes no sense. Your action shots are subject to motion blur, focus accuracy and depth of focus.

If you’re discussing the inherent sharpness and distortion of  a lens then you should really be looking at images of a 2D test target set up orthogonally to the optical axis.

Or you can take multiple pics of the SAME static 3D target - multiple shots to ensure you nail the focus

Do the proper repeatable testing and then you can talk about lens sharpness. Otherwise it’s just the shot you took versus the shot he took  - player on a football field   versus  a squirrel in a tree.

Peter

For football and soccer I would have gone with the 400/2.8. For indoor sports I would have gone xx-200 f2.8 or even f4 with possibility of adding 1.4x.  The shorter zoom with 1.4x would also come in handy on the field.

I have used both f2.8 and f4 zooms and 300's, as well as 400/2.8, indoors and outdoors.

Messier Object wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

i don't understand why would you give it 4 star, based on what? this lens take tc 1.4 mk3/2.0x mk3 without noticeable degradation in IQ.

No noticeable degradation? Please read my review and view the attached images.

Are sports/action subjects a good way to compare lenses for sharpness ?

If you want to shoot sharp sports photos then yes, they are the best way to compare lenses for sharpness.

That makes no sense. Your action shots are subject to motion blur, focus accuracy and depth of focus.

And that is why I posted the images that were sharpest, and there's clearly no motion blur in the photos I posted.

John Crowe wrote:

For football and soccer I would have gone with the 400/2.8.

I saw no reason to have an expensive 400mm lens sitting around doing nothing for ten months of the year.

For indoor sports I would have gone xx-200 f2.8 or even f4 with possibility of adding 1.4x. The shorter zoom with 1.4x would also come in handy on the field.

I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 Mark II (it's in my gear list) and I use it with a 1.4X teleconverter.

I also have three or four other lenses I use for indoor sports.

Fair enough.  I did love my much less expensive 400/2.8 for 14 years so I did not mind only using it for 2 months of the year.  It certainly is not a lens you pull out for the heck of it.

I have noticed a lot of conversation about sharpness.  For the record 400/2.8 lenses are much sharper than 300/2.8 but they are also much heavier and much more expensive and as you say much more limited use.

When you can, I have found it is worthwhile to stop the lens down one additional stop when using teleconverters, even if it means nudging up the ISO by one stop.  You essentially get the lens back to its bare sharpness while losing a bit in ISO.  When doing so the 300/2.8 becomes a 420/5.6 or 600/8 depending on teleconverter.  Even without teleconverters I try to stop down one stop if I can shoot at the same ISO, since these supertelephotos do get even sharper when closed a bit.

While the ultimate test on how useful a lens is, is in actual use and seeing real world comparable results, the best way to test for sharpness is of static subjects under good light and from a tripod with confirmed manual focus.  I always test first and then look for improved results in real use.

I am sure you will enjoy putting the newer 300/2.8 to good use!