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

Yes, I currently have both. I can say without any hesitation the 2.8 is that much better.

eigga wrote in post #16756880
Yes, I currently have both. I can say without any hesitation the 2.8 is that much better.

I would agree that 300 2.8 is much better than the f/4

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16756867
I've shot with both and I could tell in the bokeh and the sharpness. So you have owned the 200 2L?

I did yes. I was shooting taekwondo for my friend's school and had the cash. I was looking for a longer lens for birds/wildlife and figured "Heck, I would love to use that lens until I can find something longer!" I ended up trading with a local member for the 400mm DO since I don't shoot TKD anymore.

Ironically the person I traded with said the 300mm f/4L IS and the 400mm DO are about equal in sharpness. I have found that to be true in my pictures too.

Well it better is with a 6 times higher price tag

Not comparable IMO

davidfarina wrote in post #16757510
Well it better is with a 6 times higher price tag

Not comparable IMO

Sometimes the sharpness and one stop are important. One stop is twice the light and can mean the difference in missing hte shot and getting the shot so to many it is worth it

When you feed the family with it sometimes the cheaper route is not the best route.

The sharpness is unbelievable. I just got a cheapo kenko 1.4X TC and the thing is sharp as a tack with it on wide open. So now I have 300 2.8, 420 F4 or 600 5.6 w/ my 2x. Something I cannot do with a 300 F4 would be a 2x.

Sometimes I just need 600mm

After spending the last week with my new 300 II on vacation, this lens really is above and beyond the f/4 version for sure. The IQ is just stunning and on a whole new level of detail and sharpness I have never seen before. Just incredible. I think it was worth the up charge for sure.