EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Owners, please help a newbie press that button

[ChrisBoy]

A better part of the day I have spent gazing voidly at the B&H Photo ordering screen, in a state of the mild catatonic seizure, holding my index finger frozen above the "enter" key. Unble to depress it, unwilling to retract it.

Please help me burst thru that psychological 2k$-for-single-lens barrier which is barring me from ordering the love of my life. Yes, the max amount I have spent on a single lens so far has been (almost) $2000 CAN for an EF 24-70.

Please tell me that the EF 300f4 IS, 400 f5.6 and EF 100-400 are like lens babies compared to the EF 300 f2.8.
Tell me that the EF 300 f2.8 is sharper than 85 1.2 or 50 1.4.
Tell me that its colour rendering exceeds the 135 prime.
Tell me that the AF is faster than in the 200 prime.
Tell me that you have not regretted the amount you've paid for it, down to the last penny.
Tell me that you carry it slung on your shoulder or around your neck, or in your hands, all day.

Tell me something, as long as it is based on real operating experience !

[picture-this]

Ah do you need the 2.8 or not? Don't ask others what your needs are. I like that lens for its versitality.

[ChrisBoy]

Ah do you need the 2.8 or not? Don't ask others what your needs are. I like that lens for its versitality.

(1) "The needs" are not being mentioned here at all.:confused:
(2) Thank you for the "versatility" input.;)

[fslshooter]

It's my best glass -- perfect for minor league baseball. Images are so sharp that I can often count the stitches on a baseball when it's pitched and a read a player's name on his bat when he swings -- and I shoot both from distances of 100 feet or more. Click HERE (http://www.jerryhalephotography.com//potn/ball.jpg) and HERE (http://www.jerryhalephotography.com//potn/bat.jpg) to see examples. Both images are 100% crops from the originals with no sharpening.

[ChrisBoy]

It's my best glass -- perfect for minor league baseball. Images are so sharp that I can often count the stitches on a baseball when it's pitched and a read a player's name on his bat when he swings -- and I shoot both from distances of 100 feet or more. Click HERE (http://www.jerryhalephotography.com//potn/ball.jpg) and HERE (http://www.jerryhalephotography.com//potn/bat.jpg) to see examples. Both images are 100% crops from the originals with no sharpening.

Thank you Jerry, the detail/colour/bokeh on those crops seems 1st class. 100 ft + you say......yes ! That's the kind of input I need and appreciate very much. Have you tried the lens with 2XTC ? By how much would that affect the AF speed and IQ ?

I am not asking about 1.4xTC because I think it is safe to assume it's a "gimme". Even the 300f4 remains good with 1.4xTC.

[fslshooter]

Thank you Jerry, the detail/colour/bokeh on those crops seems 1st class. 100 ft + you say......yes ! That's the kind of input I need and appreciate very much. Have you tried the lens with 2XTC ? By how much would that affect the AF speed and IQ ?

I am not asking about 1.4xTC because I think it is safe to assume it's a "gimme". Even the 300f4 remains good with 1.4xTC.

You should see the 8x10 prints that I made from the originals of those two images -- both are full body shots. They're nice! I used one of them in my portfolio HERE (http://www.jerryhalephotography.com/portfolio.html). It's the bat example -- last pic in the first row.

No, I've not tried a 2x TC on it. I did try a friend's 1.4x TC and liked it so much that I bought one for myself -- I got it last Friday. If you can spare the $$ I honestly don't think you'll ever regret spending it on this piece of glass. If you do then you can sell it for almost what you paid for it.

[lon10c]

If you shoot a lot of nature stuff and can justify the price buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS. This lens is as good as any lens Canon sells and it will last you 20 years.

I use it with the 1.4x as a "bird in flight" lens. With the 2x extender you are at 600mm and f/5.6. This a very convenient way to get to 600mm and I can't tell any difference in image quality. I personally do not use the 2x often but it is because I have the 500mm f/4.0 and apply the 1.4x for 700mm, f/5.6. Also, this lens produces a wonderful background blur. To much is being made of this "bokeh" deal now a days. You can get good background blur with almost any lens but these prime super telephotos seem to have it nailed.

