Canon 300mm f/2.8 L USM IS?

[JacaRanda]

I did some analysis by paralysis on this lens (mkI & mk2). It's one of those that some consider their best lens ever.
The lens is very large, but I know and see 3 lady birdographers that walk around and handhold the 500 F4 mkI.

 

[JacaRanda]

I own the original EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM (not the "II").

View attachment 108903

Tim, do you happen to have an image with either TC connected to it?

 

[Overread]

Well my issue would be if I am going to spend the money for a mkii then why not get the 500 f/4?

Weight and size.
The 300mm f2.8 in any form is basically a "light" long high quality prime; able to take up to the 2*TC for a 600mm f5.6 lens. Yes if you can afford it and want the range and don't want 300mm then a 500mm f4 would be a better choice; its only downsides being:

1) It's heavier
2) It's bigger
2) It has a much longer minimum focusing distance - this is one lens where extension tubes are used for closer setups (eg when using a hide+feeding station approach - where subjects are coming closer than 5m or so).

Many a wildlife pro I know has the 300mm in the bag as a light option; or something similar, alongside the big heavies or just for days when they don't want the big heavy lens.



That said honestly its a question of finances and choice. If you have the option the best is to try before you buy - or considering the high price and the fact that most stores won't get them in to trial (unless they are a VERY Big store/national dealer), you can use rental. Rental has the bonus that you can actually get out and shoot with them. Of course its not cheap, but considering the high overall cost if you've no other option (no friends with one - no local club - no local store) then it might be a prudent choice to try each for a few days on rental and then make the final choice (for which you get first )

 

[jaomul]

As its classed as light weight I checked specs. Its a manageable 2350 grams, not small but lighter than I expected, the nikon is 550 grams more and a little longer. Looks good

 

[JacaRanda]

Well my issue would be if I am going to spend the money for a mkii then why not get the 500 f/4?

Weight and size.
The 300mm f2.8 in any form is basically a "light" long high quality prime; able to take up to the 2*TC for a 600mm f5.6 lens. Yes if you can afford it and want the range and don't want 300mm then a 500mm f4 would be a better choice; its only downsides being:

1) It's heavier
2) It's bigger
2) It has a much longer minimum focusing distance - this is one lens where extension tubes are used for closer setups (eg when using a hide+feeding station approach - where subjects are coming closer than 5m or so).

Many a wildlife pro I know has the 300mm in the bag as a light option; or something similar, alongside the big heavies or just for days when they don't want the big heavy lens.



That said honestly its a question of finances and choice. If you have the option the best is to try before you buy - or considering the high price and the fact that most stores won't get them in to trial (unless they are a VERY Big store/national dealer), you can use rental. Rental has the bonus that you can actually get out and shoot with them. Of course its not cheap, but considering the high overall cost if you've no other option (no friends with one - no local club - no local store) then it might be a prudent choice to try each for a few days on rental and then make the final choice (for which you get first )

Not sure of the ratio, but I do see significantly more birdographers with 500 & 600mm lenses out and about than I see with 300 2.8's. Money must grow on trees that I'm unable to climb.

 

[Overread]

Not sure of the ratio, but I do see significantly more birdographers with 500 & 600mm lenses out and about than I see with 300 2.8's. Money must grow on trees that I'm unable to climb.

That's the thing - for those who can afford it and justify the weight the 500mm and 600mm are better choices. IF they are going to put a 2*TC on the lens every time to get to 600mm then getting a prime lens that does just that is better.

However the 300mm is nearly always cheaper (within the same mark bracket at least) and thus often a good step-up the price ladder. Size and weight is also an issue; but like I said there are other options - some use 100-400mm (which with the MII of that lens is far more viable than it once was) and there is also the 200-400mm now (although that carries a big price tag on it)

 

[Designer]

I know and see 3 lady birdographers that walk around and handhold the 500 F4 mkI.

Have you checked their photographs?

 

[runnah]

Well my issue would be if I am going to spend the money for a mkii then why not get the 500 f/4?

Weight and size.
The 300mm f2.8 in any form is basically a "light" long high quality prime; able to take up to the 2*TC for a 600mm f5.6 lens. Yes if you can afford it and want the range and don't want 300mm then a 500mm f4 would be a better choice; its only downsides being:

1) It's heavier
2) It's bigger
2) It has a much longer minimum focusing distance - this is one lens where extension tubes are used for closer setups (eg when using a hide+feeding station approach - where subjects are coming closer than 5m or so).

Many a wildlife pro I know has the 300mm in the bag as a light option; or something similar, alongside the big heavies or just for days when they don't want the big heavy lens.



That said honestly its a question of finances and choice. If you have the option the best is to try before you buy - or considering the high price and the fact that most stores won't get them in to trial (unless they are a VERY Big store/national dealer), you can use rental. Rental has the bonus that you can actually get out and shoot with them. Of course its not cheap, but considering the high overall cost if you've no other option (no friends with one - no local club - no local store) then it might be a prudent choice to try each for a few days on rental and then make the final choice (for which you get first )

Not sure of the ratio, but I do see significantly more birdographers with 500 & 600mm lenses out and about than I see with 300 2.8's. Money must grow on trees that I'm unable to climb.

Yeah I don't get it either, $10k for a lens is just insane. But it's all a matter of degrees I guess. Maybe some day I'll be on that end of things.

 

[JacaRanda]

I know and see 3 lady birdographers that walk around and handhold the 500 F4 mkI.

Have you checked their photographs?

Yes, one named Tania, she posts low res. images on her facebook page (not many). Here are some of her horses, and I know she does some stuff with dogs. Del Mar Racetrack - bryanbrodowski
Facebook

I have seen images on her phone - not sure where she post them, but I will ask next time I see her. She is one of the fortunate ones that gets travel to places like Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons often.

Here you go, this shows a few more of the wildlife photos. Facebook

 

[Designer]

They look good to me. So yes, I guess one can shoot that lens handheld.

 

[runnah]

Holeeeey ****! Lens came in today and my god is this thing gorgeous! The background is just gone.

6N5A8465 by runnah555, on Flickr

6N5A8446 by runnah555, on Flickr

 

[ronlane]

@runnah, I hate you......... Now go have fun with it.

 

[Overread]

*joins the jealous hate club*

 

[ronlane]

*joins the jealous hate club*

The only up side to this for us, is we don't have to 1) cry when we send it back or 2) cry when we have to pay for it. lol.

 

[JacaRanda]

Holeeeey ****! Lens came in today and my god is this thing gorgeous! The background is just gone.

6N5A8465 by runnah555, on Flickr

6N5A8446 by runnah555, on Flickr

Told you so . Well, told you that it was amazeballz and I've never used one. I better start searching estate sales.