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

My 300 F/2.8 II is hands down the sharpest lens I have ever used... That is comparing some serious lenses too... 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 300 f/4 IS, 400 5.6, 135L, 85L, 35L, 24L, etc... You get the point!

The 2.8 II has practically flawless IQ. Resolution is nuts, no CA or fringing, beautiful colors/contrast and instant and accurate AF. Stopping down really does not sharpen anything, just add depth of field. The price is the downfall! But you pay for that flawless performance.

I retract my previous comment... i missed the "II" in the title of the thread.. my apologies.

brianjohnsondesign wrote in post #16737110
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.

Don't obsess over sharpness. The F4 is still supposed to be very, very, good. If you're not interested in shooting at 600mm, or at 2.8 at 300mm, then I'd suggest you go for the F4.

The f/4 IS makes a great flower lens with its short focus distance. I used it for flowers and close objects just as much as I "tried" to use it for birds. It really is a fantastic lens, especially for one who wants a telephoto and can't afford to spend $7000.

I agree ^

The f/4 IS also has very smooth, buttery bokeh. Alongside the 135L, that combo was stunning in terms of both of their abilities to blow out backgrounds at closer distances.

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

Yes.

You'll get a good workout carrying a 300 2.8. The MKII is a little lighter.

I own and like the 300mm f/4L IS. It's not bad wide open and very sharp stopped down. I, for one, am glad the 300mm f/4L IS is available still in its original (IS) form. If a version II was released, the price would be much more dear, and probably out of reach for guys like me. I think the moderately priced 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L are two of the highlights of the Canon lens line-up just the way they are. They're very good quality and a bargain to boot. But of course, the latest f/2.8 versions are better. They're much newer designs and it's much, much more expensive. They better be sharper!

Invertalon wrote in post #16737813
My 300 F/2.8 II is hands down the sharpest lens I have ever used... That is comparing some serious lenses too... 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 300 f/4 IS, 400 5.6, 135L, 85L, 35L, 24L, etc... You get the point!

The 2.8 II has practically flawless IQ. Resolution is nuts, no CA or fringing, beautiful colors/contrast and instant and accurate AF. Stopping down really does not sharpen anything, just add depth of field. The price is the downfall! But you pay for that flawless performance.

^^I own the 300 f2.8 IS II and I totally agree.

I never used the f4 version but I've read its AF speed is slower than the f2.8 and can be a problem when shooting fast moving subjects. Especially when the subject is moving away or towards the shooter.

The 300 f2.8 II has a newer IS system (2 stops better, I believe), and the AF is very fast and accurate when using the 1.4xIII. The IQ with the 1.4xIII is fantastic.

Canons 3 sharpest lenses are the 200 2L, 300 2.8 and 400 2.8.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16754052
Canons 3 sharpest lenses are the 200 2L, 300 2.8 and 400 2.8.

I figured Canon's macros would actually be their sharpest lenses.

My 70-200L II was just as sharp as the 200L IS.

The 70 - 200 is not as sharp as the 200 2L and the 200 2L is a full stop faster than the 70-200 2.8.

The charts don't lie. Some of the macros are better than other macros but generally perform better than the three I mentioned for macro work.

In the real world non pixel peeping, yes my two lenses were so very close you couldn't tell.

I've shot with both and I could tell in the bokeh and the sharpness. So you have owned the 200 2L?