Canon 300 2.8 (is)

[SJTstudios]

Hey guys, I'm working on some wildlife now, and my 70-200 2.8 is ii and my extenders aren't giving me enough reach.
I found a local photographer wanting to sell his canon 300 2.8 l non-is.

My question is, will using the lens with the extenders even on a monopod case blurry photos?
Sharpness is also important since I'm doing some large prints.
Should I try to negotiate a deal with him, or should I just save up and get the is 1 or 2?

[GuyF]

Hmmm, tricky. What sort of distance and wildlife are you shooting? If the wildlife is quite static then a monopod would help you lots. However if the subject moves alot and is erratic then a monopod might be more of a hinderance. Of course shooting at a high shutter speed and having a ball-head on the monopod should help.

So depending on the subject the 300 non-IS and extenders plus a monopod should give good results. I have the mk1 IS and it is probably the sharpest lens I know of. Using a Kenko 1.4x converter doesn't appear to degrade sharpness at all.

If you can save for a mk1 or 2 with IS then I'd go for that - the IS is a big plus. I haven't tried the mk2 IS but imagine it's even better than my mk1.

Hope that helps.

[jhpeterson]

I've had two 300/2.8 L lenses (non-IS) over the past twenty-one years. They've earned their place as my all-time favorite lens. You could say I've grown very attached to mine, though I suppose not as much as my 1DS (III), which, in terms of sharpness, contrast and "look" (in part, the bokeh), I must say is a most amamazing combination!
While I've used the IS version, I've never owned one, as it doesn't seem to give much if any improvement in my specialty. You see, I frequently shoot hand-held from moving boats and often the conditions are such that the motion is too great even for the stabilization. In times like that, one needs to rely on good technique. When that's not good enough, it becomes time to use a gyro.
This lens works well with teleconverters, especially the 1.4 x. I'll frequently attach one when I need some extra reach and I've found find there's minimal loss in IQ. The 2x is best reserved for those situations when you can't get any closer and absolutely need that larger image size, though the Mk III version I have now gives pretty good quality. It probably only disappoints because the lens by itself and with the 1.4 is so good.
In short, I have NO reservations about you getting one of these lenses, unless you HAVE to have IS. In terms of getting the most bang for your buck, this lens should be at the top of your list!

[danski0224]

Hey guys, I'm working on some wildlife now, and my 70-200 2.8 is ii and my extenders aren't giving me enough reach.
I found a local photographer wanting to sell his canon 300 2.8 l non-is.

My question is, will using the lens with the extenders even on a monopod case blurry photos?
Sharpness is also important since I'm doing some large prints.
Should I try to negotiate a deal with him, or should I just save up and get the is 1 or 2?

I suppose it depends on what you are taking pictures of, but I don't think there is a huge difference between 200 and 300mm.

The native 300 is only a little more (20mm) than the 200 + 1.4x. If you find that this is too short, then maybe look at the 400mm range.

The focus speed penalty between the 2.8 lenses is probably similar. I have a 300 F/4, and the focus speed is much slower on that compared to the 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x attached to either lens.

Adding IS is always a benefit, but pictures were still taken without it.

[lol]

I think it depends on part on what the asking price for the Canon 300 is relative to what else you could get.

I used to have a Canon 300mm f/2.8 non-IS, and didn't keep it for long. Since then I have got a Sigma 120-300 OS. As I didn't have them at the same time, I don't have side by side comparisons, but I feel the Sigma at 300 is about same or slightly less sharp than the Canon wide open, but they're practically the same stopped down at all. The Sigma has much less visible vignetting though, even on crop sensor. With the Sigma 2x extender attached for up to 600mm, it's usable at f/5.6 and perks up at f/8. I only use it hand held, which doubles as weight training for my arms.

[hendrik-sg]

If you can take Wild live pics from the floor, a good tripod may replace IS.

if you shoot out of a car, with a 2x externder you need IS even against the camera shake. If you push iso by 3 steps to compensate the lacking IS you will loose more resoliution than shooting without extender and cropping.

So if you have a 70-200 2.8 IS ii with a 2x i wouldnt even take a 300 non is with me exept i could shoot everything from tripod.

[jhpeterson]

Maybe I have an exceptional copy of the 300/2.8 L, that I haven't seen any benefit to upgrade to IS. Looking back, I recall that the first one I had was very good, though maybe not nearly this great. In the more than two decades I've used the two copies of this lens, I've gone through several 70-200s, a couple f:4 models as well as four f:2.8s, along with three of the old 80-200/2.8 "magic drainpipes". Only the latest Mark II version of the zoom can compare with my current, yet old, 300 in terms of overall IQ, both sharpness and "look".

If you find one anywhere near a performer as mine, at least if it's you can buy it for less than half the price of a new IS model, I think it's too good a deal to pass up.