I posted some Tri-Color Heron shots the other day (can you go back ond look at them) taken with the 300mm f/2.8and 1.4x. I also like the 300/2.8 wide open when I am concentrating on Butterflies.

Good luck on whatever you get. You really can't go wrong with any L prime.

[SYS]

With the 2x extender you are at 600mm and f/5.6. This a very convenient way to get to 600mm and I can't tell any difference in image quality.

Could you elaborate this a bit more? What do you mean by the statement that you "can't tell any difference in image quality"? That is, between the 2x TC on 300mm vs. 300mm without the 2x TC? Or compare to....?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I think he means between the 1.4x and 2x

[ChrisBoy]

You should see the 8x10 prints that I made from the originals of those two images -- both are full body shots. They're nice! I used one of them in my portfolio HERE (http://www.jerryhalephotography.com/portfolio.html). It's the bat example -- last pic in the first row.

No, I've not tried a 2x TC on it. I did try a friend's 1.4x TC and liked it so much that I bought one for myself -- I got it last Friday. If you can spare the $$ I honestly don't think you'll ever regret spending it on this piece of glass. If you do then you can sell it for almost what you paid for it.

Thank you again Jerry. I have gone to your fine gallery....a real joy to look at those photos......I am particularly impressed with colour, bokeh and sharpness, and last but not least, your photography skills.

[ChrisBoy]

If you shoot a lot of nature stuff and can justify the price buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS. This lens is as good as any lens Canon sells and it will last you 20 years.

I use it with the 1.4x as a "bird in flight" lens. With the 2x extender you are at 600mm and f/5.6. This a very convenient way to get to 600mm and I can't tell any difference in image quality. I personally do not use the 2x often but it is because I have the 500mm f/4.0 and apply the 1.4x for 700mm, f/5.6. Also, this lens produces a wonderful background blur. To much is being made of this "bokeh" deal now a days. You can get good background blur with almost any lens but these prime super telephotos seem to have it nailed.

I posted some Tri-Color Heron shots the other day (can you go back ond look at them) taken with the 300mm f/2.8and 1.4x. I also like the 300/2.8 wide open when I am concentrating on Butterflies.

Good luck on whatever you get. You really can't go wrong with any L prime.

Thank you Ion10C. Those heron shots of yours illustrate the lens quality magnificently. What I had not realized up to know is that they were shot with 1.4xTC.

I would not perhaps go as far as saying that all L primes are created equal ;) , however, the quality gap between the entry level supertelephoto lenses (e.g.400 f5.6) and the "fat boys" appears bigger than I had thought.

[lon10c]

In my opinion and in general every day use, without pixel peeping, the image taken with the 300mm f/2.8 and the 2.0x extender appears to me to be of similar quality as an image taken with the lens with the 1.4x extender.

Discussions of image quality are always subjective and open to debate. Personally I like the shots with the 2.0x and I would continue this way before I will cough up over $7k for the 600. Especially since I already have the 500. That is why I think it is a convenient way to get to 600. Also, at least 90% of it is proper long lens technique, shutter speed, DOF and camera auto focus accuracy.

I could post shot but you really need to look at the raw files.

Hope this helps and please don't take it as argumentative.

Good luck Chris and you are right "fat boys rock".

[ChrisBoy]

In my opinion and in general every day use, without pixel peeping, the image taken with the 300mm f/2.8 and the 2.0x extender appears to me to be of similar quality as an image taken with the lens with the 1.4x extender.

Discussions of image quality are always subjective and open to debate. Personally I like the shots with the 2.0x and I would continue this way before I will cough up over $7k for the 600. Especially since I already have the 500. That is why I think it is a convenient way to get to 600. Also, at least 90% of it is proper long lens technique, shutter speed, DOF and camera auto focus accuracy.

I could post shot but you really need to look at the raw files.

