Canon 300mm f2.8 L

Overread · Mar 21, 2010

The 300mm f4 is a very good lens, but you have to remember its about more than the speed of the aperture. From all I have seen comparing the 300mm f2.8 and the 300mm f4 (I belive Juza has spoken of it in some of his reviews, though I can't recall if he has done a comparison of both) the 300mm f2.8 is superior to the f4 especailly when combined with teleconverters. This refers to both the image quality and the auto focusing speed.

In addition remmeber that the f4 lens will lose auto focus on a canon DSLR (f4 minus two stops is f8 which is smaller than AF works with - it stops at f5.6 unless you use a 1D line body). Even though you can tape pins and trick the AF to continue to function accuracy and speed drop (especailly in more limited lighting) and there is far more chance for the setup to hunt for focus.

The 300mm f4 is a lot lighter and has a greater magnification factor for close up shots, but for straight telephoto use whilst its impressive the 300mm f2.8 is more so.

icassell · Mar 21, 2010

I just found Juza's comparison of the two. He does say that the 2.8 has a slight edge, but he really likes the f4 as well. At a $3K difference in price, I think my decision will be between the 300mm f/4 and the 400mm f/5.6. I'd like something I can put a 2X on and my 100-300mm f/4 doesn't do so well with that. On my 7D, the 400 won't AF even with a 1.4X and it doesn't have IS, so the 300 might win out. A comparison of the 400 f/5.6 and the 300 f/4 with 1.4X TC would be nice too.

Overread · Mar 21, 2010

I've read about those two setups - from what I gather the 400mm f5.6 keeps the edge by being sharper and with the general view that its AF is also a bit more speedy. However as you say it lacks the IS and a 1.4TC on a 300mm f4 should still be a very viable combo. Often when it comes to this grade of lenses whilst test shots can show one being superior over the other one has to remember that its splitting hairs with very good results to start with - so even if one is "better" its not a night and day difference.

Have to say though the new sigma 50-500mm with OS is interesting - sure image quality won't be quite as good as the primes, but its hone heck of a versatile zoom (in the same price bracket) and if you read Juza's super telephoto comparison the old 50-500mm ranks very well against the 100-400mm

icassell · Mar 21, 2010

Overread said:
I've read about those two setups - from what I gather the 400mm f5.6 keeps the edge by being sharper and with the general view that its AF is also a bit more speedy. However as you say it lacks the IS and a 1.4TC on a 300mm f4 should still be a very viable combo. Often when it comes to this grade of lenses whilst test shots can show one being superior over the other one has to remember that its splitting hairs with very good results to start with - so even if one is "better" its not a night and day difference.

Have to say though the new sigma 50-500mm with OS is interesting - sure image quality won't be quite as good as the primes, but its hone heck of a versatile zoom (in the same price bracket) and if you read Juza's super telephoto comparison the old 50-500mm ranks very well against the 100-400mm

Yes, exactly. I'm waiting to see the new Sigma before I invest. It will be interesting to see if it is the same optics with added OS, or if they have also improved it optically. I know many birders who get gorgeous results with the non-OS version (preferring it to the 150-500mm OS) and this may be what I am waiting for. I would love to have a 500mm lens, but the Canon 500mm f/4 is beyond my reach for the forseeable future. I haven't seen any price mentioned for the new lens, either.

Overread · Mar 21, 2010

I seem to recall $2400 on the 50-500mm OS though I have no idea where I saw that and I think it might have been avery early price. UK side I have seen Warehouse Express listing the lens at £1399.99 on pre order. The range it offers as well as image quality (even if its just the same as the original) really makes it so attractive. The 100-400mm gets used a lot professionaly and with the 50-500mm about on par, but with more range its so tempting

My thing is that a 50-500mm with OS ora 100-400mm IS is a nice single walkaround lens that is not too heavy and that can do a lot of work though the massive focal ranges on offer.
However something like a 300mm f4 could be agood stop gap in working toward something like a 300mm f2.8 - since one can sell well kept glass like hte 300mm f4 for a good price and thus have part of the money "invested" in a shorter term option. Whilst a zoom lens is something one might wish to hang onto for longer if even so as to just have a lighter walkaround option .

