Canon EOS R7 performance with EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version)

Le Kilt,

Thanks for posting.

The EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version) was introduced in 1987 (!), and lacks improvements to AF speed found in the latest versions, with the result that such older lenses will not focus with the same agility as the newer lenses. Also, I hear that the frame rate with old lenses is reduced over what the R7 can achieve with current lenses. I would like to know if my old lens will be viable in terms of fast performance for bird photography and sports.

Tippler

I’m not sure if you mean the non-IS version or the original IS version but I have tried the original IS version on the R7 and I get the full 15fps with EFCS.  With ES I can only get 15fps, no luck with 30fps.  The IS works when you first turn the camera on but when if goes to sleep and wakes back up the IS doesn’t come back on unless I physically turn the IS switch on the lens off then back on which is very annoying.  The AF area is also limited to something like 80% which is still quite usable, probably better than any DSLR.

Le Kilt wrote:

Not at all the same lens, but I've just tried the R7 with the EF 100-400 L II.

It is fabulous. Very fast AF, everything just locks on and tracks. The AF seems faster and better than with 5D IV or 90D. Even with a 1.4x extender AF is good and fast.
So with your 300mm f/2.8 it should be fine. Or better than fine.

I wouldn't hesitate.

Yes newer lenses like the EF 100-400 mk2 work without any limitations.  It’s the previous generation and older that have the limitations.

BirdShooter7

Thanks for posting.

It is known that the old lenses have limitations. I’m hoping someone has experience with the old big white lenses on an R7 and can share their experience.

Tippler

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I’m not sure if you mean the non-IS version or the original IS version but I have tried the original IS version on the R7 and I get the full 15fps with EFCS. With ES I can only get 15fps, no luck with 30fps. The IS works when you first turn the camera on but when if goes to sleep and wakes back up the IS doesn’t come back on unless I physically turn the IS switch on the lens off then back on which is very annoying. The AF area is also limited to something like 80% which is still quite usable, probably better than any DSLR.

The EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version) predates the IS version. It is my understanding (which may not be correct) is that this early lens was from an era of lesser technology, including simpler algorithms due to lesser processing power.  The lens then does not support upgraded features of later cameras, including improved focusing speed.

Tippler

Tippler wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I’m not sure if you mean the non-IS version or the original IS version but I have tried the original IS version on the R7 and I get the full 15fps with EFCS. With ES I can only get 15fps, no luck with 30fps. The IS works when you first turn the camera on but when if goes to sleep and wakes back up the IS doesn’t come back on unless I physically turn the IS switch on the lens off then back on which is very annoying. The AF area is also limited to something like 80% which is still quite usable, probably better than any DSLR.

The EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version) predates the IS version. It is my understanding (which may not be correct) is that this early lens was from an era of lesser technology, including simpler algorithms due to lesser processing power. The lens then does not support upgraded features of later cameras, including improved focusing speed.

Tippler

Yes, the non-IS version is focus-by-wire and not as fast focusing as the later IS version that if I recall correctly came out in 1999. Unfortunately I don’t have any firsthand experience with the non-IS lens on any R camera. There is a recent thread on the EF lens forum about the EF 500mm f/4.5L USM that uses the same tech as the EF 300mm f/2.8L USM that might be of interest.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66740730

Tippler wrote:

I am considering purchasing an R7 for use with the EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version) and I am wondering how it will function in terms of focusing speed and frame rate for use in bird and sports photography.

• What is your experience with the EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version), EF 400 f2.8 (1st version) or similar vintage big white lens? Would such a rig work reasonably well for the stated use?
• What can be said about focusing accuracy and speed?
• Will subject detection work?
• Is the frame rate reduced? Can you compare the frame rate of mechanical vs. electronic shutter?
• Is focus tracking of birds in flight possible?
• What is the performance with a 2X extender?

I’d love to find good use for this big ‘ol lens. It still takes great pictures.

Your input would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Tippler

I have the original IS version with the R7.  I haven't done long testing with it, but can say that I like the AF and speed better on my 5D MKIV.

Trying the EF 2x (v1) with the 300mm f2.8 was not great IMO, with AF and speed.

Subject detection and tracking was OK, but my RF 100-400mm and RF 600mm may have been better.

Haven't had an opportunity for BIF with winter cold weather here.

PhotosFlight wrote:

I have the IS version and use it on an R7 and an R6. So, not the same version but the lens performs extraordinarily well. If I recall correctly the frame rate is reduced a bit on the R6

Yes, when I tested mine on the R5 and R6 I got 6.7fps max for MS and EFCS but the full 20fps for ES

but surprisingly I think I get the full frame rate on the R7.

That was my finding as well, 15fps with MS and EFCS and 15fps for ES, not 30fps.

On either camera I get the full frame rate in electronic shutter mode but that doesn't really help for sports photography in most situations.

The IBIS works well on the two lenses I have that don't have built in IS.

The 1.4 TC works reasonably well. The 2.0 is just OK.

I use this lens for sports swapping it back and forth between the R6, and the R7 when I need extra reach. It is fantastic. No regrets.