Hope this helps and please don't take it as argumentative.

Good luck Chris and you are right "fat boys rock".

That sounds "exellente", as they say in Florida ;) . Two more questions please:

(1) Lens copy-to-copy IQ variability. I have not seen one single negative report on the web to that effect. Have you heard of any ?
(I suppose in the worst possible case, even if I get extremely unlucky with my lens copy, I can have it adjusted by Canon Service in Montreal under warranty.)

(2) Lens/camera field carrying case: The Lowepro 75AW toploader has served me very well for camera mounted lenses like 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4. Even with the 1.4XTC mounted I can still zip up the top cover. I assume the 75AW will not do for 300 f2.8 unless the body is carried separately from the lens. What do you use to carry it around once you leave the car and start hiking ?

[roli_bark]

...
(1) Lens copy-to-copy IQ variability. I have not seen one single negative report on the web to that effect. Have you heard of any ....

That is irrelevant consideration, and won't help much in practical terms. Reason being is, that this lens is extremely un-popular (in terms of Owners Audience).

Case & Point - my estimate that there are fewer than 10 owners here in this forum...

[ChrisBoy]

That is irrelevant consideration, and won't help much in practical terms. Reason being is, that this lens is extremely un-popular (in terms of Owners Audience).

Case & Point - my estimate that there are few than 10 owners here in this forum...

You make a good point, also there is but 37 respondents on the FM reviews site. However, I'd call that "statistically weak" as opposed to "irrelevant". I think one really bad copy would echo from one end of the WWW to another fairly loudly.
I'd also like to believe that there is perhaps more rigour in the adjustment and final testing/inspection of that lens compared to, say, 24-70 2.8.

[Rumjungle]

Oh, just buy it already. You know it's good and you know you want it. You strike me as the type who wants the best and wants it now. You also seem to be able to afford it. Now go click that button and have a blast!:)

[roli_bark]

Oh, just buy it already. You know it's good and you know you want it. You strike me as the type who wants the best and wants it now. You also seem to be able to afford it. Now go click that button and have a blast!:)

Rumjungle - couldn't say it better !

That is right - 'ChrisBoy'. You've been flooding the forum with roughly about 50 posts (in 2 or even 3 threads) about your urgent desire for this [wonderfull] lens. So, take the plunge, just go and get it. Period.

[Rokkorfan]

I like mine almost as much as sex. :) Go on, get it - you know you want to!

[reewik]

Heh , nothing wrong with a guy having a hard time parting with his great friend...MONEY!

I too suffer from prebuying jitters. I have been yapping about the 400 5.6 L for over a month now. I have almost hit the button several times recently. For me it is alot of cash. I have spent more on other hobbies but is smaller amounts over time... makes it easier to swallow sometimes...

I will take donations... LOL

[ChrisBoy]

I like mine almost as much as sex. :) Go on, get it - you know you want to!

You must be kidding. Poor guy, then I'd say that you could not have developed that deep intimacy with your........300 2.8.!;)

Seriously though, why do you love her so much ? I mean your 300 2.8?

[ChrisBoy]

Heh , nothing wrong with a guy having a hard time parting with his great friend...MONEY!

I too suffer from prebuying jitters. I have been yapping about the 400 5.6 L for over a month now. I have almost hit the button several times recently. For me it is alot of cash. I have spent more on other hobbies but is smaller amounts over time... makes it easier to swallow sometimes...

I will take donations... LOL

I guess someone understands. Now I am thinking: should I not rent the lens for a couple of days first and see how it goes ? That may be $200 well spent. Assuming I can get a rental unit in Montreal. Should I also rent a 300 f4 and do a comparison shoot ?
All of my other MUCH cheaper lenses I bought only after I had sufficient time to play with the loaners. For example, I have been shooting with my friend's 85 1.2 for two weeks now, therefore I have a pretty good idea by now if that lens is worth $2500 CAN to me.

[SYS]

Speaking of 300mm f/4, how does this compare with its cousin, f/2?

