Are you a non-pro and own either 300 f/2.8IS or 400 f/2.8IS?

SunTsu wrote in post #9656659
Thanks for the opinion. Have you ever compared it to the 400mm f/2.8 IS?

Now I'm wondering if anyone who owns this lens thinks the sharpness reputation of this lens is overstated.

I am not a pro and have the 400mm f/2.8. I cannot judge its sharpness with respect to the 300/2.8 but of all my lenses, it is the sharpest by far! Even at 2.8 which I usually shoot night sports events, it is impressively sharp. Closest to this I can only rate my 100mm/2.8 macro, but certainly not comparable.

Here's a recent example of its sharpness: (Both pictures straight from the camera in jpg, not even cropping done... showing Venus Williams in the semifinals of WTA in Dubai this past week.) I was standing in the low ranks of the stadium - not the photographers designated area. So I was shooting from about 20 m

Photo 1 : You can clearly see the hair from the ball as it flies away after one of Venus's forehand strokes... It's not noise! (7D, 2.8, 1/640, ISO 3200, WB K4200)

Photo 2: Before she tosses for a serve at a very critical point late in the match, I start firing! As I was sitting at her eye level, the camera noise and the BIG hood must have attracted her attention and disturbed her serve as she immediately dropped it.. I thought she would complaint to the umpire and ask him to kick me out... (BTW it happened a few days later in the finals to a pro who was shooting closer and continuously!) OK, I'm not proud of what happened as I'm a tennis player as well, but as an amateur photographer I caught a fantastic / sharp / mean look of her to me while serving, from 20m away! (2.8. 1/640, ISO 3200, WB K4200)

EDIT: I really don't know how sharp they look in the website, due to size limitations....

I do regret however buying the 400mm/2.8. On my FF 5DM2 it is perfect reach for what I shot so far. (sports in stadiums - tennis, and F1, and airshows). But then again, the 5D2 is not for action/sports. On my 7D it's too much of a reach as you can see. It is also very heavy to carry around. My ideal swap out scenario would be:

- Sell the 400mm/2.8 , the 300mm/4 and the 70-200/2.8
- Buy the 300mm/2.8, the new 70-200/2.8 and a 500mm/4

Overall it is a very expensive toy for me, opens me doors to be close to the pros, but i don't think I use it so much to justify its cost

My 2 cents...

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

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

No pro here. I don't own either the 300 or 400. But if a brinks truck full of money breaks down in my front yard, maybe I'll buy BOTH!!!

Seriously, if playing guitar and singing in my hippie sixties festival band pays enough this spring/summer, having one by next football season is possible. Right now, I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS which is certainly good enough to get by with shooting HS football, but NOTHING compared to the stuff folks are getting with the 300mm f/2.8L IS.

Prime lenses are just different than Canon's best zooms. Sharper, nicer BG. At this point, it's one of my 'dream lenses.' Maybe someday ... sigh.

dave

SunTsu wrote in post #9656659
Now I'm wondering if anyone who owns this lens thinks the sharpness reputation of this lens is overstated.

I am not a pro and use it regularly with my 40D. All I can say is "spectacular". I get images with it that still astound me after about a year with it. Worth every penny. Going through the shots after one of my daughters games it always amazes me that I can read all the letters on the patch on the uniform- consistently. Focus is always dead on and sharp with this lens. Also makes a great "walkaround" lens for me when hiking.

I've got both......... Plus the 500 and 600.......

500 has its place at airshows for general work. The 600 is about the same only heavier and bigger, I really think its a real club.

The 300 gets shot in close near the runways, never on a support. The 400 has to be on a gimble and replaces the 500 when we are places where you can get in closer.

The 300 is awesome. I think the 400 is actually better...... Of course the 500 is pretty darn sharp too. I did have 3 300s and have sold 2 of them in the last couple of weeks (both new owners seem really happy). Personally, I think the 600 is going up for sale soon to be replaced by a 800.

Everyone complains about cost. My former hobby was collecting class 3 weapons...... ALL my gear doesn't cost nearly as much as 2 Colt Thompson machineguns. Plus its a lot cheaper to play with.....

Mark H

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

SunTsu wrote in post #9656635
No one in Vancouver rents this lens (that I know of) and I don't love the hassle of renting either.