I got it over a 400 2.8 because I can easily handhold it and even use it indoors for sports like basketball.

John crowe:

Thank you for taking time for a detailed answer. It addresses my concerns over the use of the EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version). I also found a YouTube video that notes the performance of a similar vintage lens to the one in question (an EF 400mm f5.6) on the R7, as well as other lenses one might use for bird photography. In this video by YouTuber Duade Paton, various lenses are evaluated on the R7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv3TxfZTttE

Useful point from the video related to the EF 400mm f5.6

• 100% focus coverage over entire APS-C frame
• The eye tracking works
• Body IS alone is insufficient for shake free photos
• AF works with extenders

Tippler

Steve,

Thank you for your input. What is becoming clear is that the EF 30mm f2.8 (first version), while usable, will have somewhat degraded performance over recent lenses. This means that this old lens may not be totally obsolete.

Tippler

BirdShooter7 wrote:

PhotosFlight wrote:

I have the IS version and use it on an R7 and an R6. So, not the same version but the lens performs extraordinarily well. If I recall correctly the frame rate is reduced a bit on the R6

Yes, when I tested mine on the R5 and R6 I got 6.7fps max for MS and EFCS but the full 20fps for ES

but surprisingly I think I get the full frame rate on the R7.

That was my finding as well, 15fps with MS and EFCS and 15fps for ES, not 30fps.

On either camera I get the full frame rate in electronic shutter mode but that doesn't really help for sports photography in most situations.

The IBIS works well on the two lenses I have that don't have built in IS.

The 1.4 TC works reasonably well. The 2.0 is just OK.

I use this lens for sports swapping it back and forth between the R6, and the R7 when I need extra reach. It is fantastic. No regrets.

I got it over a 400 2.8 because I can easily handhold it and even use it indoors for sports like basketball.

I'm a bit of a luddite, still using cameras with much lower frame rates, so  It's amazing to me  that current amateur level cameras can achieve such high frame rates with eye tracking AF.

Tippler wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

PhotosFlight wrote:

I have the IS version and use it on an R7 and an R6. So, not the same version but the lens performs extraordinarily well. If I recall correctly the frame rate is reduced a bit on the R6

Yes, when I tested mine on the R5 and R6 I got 6.7fps max for MS and EFCS but the full 20fps for ES

but surprisingly I think I get the full frame rate on the R7.

That was my finding as well, 15fps with MS and EFCS and 15fps for ES, not 30fps.

On either camera I get the full frame rate in electronic shutter mode but that doesn't really help for sports photography in most situations.

The IBIS works well on the two lenses I have that don't have built in IS.

The 1.4 TC works reasonably well. The 2.0 is just OK.

I use this lens for sports swapping it back and forth between the R6, and the R7 when I need extra reach. It is fantastic. No regrets.

I got it over a 400 2.8 because I can easily handhold it and even use it indoors for sports like basketball.

I'm a bit of a luddite, still using cameras with much lower frame rates, so It's amazing to me that current amateur level cameras can achieve such high frame rates with eye tracking AF.

I agree, it’s pretty amazing for me too

I have an original, non IS, EF 300mm F/2.8L and have used it on an R6, R5 and R3's. Most of my use is on R3's. I don't shoot sports and have no idea about frame rates in mechanical shutter as I don't use mechanical shutter much and don't care about high frame rates in mechanical shutter. I put the camera in electronic or electronic first curtain if I want higher frame rates which are good for catching expressions. I mostly use the lens to photograph public speaking in big dark rooms. The focusing accuracy is good, not as good as an EF 70-200 F/2.8 III, but a very high percentage are perfectly in focus on the correct eyeball. The focusing mechanism makes a lot of noise compared to all other EF lenses. It's loud enough that people next to me turn their heads at the noise on occasion. I suspect that it might not move in as fine an increment as some other lenses and that it takes time to change focus directions. I would suspect even a version I IS would have smoother and faster focusing.  A few other notes. Some of the first version lenses had a two-piece lens hood, very frustrating and slow to mount. I have a late model one with a large one-piece hood. Also the older ones, I shot one for years, sometimes have the screws that hold the mount points for the hood bayonet mechanism work loose. I used one of those lenses for years and one screw fell out and was never found. Gaffer tape on that and all the other exposed screw heads after that. Mine doesn't have that issue. I believe it's a redesign of the hood mounting mechanism that was later used on the first IS version. The rubber covered front ring of the actual lens is very very soft. Mine has a slight dent from rolling off my lap over my ankle and onto a basketball floor. Also there are two versions of the rear filter holder. Some take gels, others take 43mm screw ins like mine. I think the gels are the early ones.  I'm told the AF motors can't be fixed or replaced if they go. The older lenses are heavier than the IS versions. I find mine to be critically sharp, but I've never had an opportunity to compare it to an IS version of any type. If I were to replace it now I would buy an IS version. A lot of my work is wide open at ISO 3200-6400 at 1/250th and I'm pretty sure the limiting factor on sharp images is camera wobble. That's cured by my R3. It was an issue on my Mark IV's.