How does either of these compare with the 400mm f/5.6?

Also, does 2x TC works on the 400mm as well as it does on the 300mm?

[busterboy]

When I deceided I wanted this lens there was no hesitation, Just go out and do it. The images that you get in return will justify every cent you pay.;)

PS: I won't post any pictures of it luring you..:lol:

[Steve Parr]

I checked out the 300mm f/2.8L at my local shop this past weekend. They've just added it to their rental stock.

All I can say is "daaaaaaaammmmnnn"...

Steve

[lon10c]

Steve is that a good or bad "daaaaaaaammmmnnn"?

[symes]

Steve is that a good or bad "daaaaaaaammmmnnn"?

I think that is pretty obvious...:)

[ChrisBoy]

When I deceided I wanted this lens there was no hesitation, Just go out and do it. The images that you get in return will justify every cent you pay.;)

PS: I won't post any pictures of it luring you..:lol:

I knew you'd say that.......however, the picture of your "fat boy" has been etched on my cortex by now.;)

[ChrisBoy]

Steve is that a good or bad "daaaaaaaammmmnnn"?

Damn..... it's so:
(a) heavy/big
(b) well built
(c) pricey
(d) speedy (AF)
(e).....???

I sort of doubt Steve had a chance to evaluate spatial and chromatic distortions in the store.

Well, my Moulinex food processor is white, heavy and big, "built like a tank", "tack/razor sharp", fast and versatile. However, I'd never consider mounting it on my camera body, unless drunk or compensated handsomely for such an act of folly.

[jerrythesnake]

what is the closest focusing distance with this lens.

[ssim]

I can say in all honesty that my 300 2.8 is the lens that stays on my camera the most. It is one of the sharpest and fastest lenses I have ever owned and I would never consider parting with it.

I use it on my 1DMKII and it makes for a heavy combination. I have carried it all day but would never consider putting it around my neck, I always carry my gear just over my shoulder. Certainly after a day of this you know you've carried something heavy.

This is very much a handholdable lens but if you are going to start and add the TC's to it you are going to want to have either some support or very high shutter speeds. I'm personally not a fan of the Canon 2.0TC but I love th4 1.4 on this lens. I have used it with both TC's stacked on it.

This lens is so good, that you shouldn't need convincing.

[Steve Parr]

Steve is that a good or bad "daaaaaaaammmmnnn"?

Oh, that's definitely a good "daaaaaaaammmmnnn".

I liked the lens.

The price of it would be a tough pill to swallow, but the rental price is very nice...

Steve

[ChrisBoy]

I can say in all honesty that my 300 2.8 is the lens that stays on my camera the most. It is one of the sharpest and fastest lenses I have ever owned and I would never consider parting with it.

I use it on my 1DMKII and it makes for a heavy combination. I have carried it all day but would never consider putting it around my neck, I always carry my gear just over my shoulder. Certainly after a day of this you know you've carried something heavy.

This is very much a handholdable lens but if you are going to start and add the TC's to it you are going to want to have either some support or very high shutter speeds. I'm personally not a fan of the Canon 2.0TC but I love th4 1.4 on this [/B[B]]lens. I have used it with both TC's stacked on it.

This lens is so good, that you shouldn't need convincing.

Thank you Sheldon.
The 300 mm focal length is my photographic " hangout" as well , from wildlife over portraits, cityscape and landscape. That is why the performance of the "naked" 300 mm prime counts the most. (I have not been disappointed with Canon 1.4XTC on "lesser" lenses, however, not impressed with Canon 2xTC either.)

Indeed, the most convincing thing about the lens is perhaps that I have not found one single instance where an owner regrets buying it or has negative comments of some real consequence. Obviously, here and there one can find that almost ritual, well worn out L lens complaint: the price, the weight, clumsy hood, and similar.

[In2Photos]

So have you bought it yet?

[AlexMa]

Howdy all...

Isn't the 300mm f/2.8 IS the flagship of the "L" lenses?

