No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2
To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm
Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.
That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.
I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.
I think my photo worth more than a cent : http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm
You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.