Canon 300mm f2.8 L

[rjackjames]

Hello,

I am thinking about getting the Canon 300mm f2.8L Lens with the 2x extender for an up coming wildlife trip to the Kenai Fjords national park this may. Would you recommend that lens setup for that tour. I have various lens in arsenal. I know the lens cost. I have the 100-400mm I am sometimes very unhappy with the quality the images it produce. I would appreciate any suggestions or advice.

 

[TJ K]

Is it a lens you will want to keep? You can always rent if you don't want to keep it and save a ton of money. If not depending on the distance you might want something longer but with the 2X it should be good.
TJ

 

[rjackjames]

Is it a lens you will want to keep? You can always rent if you don't want to keep it and save a ton of money. If not depending on the distance you might want something longer but with the 2X it should be good.
TJ

Eventually I love too have that lens. Being in Alaska the wildlife is abundant. I know it could be a great investment. having the 2X converter will be sweet.

 

[the iconic image]

If you're going to spend that kind of money on a mid range tele, then rent first. Kick the tires on the 300, then rent the 400, and the 500 before you buy either. In my opinion, the 300 is the best glass you can buy, but will be too short for some things and eventually you may regret not stepping up for range to the 4 or 500 depending on what you're going to use it for. In that price range, renting first is a wise decision.

the Iconic Image

 

[Overread]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_300_2_8_l_is_usm_review.htm

Most of the people I know who manage to get to affording the 300mm f2.8 IS L are wowed by its its sharpness and performance; even with a 2*TC its a sharp 600mm lens and vastly cheaper and lighter than a deciated 600mm lens. Infact many use it as their walkaround wildlife lens since its not too heavy (it is heavy but one can get used to the weight).

I got to use it once a while ago.... I didn't want to give it back....... Image results were sharper and more contrasty than my 70-200mm f2.8 could muster (and both were using a 1.4TC) and interestingly the viewfinder image was much brighter (even though both are f2.8 max aperture lenses).

 

[Tony B]

I recently sold my 100-400 & purchased the 300. My 100-400 was a sharp copy but it had difficulty producing good shots of early morning birds & animals. The 300 + 1.4 is better.
As with most things photographic compromises abound. Mine was IQ, FL & weight. The weight fractor automatically excluded the 500 & above lenses as many of my shots are taken during or at the end of sometimes very long bush walks. As I photograph birds, plants, reptiles mammals & vegetatation landscapes I prefer to carry an extra body or two & lenses to avoid changing lenses &/or missing shots.
The 300 has not disappointed & is a versatile 300, 420, 600 & acceptable 840 (bearing in mind additional crop factors of FF, 1.3 & 1.6).

 

[DRoberts]

Honestly...I would look at getting a new camera rather than lenses. If you were to get a camera with a full frame sensor rather than a crop, the 100 - 400 would be a good lens. You can get the 5D MK II for about $2500 vs. the 300mm 2.8 for around $4000 or more.
You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.
Just something to consider.

 

[rjackjames]

Thanx everyone for their suggestions and input. I have the 100-400 I was debating on getting rid of that lens and upgrade too the 300mm. I have heard the 400mm is an awesome lens but I don't think i can afford that one. I plan too do a lot of hiking around here in AK and carrying that heavy lens I be real tired lol. I also was thinking of getting the 1D Mark IV or a full frame. I might get the full frame before the 1D. Alaska is so beautiful I happy i moved up here.

 

[Overread]

All the top range prime lenses are super good - but yes weight is the main factor. The 300mm f2.8 is about the heavist most shooters are happy to walk around with whilst some others find they can use the heavier glass without problems - their own level of fitness and how much they want to carry that lens are key factors in this. I've known people return top range lenses because they were simply too heavy for their shooting style - fantastic glass - but not the right glass for them and how they want to operate.

On the subject of fullframe vs crop sensor

You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.

I disgree greatly with this - heck the 5DM2 and the 7D (as well as the 50D) all have the same factor that they will out resolve glass used on them and lower end glass will thus show up more errors on any of those bodies - you need pro end glass.
As for the fullframe giving better images over crop sensor that is simply not true - sure if you are comparing the high ISO quality of the cameras when using the same lens on each the fullframe options will win out but that is only one factor to consider when comparing. The AF of the 7D for example is far superior to the AF of the 5DM2.
Heck even shooters like Juza have put the 7D as their main camera body over a 1.3 or fullframe sensor option
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/index.htm

heck take a look through his galleries and you can see shots taken on 300D camera bodies through to the 1D line - the only common thing being that each was using top of the range pro end glass.