Actually, Leo's Camera Supply on Granville Street in Vancouver does rent the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L I.S. lens, as does Beau Photo on West 6th Avenue, also in Vancouver.

In fact, Beau Photo also rents the Canon EF 500mm f/4L I.S. lens.

They also rent the Nikon 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, and 500mm f/4 lenses.

Hobbiest here with a 300 2.8 IS. I love it but it doesn't get the use my other lenses get just because I don't carry it with me as much. I have this intention of using it more, but so far that's been more intention than reality.

Non Pro here too and have the 300. I wish i have more time to use it. I may have bring it to some of the portrait shoots some time.

All my non Pro friends have 500 and a couple of 800's.

I'm not a pro. I do own the 400 and its sharpness is not over stated. It is, as an early poster stated, the sharpest lens I own. I do not have the 300 because, for me, the 200 f2 makes more sense. It is perfect for indoor arena sports like hockey, lacrosse and soccer (on a 1.3 crop), also where 2.8 is not fast enough. I think with the 1.4X it would be close enough to the 300. The 400 only sees use when I can use a tripod (Wimberly equipped), which is football and baseball.
hope this helps. Good luck.

not a pro, went round and round trying to decide on the 300 2.8 and using with 1.4 to get closer, but finally opted for the 500 f4 instead, glad I made the choice I did.

hobbiest here, i chose the 300 2.8 IS.the sharpness and bokeh are amazing, i decided the 400 2.8 was just too heavy to use all the time and the 300 would get more use.my first choice would have been the 200/2 giving me three different lenses with the teleconverters added but i couldn't afford it at the time,but since using it i have no regrets it was the right length for me i'm able to handhold it and don't like tripods.

300 2.8 travels with me alot except when it is a "Family" holiday

SunTsu wrote in post #9659192
You take the 300mm with you when you travel?!

For me the 300 2.8 is just about on the limit for international travel. I took it on my last trip to Africa and was very pleased with the results - some here.

I've got the 300 f/2.8 IS and it's a great lens. I did look at a 400 f/2.8 IS but it was too long in focal length and too heavy to be a contender. I can handhold the 300 all day (with a sore arm the next day admittedly) and it lets me get pleasing pictures. The 300 is a bit long for indoor sports which is my only gripe (200 f/2 would be better for that) but the 300 is perfect for motorsport for me although being a prime it makes you work for your shot more as you need to move your feet instead of zooming in and out.

My dad´s not a pro, but he likes long white lenses, and can stand saving up for them.

First he owned was a 300/2.8L non-IS, then he sold it and bought a 400/2.8L IS, which he´s permanently attached (or so it would seem) to a 1.4x TC. Sometimes he does actually wipe the epoxy off and replace it with a 2x. He uses this with both a 1Ds2 and a 7D. He also found a warzone-used (looks like it cosmetically) 200/1.8L he uses indoors for tight headshots and horses on courses (hah).

I´m afraid this insanity is hereditary.

I own neither, and really am not interested in the crazy focal lengths the birders and organized sports shooters often employ. That 200, though...

P51Mstg wrote in post #9662154
I've got both......... Plus the 500 and 600.......

500 has its place at airshows for general work. The 600 is about the same only heavier and bigger, I really think its a real club.

The 300 gets shot in close near the runways, never on a support. The 400 has to be on a gimble and replaces the 500 when we are places where you can get in closer.

The 300 is awesome. I think the 400 is actually better...... Of course the 500 is pretty darn sharp too. I did have 3 300s and have sold 2 of them in the last couple of weeks (both new owners seem really happy). Personally, I think the 600 is going up for sale soon to be replaced by a
Mark H

How would you define "better"? Do you feel the 400 is sharper than the 300?
Curious as to why you had 3 300s and why you sold 2.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #9662229
Actually, Leo's Camera Supply on Granville Street in Vancouver does rent the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L I.S. lens, as does Beau Photo on West 6th Avenue, also in Vancouver.

In fact, Beau Photo also rents the Canon EF 500mm f/4L I.S. lens.

They also rent the Nikon 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, and 500mm f/4 lenses.

I checked Leo's already and they don't have the IS version listed on their PDF. It's just the non-IS version.