Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

Amazing owl shots !!!

I didn't spend that much money for a lens that is heavier or softer than my 70-200L 2.8 IS or 100-400L IS. When testing one lens against another, you need to do it under the same conditions and preferably use a tripod. The fire hydrant was shot by 3 lenses under 3 different lighting conditions.
*NOTE*
Proper camera setting make a big difference. Once, I had one of my lenses hunting for focus and the images weren't consistant in where I wanted it to focus. I had left the AF set to "AI Servo" and was shooting a subject that wasn't changing distance. From then on, before I start shooting I take each camera body and check all setting very closely. Also, it's very common for the mode dial to change while carrying the camera- shoulder strap will turn that dial, so check it!

Invertalon wrote in post #12135204
Yes, with the 300mm f/2.8 I had, the 70-200 II is clearly sharper wide open.

Here are three comparison shots of the same subject from roughly the same spot (one of my sharpness targets when I get a new lens! haha)...

First one is the 300 f/2.8 - Second is the 400mm f/5.6 - Third is the 70-200 f/2.8 II

The 70-200 had the best light between the examples, but these results were typical for me... So it may not be a perfect example, but this is normal for what I saw the week I had the 300! I think something was wrong with the 300 CPS gave me, because even with live-view my results did not get any better. Who knows! Sent it back today though!

Something is wrong!! I own the 70-200 f2.8 11 and the 300mm f2.8 IS and the 300 is razor sharp. The 70-200 is excellent but the prime is in another league! Also the 300 does take the TC better as well. The 300 is heavier but it is definitely sharp wide open!

Awesome Owl Series!

Great owls!

You guys are trying to prove something, when there is nothing to prove.

I posted one example (bad one at that) but results are typical. Live view, tripod, the whole deal.

Let's face it, my copy was bad. End of story. I am not saying this lens is soft or anything like that, the copy I was given did not perform like it should have. Simple as that!

You may just need to have your lens + body calibrated together. Often times that is why your lens may suck.

Did you let CPS know this? Maybe they can get you another loaner, shipping both ways on them, since you got a bad one. It's worth a try.

Invertalon wrote in post #12138876
...Let's face it, my copy was bad. End of story...

Has nothing to do with AF, especially when I used live-view and had the same results. It never got any better. So that part of the equation is not relevant. If it helps, I had the same results on my 5Dc too... So I had the same issue on two bodies...

You know, it IS possible to get a soft lens... There does not have to be other reasoning. I have enough experience to know when something is "off" and there was with this lens for me.

i have the 70-200 2.8 II, but not the 300 2.8, but i tend to agree with you. prime tends to have that much more pop in IQ than zoom.

butterfly2937 wrote in post #12138646
Something is wrong!! I own the 70-200 f2.8 11 and the 300mm f2.8 IS and the 300 is razor sharp. The 70-200 is excellent but the prime is in another league! Also the 300 does take the TC better as well. The 300 is heavier but it is definitely sharp wide open!

Invertalon wrote in post #12139096
Has nothing to do with AF, especially when I used live-view and had the same results. It never got any better. So that part of the equation is not relevant. If it helps, I had the same results on my 5Dc too... So I had the same issue on two bodies...

You know, it IS possible to get a soft lens... There does not have to be other reasoning. I have enough experience to know when something is "off" and there was with this lens for me.

I wonder what could be wrong there if 300 2.8L quality lens is soft.. is there something wrong in lens alignment or bad lens element?

Well, I have heard rumour from nature photographer who bought 400 5.6L, he was not impressed so he changed it to another copy. Still not so good as he was excepting.. finally he took third copy and that was sharp enough

I know zooms can have more "soft copies" because of complex zooming mechanisms..but why also primes can have bad versions? Especially when it comes to "L" grade lens..

With a loaner, you really have no idea where it's been or to what it's been subjected...

hi,i have 2 Questions .How many of you have and use the Canon PL-C 52mm Drop-in Filter and what do you think of the Quality/Results?

Foil wrote in post #12139416
hi,i have 2 Questions .How many of you have and use the Canon PL-C 52mm Drop-in Filter and what do you think of the Quality/Results?

Is that the Polarizer? I only have drop-in ND and I've never noticed an IQ hit.

yes i mean the Pol Filter,i am thinking of buying one and you don`t find that much on the internet so i thought i`d ask here