 

[Derrel]

You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.
Just something to consider.

I tend to go along with that statement as long as the FF camera involved is in the 12,13,14 MP area, which Nikon,Canon,and Kodak have all made.

 

[rjackjames]

All the top range prime lenses are super good - but yes weight is the main factor. The 300mm f2.8 is about the heavist most shooters are happy to walk around with whilst some others find they can use the heavier glass without problems - their own level of fitness and how much they want to carry that lens are key factors in this. I've known people return top range lenses because they were simply too heavy for their shooting style - fantastic glass - but not the right glass for them and how they want to operate.

On the subject of fullframe vs crop sensor

You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.

I disgree greatly with this - heck the 5DM2 and the 7D (as well as the 50D) all have the same factor that they will out resolve glass used on them and lower end glass will thus show up more errors on any of those bodies - you need pro end glass.
As for the fullframe giving better images over crop sensor that is simply not true - sure if you are comparing the high ISO quality of the cameras when using the same lens on each the fullframe options will win out but that is only one factor to consider when comparing. The AF of the 7D for example is far superior to the AF of the 5DM2.
Heck even shooters like Juza have put the 7D as their main camera body over a 1.3 or fullframe sensor option
Juza Nature Photography

heck take a look through his galleries and you can see shots taken on 300D camera bodies through to the 1D line - the only common thing being that each was using top of the range pro end glass.

Thats guys photos are amazing I am so definitely getting the 300mm f2.8 lens and maybe the 1D MIV lol. That means I have too save up lots of money basically use all my savings. I have been reading lots into the lens so far i am sold. With all the interesting post you guys have basically having my mind made up lol.

 

[patel140]

Hi
I have 2 canon 300mm f2.8 lenses and 2 canon 2x teleconverters with 2 canon eos 40d bodies, 1 canon 100-400mm and a 1.4x teleconverter lens with a 500d body, 1 sony 18-70mm sony lens, 1 sony 75-300mm lens with a sony alpha a350 and a sony 70-400mm lens with a sony alpha alpha a550. I am normally into wildlife photography and most of my pictures are taken in the masai mara in kenya and these lenses are amazing for photos.

Highly recommended are the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM lens with a 1.4x TC for bird photography and the 300mm f2.8 lens with a 2X TC for both birding and wildlife photography.

Do not use the 100-400mm with a 2x TC, this will mess up all your images as it will decrease the light conditions for your pictures. Instead use it with a 1.4X TC and also use a 300mm f2.8 with a 2x TC. Much better lens and auto focus works much faster.

If you have a canon eos 30d the 300mm f 2.8 works best on that camera body but it will also work on all the eos bodies with perfect quality pictures.

And finally most canon eos bodies are 35mm APSC bodies with a CMOS EXMOR sensor which means that a 100-400mm telephoto lens on a 35mm body would have a much longer focal length making it a super telephoto lens. But do not use with sigma lenses as this causes quite a few problems.

 

[icassell]

I was in Denali last June with my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 and teleconverters. It was that trip that convinced me to buy my new body (7D) to replace the 30D. The 420 mm of the 300 + 1.4X TC was long enough for anything I wanted to shoot (I wasn't into shooting small birds at that time) but needed significant crops occasionally which the 8MP of my 30D wasn't up to. The new body was cheaper than buying new glass.

That said, the 300mm f/2.8 is considered among Canon's best and it is supposed to perform well with either the 1.4X or the 2X converter. If 600mm is long enough for you, that is a hell of a lot less expensive and easier to carry than the 600mm f/4. I suggest you put a TC on your 100-400 and set the combination to 600mm. Walk around taking some pix and see if that is a long enough FL for you.

Personally, I'm eyeing the 400mm f/5.6 which is closer to my price range. I just wish it had IS. Most bird photographers I know prefer it to the 100-400 in terms of IQ.

I wish Canon would make something like a 500mm f/5.6 for those of us who only cry when we see the price of the 500mm f/4.

BTW, another option to consider is the 400mm f/4 DO. It is alot lighter and people love it or hate it.

 

[Fusion]

Better glass all the way will give sharper picture with either crop of FF camera. FF cameras definately need the best glass you can afford to get the best from them. :thumbup:

 

[icassell]

On a related note. In this era of better ISO performance, is the IQ of the 300 mm f/2.8 far superior to that of the 300mm f/4? At four times the price, are you getting 4 times the IQ or is the only difference the lens speed? My 7D does so well at high ISO, that I keep thinking that if I were to get a 300mm prime, I might be happy with the f/4 and save a lot of money. Does anyone know a link to a review that compares the IQ of the two?