Jeremy Z · Mar 21, 2010

If it is just the image quality, consider getting a 300 mm f/4 and 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Then, shoot at higher ISO when needed. The lens will be lighter, and you will have a lot more combinations for less money.

If you can afford and are willing to carry the 2.8, that is better not only because it is 2.8, but also because when you add a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter, you're only at f/4 and f/5.6, respectively, instead of f/5.6 and f/8

table1349 · Mar 21, 2010

the iconic image said:
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

:thumbup: +++

I own both the 300 f2.8 and the 400 f2.8. They are two totally different beasts that both produce amazing results. I would strongly recommend iconic's suggestion. Rent them and see which works best for you. Personally for wildlife (the real they can hurt or kill you kind of wildlife) The longer the glass the better. I shoot bears up in the Mountains of New Mexico and as a general rule, unless you are not shooting at least a 400 mm lens and the bear nicely fills you view finder we have a term for you. DINNER!!! :lol:

As an Alaskan I am sure you can relate.

rjackjames · Mar 21, 2010

Wow thanx guys for the ideas, comparisons and the reviews on each lens. In all I say you get what you paid for. As for the Canon 300mm f2.8 is an awesome lens, if I can afford it i will go for it, the 400mm f2.8 L wow that beyond my league, and I take forever too pay that beast off.

table1349 · Mar 22, 2010

rjackjames said:
Wow thanx guys for the ideas, comparisons and the reviews on each lens. In all I say you get what you paid for. As for the Canon 300mm f2.8 is an awesome lens, if I can afford it i will go for it, the 400mm f2.8 L wow that beyond my league, and I take forever too pay that beast off.

Depends on how dedicated you are. I paid for a good portion of my 400 f2.8 by eating peanut butter for 18months. Every time I looked at spending money that wasn't for shelter, or bills I asked myself if I really needed it. If the answer was no then those couple of bucks went into the fund as well.

icassell · Mar 22, 2010

Overread said:
I seem to recall $2400 on the 50-500mm OS though I have no idea where I saw that and I think it might have been avery early price. UK side I have seen Warehouse Express listing the lens at £1399.99 on pre order. The range it offers as well as image quality (even if its just the same as the original) really makes it so attractive. The 100-400mm gets used a lot professionaly and with the 50-500mm about on par, but with more range its so tempting

My thing is that a 50-500mm with OS ora 100-400mm IS is a nice single walkaround lens that is not too heavy and that can do a lot of work though the massive focal ranges on offer.
However something like a 300mm f4 could be agood stop gap in working toward something like a 300mm f2.8 - since one can sell well kept glass like hte 300mm f4 for a good price and thus have part of the money "invested" in a shorter term option. Whilst a zoom lens is something one might wish to hang onto for longer if even so as to just have a lighter walkaround option .

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-500mm-4-5-6-3-Telephoto-Canon/dp/B003980YK6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269305211&sr=8-5]Amazon.com: Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM SLD Ultra Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera: Electronics[/ame]

http://www.adorama.com/SG50500OEOS.html

I got e-mail from Sigma today that the Canon version has begun to ship. Now I have to wait and see if it is any good (I don't want to be the first). $1600 seems pretty reasonable if it turns out to be a good lens.

rjackjames · Mar 23, 2010

gryphonslair99 said:
rjackjames said:

Wow thanx guys for the ideas, comparisons and the reviews on each lens. In all I say you get what you paid for. As for the Canon 300mm f2.8 is an awesome lens, if I can afford it i will go for it, the 400mm f2.8 L wow that beyond my league, and I take forever too pay that beast off.

Click to expand...

Depends on how dedicated you are. I paid for a good portion of my 400 f2.8 by eating peanut butter for 18months. Every time I looked at spending money that wasn't for shelter, or bills I asked myself if I really needed it. If the answer was no then those couple of bucks went into the fund as well.

I am very dedicated and with my current job. I only have weekends too enjoy myself. The 300mm f2.8L with the 1.4x or 2x convertors. is my choice for now until later on when i can afford the 400mm. For the wildlife where in Alaska i think the 300mm is for now until I want to step-up because i am only here for 3 years.