300 2.8 over 300 f4

[Kincaid Photo]

I have done lots of research, and read quite a few threads about both lenses. After looking at samples, and reviewing the information I could find, I am looking for opinions from folks who have used either for air show photography. I primarily used my 100-400 for this, but have moved on. While it was a fantastic lens, and offered a lot of versatility, I always found something about it off. I don't know what, but after two copies I just didn't like it. I traded it off for a 300 f4, and away I go. However, I am trying to sell the f4 now to fund an f2.8, and don't know if it is the right move. I know the 2.8 IS is one of the better tele's on the market, but is it worth $2500 more dollars? Do you get that much more out of the 2.8? I like the idea that if the show line is a bit further away I can use the 1.4TC and get out there farther without loosing too much IQ or focus speed, but I am hung up on the $$ part of it. It is a lot of money, and I am just trying to find out all I can.

Thanks in advance!

[butterfly2937]

I am looking forward to the responses, as I am now saving for the 300mm f2.8!

[DDCSD]

Do you need f/2.8 to help erase backgrounds or for shutter speed? Do you find yourself actually disappointed in the IQ or focus speed of the f/4, have you ever said " man I wish I could get one stop faster of a shutter speed"?

If so, then you probably could use the f/2.8. If not, you're just experiencing lens lust with no basis in reality.

[Kincaid Photo]

Do you need f/2.8 to help erase backgrounds or for shutter speed? Do you find yourself actually disappointed in the IQ or focus speed of the f/4, have you ever said " man I wish I could get one stop faster of a shutter speed"?

If so, then you probably could use the f/2.8. If not, you're just experiencing lens lust with no basis in reality.

Yes, and yes. I find a couple issues with the f4. The f4 is a fine lens, but I find the focus speed, even with a mk3, a little slower than I would like. Unfortunately, I often end up shooting against cloudy skies, and the lack of contrast hinders me some. From what I information I have read, the 2.8 AF system is one of the best. (especially when coupled with a 1 series)

I think the faster lens will help with keeping the shutter speeds up without getting into too high of an iso. I don't mind getting up to 800 or so, but I would love to stay lower while managing 1/1600 or higher.

As for dropping the background out, I think it would just be an added bonus. Great for the low level stuff, ya know?

[Kincaid Photo]

I would also love the ability to have the TC on for longer shots, and not lose too much IQ or AF speed.

[DDCSD]

Yes, and yes. I find a couple issues with the f4. The f4 is a fine lens, but I find the focus speed, even with a mk3, a little slower than I would like. Unfortunately, I often end up shooting against cloudy skies, and the lack of contrast hinders me some. From what I information I have read, the 2.8 AF system is one of the best. (especially when coupled with a 1 series)

I think the faster lens will help with keeping the shutter speeds up without getting into too high of an iso. I don't mind getting up to 800 or so, but I would love to stay lower while managing 1/1600 or higher.

As for dropping the background out, I think it would just be an added bonus. Great for the low level stuff, ya know?


Then go for it! The 300 f/2.8 IS is reputed to be quite possibly the finest lens Canon has ever produced.

I'm personally working my way up to the 400 f/2.8, so I've got the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for now. I just couldn't bring myself to spend the bucks on the Canon (although I nearly bought a non-IS version) when I knew that its just a stepping stone to the grandaddy 400. I also got a tremendous deal on the 120-300.

Unless IS is important to you, you may want to keep an eye out for an older non-IS version. They come up occasionally for pretty nice prices.

[butterfly2937]

Yes, and yes. I find a couple issues with the f4. The f4 is a fine lens, but I find the focus speed, even with a mk3, a little slower than I would like. Unfortunately, I often end up shooting against cloudy skies, and the lack of contrast hinders me some. From what I information I have read, the 2.8 AF system is one of the best. (especially when coupled with a 1 series)

I think the faster lens will help with keeping the shutter speeds up without getting into too high of an iso. I don't mind getting up to 800 or so, but I would love to stay lower while managing 1/1600 or higher.

As for dropping the background out, I think it would just be an added bonus. Great for the low level stuff, ya know?

That is my reasoning. I love the speed of AF and the ability to keep SS up and ISO low. For me I know I am compromising with anything less than f2.8 for my most used lenses. It's ability to take both the 1.4x and the 2x increases the versatility of the lens as well.

[DDCSD]

Oh, and I have no idea how I missed the whole "airshow" part of your first post. :)

[Kincaid Photo]

Then go for it! The 300 f/2.8 IS is reputed to be quite possibly the finest lens Canon has ever produced.

I'm personally working my way up to the 400 f/2.8, so I've got the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for now. I just couldn't bring myself to spend the bucks on the Canon (although I nearly bought a non-IS version) when I knew that its just a stepping stone to the grandaddy 400. I also got a tremendous deal on the 120-300.

Unless IS is important to you, you may want to keep an eye out for an older non-IS version. They come up occasionally for pretty nice prices.

I know I want to, but I am still on the fence with whether or not I need to. I have a thousand reasons to go for it, and a thousand reasons not to. Isn't buying new gear supposed to be fun? When did it become such a big damn decision?

[Kincaid Photo]

Oh, and I have no idea how I missed the whole "airshow" part of your first post. :)

Sooner or later I will decide to put it in my posts as one word. That should fix it. :D

Good news is, I have until November to get it. Next big show is the homecoming in FL.

[DDCSD]

I know I want to, but I am still on the fence with whether or not I need to. I have a thousand reasons to go for it, and a thousand reasons not to. Isn't buying new gear supposed to be fun?


Of course you don't need to. But when did this become about need? ;)

When did it become such a big damn decision?

When you started looking at buying an almost $4,000 lens. :lol:

I remember when my wife thought $500 was a ton of money for a lens and $600 was out of this world for a camera body. :lol::lol:

[DDCSD]

Sooner or later I will decide to put it in my posts as one word. That should fix it. :D


One word, two words, won't make a bit of difference in whether or not I decide to actually read the post I'm replying to. :lol:



Good news is, I have until November to get it. Next big show is the homecoming in FL.

You in Jax?

[Kincaid Photo]

Of course you don't need to. But when did this become about need? ;)

You do make a good point...:lol:



When you started looking at buying an almost $4,000 lens. :lol:

I remember when my wife thought $500 was a ton of money for a lens and $600 was out of this world for a camera body. :lol::lol:

You should have seen the look on my wife's face when I got the mk3, or the 5d2...the one time my camera is in the other room. HA!

[Kincaid Photo]

One word, two words, won't make a bit of difference in whether or not I decide to actually read the post I'm replying to. :lol:




You in Jax?

....Atlanta, but Pensacola is a better drive than Dayton was a few weeks ago.

[Kincaid Photo]

mmmmm, 300 2.8 on the way!

[DDCSD]

mmmmm, 300 2.8 on the way!


Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

[Kincaid Photo]

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

For all parties involved, with the exclusion of my wallet of course.

SOMEONE BUY MY f4!!! lol