Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

Flores wrote in post #12089316
Hispanic and Catholic... you usually need a big church

I could imagine.

As the 70-200/2.8 IS is standard wedding photog gear it is possible to use a 300/2.8 IS for weddings as well. Just use a monopod as wedding tends to take long.

Interesting. What do they plan to accomplish with such ordinance?

dolina wrote in post #12081525
She's pissed off as some of the men above are pushing for an ordinance to require people to get a doctor's prescription for a condom.

Methodical wrote in post #12089687
Interesting. What do they plan to accomplish with such ordinance?

Derail the Reproductive Health Bill being debated upon in the Philippine legislature.

My take on this ordinance is that it is another sign of govt inefficiencies & waste and catering to special interest.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I have been playing with this lens all weekend from CPS... And sadly, I am not as blown away as I was expecting to be. The lens is good, but wide open the sharpness is not as amazing as I thought it would be. Stopped down 2/3 or 1 full stop really sharpen it up considerably, but I would buy this lens to use wide open 90% of the time so that performance was important to me. With a TC performance is slightly worse than expected as well, especially when I read how this is one of the best lenses to use TC's with.

I just think the 300 f/4 IS has very similiar IQ (if not better from what I have taken thus far) and shoots with a TC better wide open. The downfall? A stop slower of course.. But for $3000+ more?

I really want to love this lens, but sadly not yet. I really enjoy using it, but wish my results were a bit better. Maybe its just me!

Invertalon wrote in post #12110098
I have been playing with this lens all weekend from CPS... And sadly, I am not as blown away as I was expecting to be. The lens is good, but wide open the sharpness is not as amazing as I thought it would be. Stopped down 2/3 or 1 full stop really sharpen it up considerably, but I would buy this lens to use wide open 90% of the time so that performance was important to me. With a TC performance is slightly worse than expected as well, especially when I read how this is one of the best lenses to use TC's with.

I just think the 300 f/4 IS has very similiar IQ (if not better from what I have taken thus far) and shoots with a TC better wide open. The downfall? A stop slower of course.. But for $3000+ more?

I really want to love this lens, but sadly not yet. I really enjoy using it, but wish my results were a bit better. Maybe its just me!

Thats a shame you had issues.. I did also after I bought mine.. With my MKIV I rarely shoot wide open but the sharpness wide open is pretty good if not over the top. I also had issues with TC's but figured out it was me. I have found out over the years that everything has a learning curve and nothing has been out of the box perfect. I hope you get it working as for me this has been a sweet lens to carry around and shoot hand held with little issues. Here is a shot with the 2x at about 60% crop and at f8 with iso640 and hand held. I think this is pretty sharp.

I wouldn't argue as to whether the lens is "super sharp" at f/2.8 -- when I'm shooting with a wide lens "quite good" wide open is pretty much good enough and certainly quite good at f/2.8 is a lot better than, well, "zilch" at f/2.8 when all you have is an f/4 lens!

But, I have nothing against f/4 lenses, I don't shoot wide open unless I need to.

One thing, though, to consider -- if you are in the habit of shooting moving subjects the f/2.8 lenses do "unlock" the hidden AF assist points that give you a more accurate focus. I'll admit, I unloaded my copy at a point where I needed the money and do my wildlife shooting these days with a 100-400 and a 1.4x AC attached and normally stopped down I'm set at f/11, but for stuff like sports/action, I still use my 70-200 f/2.8 lens for the fast accurate AF and wouldn't want to be without it!

I would not consider them "issues", maybe just unrealistic expectations!

I guess my thing is I am comparing it to a few lenses I had prior (or currently) that have incredible IQ wide open... My 70-200 II for example is sharper at f/2.8 (then again, it has what 10+ years of additional lens technology behind it?). I think I was just expecting incredible head-over-heels sharpness, where that is not always the case. I have some awesome shots wide open, but it seems heavily dependent on the light (like most lenses). But stopped down to f/4 or so, it is extremely sharp... And I know lens sharpness is not everything, but having the 300mm f/4L IS for a few months prior and having excellent sharpness wide open for a much cheaper price, the cost doesn't justify the one extra stop (plus size/weight). Maybe the Mark II will change my mind when released, but affording that will not be for a few years...

