Am I crazy not to consider the 300 f/2.8L?

Hello everyone,

Need opinions regarding my next lens purchase. At this moment I've borrowed a 300 f/4L, 400 f/5.6L and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L, and have a lens test coming up for all of you considering the very same lenses . These are the lenses I'm currently considering.

The only tele I currently have is a 70-300mm APO II. Nice lens, pretty sharp up to about 250mm (little soft wide-open) but, focussing is slooow.

So, am I crazy enough not to consider the 300 f/2.8L, instead of the more versatile 100-400L, because I don't have a decent (ie. fast focussing, sharp wide-open) zoom to back it up? I see the 300 f/2.8L as kind of a specialty lens.

Why am I considering the 300 f/2.8L, then, you say? Well, I've always wanted a SHARP tele lens. Secondly, this lens is legendary sharp . I have got the money for it, so I guess I might be slightly dissapointed with a 100-400L. I guess it comes down to versatility. I'd like to shoot birds, planes and some sports perhaps. I'm afraid the 300L is a little long for sports, especially at my local tennis club (you can get very close to the venues) where I might shoot some pics one day.

If the 400 f/5.6L had IS, I'd buy that one. Unfortunately, it hasn't, which makes this choice, very, very hard.

Any thoughts?

These aren't sharp enough?

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/300_4l_is_on_a_​5d

I mean, how big might you be printing that the differences in sharpness between the 300 / 2.8L IS and 300 / 4L IS would be visible? Now, if you need that extra stop for DOF and/or high ISO reasons, then that's a different matter.

so many options. what about a 135mm and a 200mm 2.8? 300mm 2.8 is so nice to have if the length is right go for it.

joe mama wrote in post #7620911
These aren't sharp enough?

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/300_4l_is_on_a_​5d

I mean, how big might you be printing that the differences in sharpness between the 300 / 2.8L IS and 300 / 4L IS would be visible? Now, if you need that extra stop for DOF and/or high ISO reasons, then that's a different matter.

These shots do look sharp enough. However, the copy I tested isn't as sharp. I will post my test tonight.

Heh!

Anyway, the 300 is nice not just at 300, but also quite sharp with a 1.4x TC. It's a special lens, when you shoot in its range. And, the IS is quite effective, it's great with just a monopod and IS, so you can get this lens with no fear.

That being said, I used both the 300 and the 100-400, and I found myself using the 100-400 significantly more, for the versatility.

For sports, well, I'd have to throw in another monkey wrench: the 70-200 outperforms the 100-400 in IQ as well as speed. If you do a lot of sports, that would be one of my first grabs, but for longer reach the 100-400 can do in a pinch, but those long primes also will outperform.

I'm really not helping much, am I?

tonylong wrote in post #7620930
Heh!

Anyway, the 300 is nice not just at 300, but also quite sharp with a 1.4x TC. It's a special lens, when you shoot in its range. And, the IS is quite effective, it's great with just a monopod and IS, so you can get this lens with no fear.

I know, I've read that the 300 handles TCs very well.

Thanks for the comments. I can go for a 70-200 and 300 f/4L / 400
f/5.6L , instead of a 300 f/2.8L, of course. However, sports is just a thing I'd like to do as well, but mainly I'd like to shoort birds. The 300 f/2.8L makes a 600 f/5.6L IS which still autofocuses. (although not very fast, or so I've read)

I'm really not helping much, am I?

Not really.

As soon as I got my 300f2.8 the 100-400 was down the road as veritile as it was I dont miss the zoom.

AirbusA380 wrote in post #7620955
Thanks for the comments. I can go for a 70-200 and 300 f/4L / 400
f/5.6L , instead of a 300 f/2.8L, of course. However, sports is just a thing I'd like to do as well, but mainly I'd like to shoort birds. The 300 f/2.8L makes a 600 f/5.6L IS which still autofocuses. (although not very fast, or so I've read)

Heh! here is the rub:

Sports and wildlife have a similar need, in that they both need high quality lenses that cover a range.

The problem is that, unfortunately, their ranges are different.

for sports, I'd say the best option to start with would be a 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) with a low-light backup of an 85 f/1.8. The 70-200 would take a TC well to give it some more reach.

With wildlife, the one lens to start with would be the 100-400, but your sights would be set, not on the 300 but on the 500 or 600, because 400 is, for much wildlife photography, too short.

The 300 is an "in the middle" lens -- like I said, great for the range, but of course too long for many sports shots and for much wildlife too short. It works great with a 1.4x TC for a bit over 400mm, but goes somewhat soft with a 2x TC so, believe me, you'll be wanting a longer prime.

tonylong wrote in post #7620994
Heh! here is the rub:

Sports and wildlife have a similar need, in that they both need high quality lenses that cover a range.

The problem is that, unfortunately, their ranges are different.

for sports, I'd say the best option to start with would be a 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) with a low-light backup of an 85 f/1.8. The 70-200 would take a TC well to give it some more reach.

With wildlife, the one lens to start with would be the 100-400, but your sights would be set, not on the 300 but on the 500 or 600, because 400 is, for much wildlife photography, too short.

I guess you're right. Thanks again .

I guess if I decide on the 300, I'd use it almost always with a 1.4x TC, when shooting birds with a 2x TC. It's a shame it's a little soft (I read your comment in an other thread), but then again, not too surprising.

This decision is a very hard one to make .

I love my 300, I think it's perfect for my needs in the middle lens location. Leave it naked for sports, slap on the 1.4x for some birds, the 2x for others and I'm happy. Then again I'm not making huge prints or having anything published so....

I'd say take just the 300 you have at the moment to the tennis club for a day and see how you like the results at that length, if you don't well there's your answer.

While I lust(and always seem to be saving for) for the 500 it would be ludicrous and completely irresponsible for me to purchase one. This is just a hobby for me but I'd have to say the 300 is the most used lens in my bag.

I've yet to regret buying the 300 a single day since and it's given me shots I otherwise would have missed with a slower lens, well that and everyone seems to part like the Red Sea when they see it(remember, I'm dealing with locals and it's most likely the biggest lens they've ever seen in real life).

For the OPs consideration:

A gallery of air show shots using a combo of 100-400 on a MkIII and a 300mm f/2.8L IS + 1.4X TC on a 40D...

There may even be some 300 + 2X TC in the mix as well.

Now, if Jay's gallery doesn't convince you to go 300 f2.8 nothing will! Of course, he does shoot with the 100-400 too, albeit with a 1D MkIII.

Scout7id wrote in post #7621990
Now, if Jay's gallery doesn't convince you to go 300 f2.8 nothing will! Of course, he does shoot with the 100-400 too, albeit with a 1D MkIII.

That's why I offered it as a comparison...

<Thanks for the vote of confidence!>

Scout7id wrote in post #7621990
Now, if Jay's gallery doesn't convince you to go 300 f2.8 nothing will! Of course, he does shoot with the 100-400 too, albeit with a 1D MkIII.

+1.
Beautiful gallery Jay.
I know I've heard it a zillion times, but your gallery is another testament that the 1.4X TC is pretty much transparent when used on the 300 2.8.
Greg

BiPolarBear wrote in post #7622070
+1.
Beautiful gallery Jay.
I know I've heard it a zillion times, but your gallery is another testament that the 1.4X TC is pretty much transparent when used on the 300 2.8.
Greg

Thanks very much (Love your Screen Name BTW...)

The 300 + 1.4X really is a match made in Canon Engineering Heaven. And if you have the light, the 2X isn't that far behind.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'