IQ of 300L f/4 vs 300L f/2.8

Was wondering if the image quality of the f/4 is the same as f/2.8 on the 300L prime.

Both are outstanding lenses...but the 300 f/2.8 is a touch better. And 3x more expensive.

Papaw wrote in post #4606136
Was wondering if the image quality of the f/4 is the same as f/2.8 on the 300L prime.

Well I can't fully answer your question but I have the 300mm f/4 and the IQ is outstanding. The focusing speed is decent to above average but I would not recommend it for sports. I own other primes so I do have something to compare it with. If you don't need the 2.8 for speed I would definaltely get the f/4. Oh and the IS works wonderfully.

Thanks for the replies, considering the price difference looks like the f/4 would be the best value if you don't mind giving up the 2.8.

pmarz wrote in post #4606192
Well I can't fully answer your question but I have the 300mm f/4 and the IQ is outstanding. The focusing speed is decent to above average but I would not recommend it for sports. I own other primes so I do have something to compare it with. If you don't need the 2.8 for speed I would definaltely get the f/4. Oh and the IS works wonderfully.

why not? i think it's a great lens for sports.

ed rader

Papaw wrote in post #4606243
Thanks for the replies, considering the price difference looks like the f/4 would be the best value if you don't mind giving up the 2.8.

the f4 is also pretty light and handles very well.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4606277
why not? i think it's a great lens for sports.

ed rader

It must be a new year already since I'm loathe to agree with Ed. But I see no reason why the 300 f4 IS can't be used for sports. Its AF is actually pretty darn quick.

pmarz wrote in post #4606192
Well I can't fully answer your question but I have the 300mm f/4 and the IQ is outstanding. The focusing speed is decent to above average but I would not recommend it for sports. I own other primes so I do have something to compare it with. If you don't need the 2.8 for speed I would definaltely get the f/4. Oh and the IS works wonderfully.

I have no idea why the 300 f/4 can't be used for sports...guess I have been confused in using it all these years, as have a whole lot of other shooters.

I want the 300f4.....I just keep getting lighting stuff.......

I have used both. I was very impressed with the quality of the 300mm f4. The one I used was an older one without the IS. The lens was extremely light. Handled very well. I was able to use a 1.4x tc on the lens and the images were extremely sharp. I love the 2.8. It is a lot heavier and bulky. The lens performs like a charm. I have also used this with the 1.4x and 2x. It is wonderful. The AF is extremely fast and accurate.

I believe I read a topic on this forum that showed the f4 and f2.8 being very close on tests. I do not know the reliability of the tests but it was very interesting.

Ok, Ok, I actually have used it for sports. This is one of my most favorite lenses. I just think if sports is the primary use that is the only reason to go with the 2.8.

I've used both for shooting sports--GASP

The 2.8 is slightly sharper and focuses faster---lives up to it's reputation IMO

The big difference---

The f4 I own

The 2.8 on loan from the local pro.

Someday

I own both and loan out the f4 to a friend, when the light is good enough, at rugby matches. When she gets it right, I can't tell the difference between her shots and mine. I hate talented kids.

Without checking the exif, which lens is this???

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

I have the 300 f/2.8 but if I ever had to downgrade
due to budget, I would make a beeline for the 300 f/4.
The AF is fast, accurate and being a prime, it has nice
color. It's also super light and very portable.

The non IS version which sells for as low as $500 at
times has got to be one of the best values ever...

I recently purchased the f/4 version, hoping to save money over the big bulky f/2.8.

After a couple of hours shooting with the lens and comparing with a 100-400L I went back and exchanged it for the f/2.8. The f/4 just wasn't as sharp as I'd hoped for a prime, IQ was identical to the zoom.

I've very happy with the f/2.8 and admittedly I'm a junkie for f/2.8 and wider lenses. One item of interest, the 300 f/2.8 IS is the only lens I own (out of many L lenses) that I will confidently shoot using the 2x extender. That alone made it easy to justify the f/2.8.

Shot with 2x extender: