Tricky Question on 300 2.8 non IS Mk3

hi

i have another dilemma. I enjoy wildlife and sports photography and am looking at selling my sigmos as i am not that happy with it. I would ideally like a 300L 2.8 IS but cant afford one at the moment. I have been offered a 300 2.8 Mk3 for the same price as 100-400 .The othe lenses i am considering are the 400 5.6 or the 300 f4 IS. I know it is not guaranteed or serviceable by canon anymore and cant find much information on it. It is in excellent condition for its age and was wondering if it a good lens and if this is the way anyone else would go.

Thank you for your help

Hi. I have the 300 2.8 IS version and I can honestly say I would not use it handheld without IS, it is heavy to start with but gets far heavier after a short period. Without IS a mono/tri pod is a must.

Don't you have enough experience with your 150-500 to know what focal length(s) you will need? Concentrate on what mm you need.

For Sports the 300 f/2.8 would be fine without IS (Outdoors, I turn IS off on mine), but for wildlife (and considering your budget) I would say the 300 f/4 IS would be the better compromise. I find my wildlife shots seem to happen mostly in less than full light with relatively slow shutter speeds. No way I could do this without IS on.

Thanks for the responses.

But for moving subjects IS is not important. I would only use the lens on a monopod. Would the 300 2.8 non IS be better than the 300 f4 IS in terms of image quality or similar. As is would get a much faster shutter speed low light would be easier in the first place wouldnt it?

aarbiser wrote in post #7642614
Thanks for the responses.

But for moving subjects IS is not important. I would only use the lens on a monopod. Would the 300 2.8 non IS be better than the 300 f4 IS in terms of image quality or similar. As is would get a much faster shutter speed low light would be easier in the first place wouldnt it?

For fast moving subjects you are right, the IS is of little value and the 2.8 is the best lens (without addressing the possibilitiess of panning mode for IS at least). My experience in "stalking" deer, turkeys, various other large birds and mammals with the 300 f/2.8 is that the IS is probably of more value than the one stop of "speed" gained from 4 to 2.8. With that said, the pop of the subject from the background with the wider 2.8, the creamy bokeh and sharpness of the 2.8 I believe will produce nicer images for you in sports and wildlife assuming you get the shutter speeds you need.

Guess you will have to do like the rest of us and save your pennies for the 300 f/2.8 IS! This lens for me has proven the best validation yet of the advice "glass before body" to get better image quality.

For your budget and needs though, I would still recommend the 300 f/4- you would be very happy with it.

What don't you like about your 150-500?