Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

[JVLphoto]

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though 

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though.  Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.

[JVLphoto]

i agree with alan.
Also, i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the unflattering nature headshots taken with this lens. either i didn't read it correctly, and i might not of as i started to space out and skip over the boring stuff, or he is saying it's not good for head shots. if that's what he's saying, i really have to call BS. either he doesn't get that perspective isn't based on what lens, but on distances, or ....? or i don't know..... he likes big noses, and little ears. 
but maybe i'm silly, if you've got some examples of how a 300mm lens makes for crappy headshots i'd like to take a look.

Maybe I wrote it wrong, so I present a headshot taken (of me).  See how the compression just flattens my head SO MUCH that it looks wide and distended? I'd be hard pressed to find someone going for *that* look.  While shooting super telephoto may not be my strong suit, I do like to think I know a thing or two about portraits, what my clients like, and what gets published, by now.

And no, I don't like big noses and little ears, but there's a flattering "sweet spot" for head-shots that I hope we can agree is somewhere above 24mm and below 300mm.

Now pulled back a bit the photos make more sense. Maybe a 1/4 profile or "bust" shot works, but at that 2m minimum focusing distance I'll pass.

[JVLphoto]

I also have this photo of my son, which is from a bit farther back than 2 meters, it's not as bad as my face (after all, it was *my* face), but his ears now have become bigger than they need to be since they're completely flattened to the frame.  Of course it's a bit exaggerated by his head being turned sideways, but my point is that this is NOT a portrait lens, not for the price, not for the weight, with the exception of full-body environmental portraits like I did of the young lady in the Sens jersey.

[JVLphoto]

It also made my bunny look extra fat at close range.

[AprilForever]

"Cons

Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"

Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...

[JVLphoto]

"Cons

Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"

Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...

At least for my needs I've written anything over 200mm off... but that doesn't exclude the 200mm f/2.0 L IS MMMMMMMMMMMM

[acoll123]

I already have the version I of this lens and have been thinking about selling it and upgrading. Is it worth it? I also have a 1.4x III and use it to get close enough to 400 that I don't think I can justify getting the 400 as a second lens. I would also love to have the new 200-400 but the cost is just ridiculous although it would be perfect for me - I shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse . . . ). So again anybody that has upgraded for the version I of this lens, was it worth it?

Thanks,

Andy

Hi Andy, if you can afford it, absolutely do it.

I was always impressed with the Version 1 300f/2.8, but the advantages of the Version 2 are immediate weight gain, this Lens is about as Hand Holdable (is that a word??) as the 70-200f/2.8 L II, it's amazing how they got this (and the 400V2/600v2) Lens so light. You will see an immediate gain in Focus snap on, this V2 focuses faster, I get a lot more In Focus shots now than I did with the V1 Lens, agreed, I'm now using the 5DMK III & 1Dx so some o0f the faster response etc perhaps go to the new Cameras, I used the Version 1 Lens with the 5DMK II & 1DMK IV.

I have the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 v2, 400f/2.8 v2 & 600f/4 v2, the 200-400f/4 I'll have hopefully by the end June this year, and the only Lens I intend then selling will be the 400f/2.8 v2, the 300 I'll likely die with, this without any doubt is the sharpest Lens I own. The 200f/2 is no slouch either, but it's not as fast as the 300 v2.

The 3 Lenses i have that I use the most & just love the Images that come from them, in order of Love, 300f/2.8 v2, 200f/2, 85 f/1.2 L II.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts - I thought about waiting and selling my 300 (and a kidney) to help finance the 200-400. I have no doubt that would be a perfect lens for me. Maybe they will come out with a 100-400 ver 2 - that along with a 300 ver 2 would be a great combo as well.

[AlanF]

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though 

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though.  Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.

If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title.  As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there. 

[dslrdummy]

300mm 2.8 is beyond my pocket but am seriously thinking about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 S. Would love to see a IQ comparison between the two. No doubt the 300 would be superior but for less than half the price of the 300 the zoom with my 2x III is probably the closest I would ever get to a fastish super tele.

[JVLphoto]

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though 

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though.  Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.

If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title.  As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there.

Talk to the boss, it's his shop.

Though, my understanding of the term "review" is that it can vary based on that of the reviewer. While standards are met by individuals, are they not all of varying degrees of of both objectivity and subjectivity by both the reviewer and the discerning reader?  I'm assuming not every review you read previously that you considered a review was identical to one another, words copied verbatim. Perhaps the findings were the same, it's hard to argue math if it's there, which is why I don't even bother including test charts samples, cup size and SAT scores - that's all out there for everyone to see.  I'm not saying my take on the 300 was a particularly good one, just the best that I could produce.  I even differ to this point in my closing sentence "And while my curiosity was piqued, I think for the more specialized super-telephoto focal lengths, I should step aside and let someone else handle those reviews."

Indeed, I won't be writing-opinions-that-pretend-to-be-your-definition-of-a-review because I'm not qualified to.  I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations or standards, it's like my relationship with my father all over again.

To make it up to you, here's a photo of a duck I took:

[JVLphoto]

300mm 2.8 is beyond my pocket but am seriously thinking about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 S. Would love to see a IQ comparison between the two. No doubt the 300 would be superior but for less than half the price of the 300 the zoom with my 2x III is probably the closest I would ever get to a fastish super tele.

I'd love to get my hands on the Sigma too. It presents an exciting value proposition to many of us who don't always need the 300mm length, but would like to have it when possible.

[JVLphoto]

If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title.  As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there.

Ah Alan, I can't stay mad at you, I'm only arguing because you're right and I'm completely self conscious when I know something isn't great.

I have an extra level of respect for you after reading this: "That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing."

On that too, we see eye-to-eye.

So, can you help out people who come to the forum here? Add your own thoughts and experiences with the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II - as someone who has truly put it through it's paces and have a level of expertise that many don't. Tell us what you think!

[AlanF]

I spend too much time editing scientific articles, and it can spill over.  OK, I'll write a "Perspective" some time on how the 300 mm f/2.8 II transformed my photography. 

[Sporgon]

I think maybe you should own one of these lenses Justin. The pictures produced were the best from one of your review to date ! 

[EchoLocation]

To make it up to you, here's a photo of a duck I took:

this made my day! you didn't have to make anything up to me(i really liked your review,) but i still appreciate your free duck picture!