Rumors > Lenses

How is the hand-holdability of the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS USM lens (+TC)?

(1/4) > >>

jrista:
I am looking to move up from my current EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens to one of Canon's supertele primes. The 100-400 is a good lens, particularly if your just starting out with wildlife and birds, but it definitely has its limitations. I primarily shoot birds, with some wildlife and general nature stuff mixed in. I pretty much always shoot at 400mm for birds and wildlife. I used to shoot at f/5.6 to blur out backgrounds, however this lens is fairly soft at that aperture. Fine feather detail, even of perching/wading/still birds, does not show up well. I've more recently begun to shoot at f/7.1, however I frequently run into lighting issues, particularly during the more early morning/late afternoon times (when I am usually out shooting), and end up needing ISO 3200 more often than I would prefer (the 7D does well up through 2500 (excluding 2000), but above that it really goes down hill.)

I am looking to get a prime lens that will be versatile enough for the kind of work I do, while being as sharp as possible wide open. From what I've read, the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS USM is one of, if not the, sharpest lens Canon makes. I currently own a 1.4x TC, and would probably grab a 2x TC as well if I picked up an f/2.8 supertele prime. I'm curious what the hand-holdability of this lens is, though. It sounds like it rolls in at about 5.2 pounds? Thats about 2.2 pounds heavier than the 100-400, not counting the weight of a TC. With a 2x TC, that adds nearly another pound, bringing total weight to about 6 pounds or so. Using the 100-400mm+7D all day, my wrist tends to get a bit sore...and I'm wondering if anyone has experience using this lens hand-held with a TC on a regular basis. I'd also be curious to know how the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L II IS USM lens is in the same context.

bdunbar79:
It is much, much more hand-holdable than the version I.  I would say heavier than your 100-400L lens, but you could hand-hold if you needed to.  You cannot do so with version I.  It has great IS, so I'd say you can do it.  It is in my opinion the 2nd sharpest lens above 100mm, the first being the 200 f/2L.  That is Canon's greatest lens and I would argue the 300 lens is 2nd.

briansquibb:

--- Quote from: bdunbar79 on August 05, 2012, 01:17:55 AM ---It is much, much more hand-holdable than the version I.  I would say heavier than your 100-400L lens, but you could hand-hold if you needed to.  You cannot do so with version I.  It has great IS, so I'd say you can do it.  It is in my opinion the 2nd sharpest lens above 100mm, the first being the 200 f/2L.  That is Canon's greatest lens and I would argue the 300 lens is 2nd.

--- End quote ---

+1 for the 200 f/2 - incredible lens

I handhold the 400 f/2.8 I for limited shots - so to me the 300 II sounds almost like a lightweight - the 200 I handhold all day

I suspect it depends more on the strength of the individual - I know a person that struggle with a 1DS3+24-70.

M.ST:
It´s no problem to hold the EF 300 II oder EF 400 II with 1.4X TC III for a short time, but I cannot advice you to handhold the mentioned lenses with the 2X TC III.

For longer use you need a monopod.

gary:
I have the 300 version 1 which is around 300g heavier than version 2. I use it with a 1.4x and its heavy  but not so much that you can't use it handheld. But I agree if I took it out for a day I would use a monopod

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page