And for those who may wonder... I compared my shots to the same shots taken via live-view, and they look identical/similar, so is not a cause that it needs microadjust or anything. I used this lens on both my 7D and 5Dc with similar results.

I guess it is good though I don't LOVE it like I thought I would, saves me some money in the bank... Instead, I have decided to look out for a 400mm f/5.6 to use for birding and airplanes and such... And use my 70-200 with 1.4x TC when I need the 300mm FL.

Awesome lens though... Really happy to get a chance to play around with one of the super-tele's... Maybe one day that Mark II could be mine... Because I really enjoy the 300mm native FL, especially at a f/2.8 aperture... But I also want some incredible sharpness behind it, as that is where I will use the lens 90% of the time!

Like everything in life, there's a trade off at work...

For a working pro, f/2.8 might allow him/her to get a shot even if it's not entirely tack sharp whereas a slower lens may not even allow the capture of anything at all.

And you're spot on regarding the comparison to the 70-200mm MkII. 10 Years, Elfin Magic and a better brand of pixie dust have all gone into the latest 70-200.

track day mondello in Ireland

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

For sure! If I had the money I am 90% sure I would splurge on it right now... Sadly the size of the lens makes it less versatile for me (just hobbyist) and the price/performance just doesn't make sense for me. But I am sure this lens would be amazing in many cases where other lenses simply can not do the job.

And the pixel dust comment made me chuckle

Invertalon wrote in post #12110098
I have been playing with this lens all weekend from CPS... And sadly, I am not as blown away as I was expecting to be. The lens is good, but wide open the sharpness is not as amazing as I thought it would be. Stopped down 2/3 or 1 full stop really sharpen it up considerably, but I would buy this lens to use wide open 90% of the time so that performance was important to me. With a TC performance is slightly worse than expected as well, especially when I read how this is one of the best lenses to use TC's with.

I just think the 300 f/4 IS has very similiar IQ (if not better from what I have taken thus far) and shoots with a TC better wide open. The downfall? A stop slower of course.. But for $3000+ more?

I really want to love this lens, but sadly not yet. I really enjoy using it, but wish my results were a bit better. Maybe its just me!

I am kind of shocked you did not like this lens wide open as mine is razor sharp on my 7D. I wonder if you needed more time with the lens. I know several people who have this lens and they also find it superb wide open. It did take me a few weeks to feel totally comfortable with this lens and I use it on a monopod or a tripod with a Markins head or my Sidekick.

Could be very true... I took some photos later in the day and got some excellent results wide open, but lighting was perfect. It made me happy!

I don't mean to try and "knock down" this lens, it is an awesome lens. But maybe my copy is not as sharp as many others... It is from 1999, so about 12 years old. Not that it matters, these lenses are built to last.

I have another week with this lens before I have to send it back... I will see if I can improve my results before making my final judgement on it

EDIT: Just finished some editing from my RAW files with this lens, and it really made the images much better. Still had a nice amount of softer images (maybe due to atmosphere?) but the results are much better. May just be user error after all!

click to enlarge

IMAGE LINK: http://farm6.static.fl​ickr.com …41704263_f0e1b4​8aca_o.jpg

Invertalon wrote in post #12112505
Just finished some editing from my RAW files with this lens, and it really made the images much better. Still had a nice amount of softer images (maybe due to atmosphere?) but the results are much better. May just be user error after all!

If you're not used to long lenses, atmospherics can play a very large part in image quality.

Literally less atmosphere is the reason they build telescopes on top of mountains!

Heat haze can be a real image killer (even in winter time.)

Fabulous Sin City Roller Girls: Hoover Damned vs Tommy Gun Terrors

Here's a shot of: Bone Eata 4N6

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO