Is the 300mm f2.8L II REALLY That much better than 300 F/4?

My question is pretty self explanatory, but here it is.

Is the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM really that much better than the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM???

The former is usually 6 times the price, but is hailed as being much, MUCH better.

Looking at their MTF Charts, the f/4 is... meh. Not terrible. But looking at the f/2.8... My God. It's beautiful. Very very few lenses can approach that quality. Even WITH a 1.4x extender on, it still clearly beats the crap out of it.

But I want to know about real-world results. Has anyone used both side-by-side, is it really worth the additional $5000 for the 2.8???

If you have to ask the question, it is not worth it. The 2.8 is sharper, takes in more light, focuses faster, works great with converters, has better subject isolation..... The 300mm f4 is only lighter.

YES

If you only needed a lens that could do 300mm at f/4, then my guess is you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them.

But- beyond the obvious reasoning of f/2.8, to me the appeal of the 300mm f/2.8 II is the ability to work so well with TC's, giving the user a very good 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 lens. Like the 200-400 f/4, I believe the ability of this lens to be an excellent performer at various super-telephoto focal lengths is what makes the 300 2.8 II justify it's cost, at least to the right user.

Even the version 1 300mm 2.8 IS is sharper at 2.8 then the F4 ever is.

Talley wrote in post #16736875
Even the version 1 300mm 2.8 IS is sharper at 2.8 then the F4 ever is.

That's quite a claim.

Having have owned the 300 f/4L IS prior and buying the f/2.8 II recently, I would have to say the f/2.8 II is somewhat in a league all its own. The sharpness wide open is probably better than the f/4 IS will be, even stopped down. The build quality, IS, separation ability, etc...

That being said, I don't think its crazily different when you factor in the price/performance ratio. If you can get by with f/4, that model is excellent. The MFD makes it a cool macro-like lens, its lightweight and optically very good. I never had a problem with it! It does show some purple fringing in high contrast areas, I do remember that.

So while the f/2.8 is quite a bit better, not sure if its worth it for everyone. It just depends. I like the option to add the 1.4x and still have an f/4 at 420mm, or a 2x III and get 600mm at f/5.6 with still really good IQ. The f/4 is good with a 1.4x, but not so much with a 2X, plus your a stop slower.

I think it was worth it for me... But I really enjoy shooting with telephotos for most things, not just birds, wildlife, etc... I do much of my amusement park photography with 200mm+ and the f/2.8 helps with separation and low light.

The f/4 IS is an excellent lens though... For the price, its a great option. I sold mine when I got the 70-200 II because the 70-200 + 1.4x was basically sharper at 280mm than the 300 prime was (or close enough). So there was no reason to keep it.

1Tanker wrote in post #16736912
That's quite a claim.

But, he is correct.
The version 1 is extremely sharp from 2.8. It handles CA better, the focus is faster. Its better in every way.

The F/4 is lighter and extremely cheaper in comparison.

1Tanker wrote in post #16736912
That's quite a claim.

Just repeating what many here and people I know say. I just got my 300mm 2.8 and it's sharper at 2.8 than my 135 is at 2.8 and my 135 at 2.8 tested slightly sharper than the 70-200 2.8 IS II lens was at 2.8

I could not imagine how much sharper the 300mm 2.8 II is because this V1 is wow.

They weren't joking when they said the 300mm 2.8s are the sharpest of the sharp.

I think the 200 F2 is still the king of sharpness and maybe the new II super tele 500/600s

Talley wrote in post #16737072
Just repeating what many here and people I know say. I just got my 300mm 2.8 and it's sharper at 2.8 than my 135 is at 2.8 and my 135 at 2.8 tested slightly sharper than the 70-200 2.8 IS II lens was at 2.8

I could not imagine how much sharper the 300mm 2.8 II is because this V1 is wow.

They weren't joking when they said the 300mm 2.8s are the sharpest of the sharp.

I think the 200 F2 is still the king of sharpness and maybe the new II super tele 500/600s

I think the king is the 300mm F2.8ii, but from what I recall, version i and ii are extremely close (both extremely sharp wide open). V1 is probably on the level of 200F2 sharpness, while 300v2 is a tad sharper than both, but difference too small to see 99% of the time.

congrats on the purchase.

Everything you guys are saying is basically confirming what I figured was probably true... I don't know if I'll ever be satisfied thinking, "This shot would be sharper had I only shelled up the cash for the better lens"...

I guess I was hoping someone would say, "Nah, they're pretty much the same. You won't be able to tell the difference!" But of course that's not how things work...

The wider aperture isn't the most important to me, I'm more concerned just with the sharpness and overall quality of the photos.

At f/8 there will not be a whole lot of difference.

gasrocks wrote in post #16737123
At f/8 there will not be a whole lot of difference.

i doubt anyone is gonna use these lenses often at f/8

having said that I own both the 300 f2.8 is ver 1 and the 300 f4 is. What i can see in the real world and not test charts are that the f2.8 is sharper wide open than the 300 f4 wide open. the colours and contrast are second to none for the f2.8, the bokeh and it takes the 1.4TC way better than the f4.

also the all important thing is that the auto focus is off the hook for the f2.8. the f4 is no slouch but the f2.8 is like 'always in a hurry to get there first'. Put both in AI servo and you will see what I mean.

reasons for keeping the 300 f4 is for the lightweightness, the ability to pass off as a macro lens and its cheap as a second lens for the Mrs.

Is the 300 f2.8 ver 1 worth it? I would say abso-freaking-loutely and I cant imagine the IQ of the ver 2 given the prowess of the ver 1 already.


Cheers!

Want a 300L f2.8 in the worst way. Problem is, how can I afford it?

The f2.8 is barely sharper than the f4:p