Canon EF 300mm f/4 vs 300mm f/2.8

[chrisvw]

I wondering if any of you can give me a bit of advice on this one. I am considering buying a Canon 300mm f/2.8 L lens. I already have a 300mm f/4 do you think that I would notice much of a difference between the two??

[Cadwell]

The 300mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens. The 300mm f/4 is also a fantastic lens.... do you need the extra stop? There's a big penalty in weight and size....

[WestFalcon]

With the F2.8, you will notice a very definite lightening of your wallet!

[mdr]

Note that this is not my view, as I have not used either lens.

I believe there was a review of both lenses using a 1Ds MkII in last weeks British Journal of Photography. The review raved about the f4 lens, but slated the f2.8 lens. It claimed that the f2.8 lens did not have sufficient resolving power, therefore, producing poor quality images.

May be worthwhile hunting for a copy before it's replaced by this weeks version on the shelves tomorrow.

[Cadwell]

Note that this is not my view, as I have not used either lens.

I believe there was a review of both lenses using a 1Ds MkII in last weeks British Journal of Photography. The review raved about the f4 lens, but slated the f2.8 lens. It claimed that the f2.8 lens did not have sufficient resolving power, therefore, producing poor quality images.


ROFLMAO.... whoever wrote that hasn't got the faintest idea what they are talking about. The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L USM IS is arguably the finest prime lens Canon makes... in fact it's arguably the finest prime lens ANYONE makes. LOL

[CyberDyneSystems]

er.... yeah,.. :)

The 300mm f/2.8L IS is not only one of the best lenses Canon has ever made,. many insist that it is the best 300mm ever made from ay manufacturer.

It's MTF charts certainly show it to have the highest resolving power of any lens Canon currenty makes.

The f/4 is a "great" lens,. the f/2.8 is positively legendary.

[Anders Östberg]

There is (I'm told, I have not tried the f/4 version) a definite difference in image quality, but maybe more importantly a full stop difference in speed. Depending on what you shoot that makes the difference between getting the shot or not. To generalize a bit, the 300/4 is a great handheld nature lens, the 300/2.8 is the greatest for sports from a monopod. The 300/2.8 is an amazing lens.

[IanD]

Having had the chance to play with both lenses and owning one (f/4) I have to admit that there is precious little out there that can come close to the 300 f/2.8 With a 1.4 TC on it, you cannot tell. Slap on the 2X TC and you would be hard pressed to tell that there was an extender on the lens, if, and this is a big if, if the image was properly captured in the first place. It is a wicked lens and the only draw back is the price. It costs many, many, many Canadian dollars. If you want some sample shots, check out www.pbase.com/ssim (http://www.pbase.com/ssim) and check out the latest owl posts.

[Persian-Rice]

Cadwell isn the biggest penalty the price??

Chris,

I read on your site that you have a 10D, I would say you should upgrade to a 1dMKII. That is what I think I would do with my money if I was in your shoes. A 1D will probably do alot more for you then a 300 f/2.8 would at this point.

[Cadwell]

Cadwell isn the biggest penalty the price??


:rolleyes: A gentleman never discusses money :rolleyes: :p

[KennyG]

I read on your site that you have a 10D, I would say you should upgrade to a 1dMKII.

He did that some time ago!

I will echo the above points. Canon themselves say the 300 2.8IS has the fastest AF of any of their lenses. You have to own one to appreciate just how good it is. Yes, it is expensive, but it is worth every dollar/pound that Canon ask for it.

Oh, and the BJP may have a fancy title but it lacks in a lot of areas, reviews being one of them, where they simply don't have a clue. It does not carry any real weight in the industry.

[chrisvw]

Thanks for all your comments so far. Just so that you all know I am looking at getting the 300mm f/2.8 with OUT IS. It is the 300mm f/2.8 L series 2.

[pcasciola]

I was about to say I'd trade in my 300/4L IS for the the 300/2.8L IS anyday, but now that you said without IS, that makes it a tougher call. I thought about doing that switch for a short while as well, but decided to keep the 300 f/4L, because I need the IS more than I need the extra stop and little bit of extra sharpness that the 2.8L non-IS would give me. If you shoot on a tripod most of the time you may not care about that though, but handheld at 1/250 or below, the IS is a huge help.

[Stoddard]

I think Canon's 300mm f2.8 and 135mm f2 are the sharpest lenses anyone could own. After saying that will I be disappointed if I buy a 70-200mm f2.8.

[drisley]

No, you will not be dissapointed. The 70-200mm lenses from Canon are fantastic!
When it comes to pixel peeping, the 135F2L is better optically, but in daily shots you probably won't notice much difference, unless you are using a 1DS MKII.

[rfreschner]

After saying that will I be disappointed if I buy a 70-200mm f2.8.

You won't be disappointed with the 70-200mm. :)

[Anders Östberg]

For almost any "normal" photography the 70-200 lenses hold their own very well against most other lenses. It's only at the extremes that they don't perform compared to primes. I'm not really happy with my 70-200/2.8 wide open, it needs to be stopped down one step, whereas the 135/2 is sharp at f/2. This gives me maybe two stops advantage for low light sports, and that's a huge difference when you're allready at the limit of what's possible in really low light. Having said that, a 70-200 is of course much more versatile. If I had to choose I would get the 70-200 first, and buy faster primes (85/1.8, 135/2) if I have a lot of specialized needs.

[Simon Harrison]

I have the 300mm f4 L IS and it is a fantastic lens. I've also had the pleasure of using a 300mm f2.8 L IS for a couple of hours. If I could add one thing to my kit bag, it would be that lens. The results I got from it were amazing, and I'm sure if I'd had the time to learn to use it properly (there's a definate technique to using these big lenses) then the results could have been even better. Something for me to aspire to.

Cheers,

Simon.

[Stoddard]

Thanks for the reply. I shoot a lot of indoor sports and shooting wide open is a must. How about the 85 f1.8, stopped down one step. Do you own this lens. I have the 24-70 and it is useless at 2.8, I think I'm going to dumb it.
Stod