Doesn't it have the fastes AF?

The best coatings?

the list goes on.......

If I had the money adnd (permission from the wife) it would be added to my collection as well.

Mostly used for sports.

Don't you love this forum?

Lots of great people out there!

Alex

[lime]

Diamond Head from Magic Island with the 10D+28-135 @28mm
http://www.pbase.com/eflime/image/51345588.jpg

Diamond Head from Magic Island with the 10D+300 2.8IS+2x @600mm
http://www.pbase.com/eflime/image/51345589.jpg

Diamond Head from Magic Island with the 10D+300 2.8IS+2x+1.4x @840mm
http://www.pbase.com/eflime/image/51345590.jpg

North Shore with the 10D+300 2.8IS+2x @600mm
http://www.pbase.com/eflime/image/51345585.jpg

[ChrisBoy]

So have you bought it yet?

No Mike, I have not yet, but I am getting very close to the line.:D

To put things in a bit of a perspective, I have seen people rightfully seek significant input from the experienced forum members in order to help them decide if to buy a $250 3rd party lens.
Yeah, I appreciate very much the experienced input I am getting.....so I can finally decide to (or not to) depress the "order" button.:confused:

[fslshooter]

what is the closest focusing distance with this lens.

2.5 meters

[ChrisBoy]

Thank you Emil. Do I see some purple fringe on that Diamond Head at 840 mm ?
Just kidding. That is an excellent illustration of the lens capability to be extensivelly TC'd.

[In2Photos]

No Mike, I have not yet, but I am getting very close to the line.:D

To put things in a bit of a perspective, I have seen people rightfully seek significant input from the experienced forum members in order to help them decide if to buy a $250 3rd party lens.
Yeah, I appreciate very much the experienced input I am getting.....so I can finally decide to (or not to) depress the "order" button.:confused:

This may be true but you are asking whether or not one of Canon's L lenses is a good choice, not a $250 third party lens as you so eloquently put it. This would be like someone asking whether or not a Bentley was any good vs a Kia being any good. The replies would be something like this:

Kia: Not bad, could get better. Spend more money and get the Hyundai or a used Honda.

Bentley: It does everything superb. You won't be dissapointed. Best money I ever spent. Looks and performs like a $200,000 automobile should.

I don't need any assistance on perspective. I have been around the block a time or two. Maybe not the photography block, but some block.;)

[roli_bark]

"ChrisBoy" - would you expect any L owner, and especially an "EF 300 f/2.8 L IS USM" owner, say his/her lens isn't worth the money he/she paid for it ?

[lon10c]

Chris,

Drink about 12 Moose Head beers and then check out this link.

www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183202&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

No payment for 90 days.

[Tapeman]

I would guess there are more like 50 people on this forum with 300 2.8Ls

[tough_dog]

ChrisBoy: Isn't there a law or rule or something that "newbies" can't purchase such a wonderful and expensive lens (wow, it even comes with a hard case) because they may hurt themselves or others ? Oh never mind ... you're not a newbie anyway. So just press that button and wait for the delivery truck. If not satisfied, you can always send it back to B&H for a "cheerful" (but somewhat delayed) refund. Regarding transport of this BIG lens into the bush (after removal from the dedicated trailer you'll need to buy) I'd suggest a large-wheeled hand truck used for moving fridges and such. One last thing .... hopefully the order screen you've been staring at for the past few days while weighing the buying decision is not a crt or plasma - an indelible burn-in of the image could result!

[rrpruett]

I am also having 300 2.8 lust. After looking at the picture on the B&H site I want it even more. It looks mighty big. I would love to have this for Baseball season and the upcoming football season. However I woudl like to stay married also. :(

[roli_bark]

... Regarding transport of this BIG lens into the bush (after removal from the dedicated trailer you'll need to buy) I'd suggest a large-wheeled hand truck used for moving fridges and such. ...

Albeit so - it is still reasonably handholdable. As a matter of fact, it is the ONLY supertelephoto lens which is still handholdable.