300 f/2.8 -a big problem

[JPAZ]

I just made the mistake of renting the EF 300 f/2.8 this weekend for a trip to Bosque del Apache. The problem......I LOVE this lens! The speed, focus lock, clarity and contrast were amazing with and without the 2x TC and even in the very low light of sunrise. No surprise but this lens blew away my 100-400. My trusty 70-200 f/4 never came out of the bag. I even got a few decent keepers doing BIF pics with the 300 + 2x TC handheld (yeah, my left arm is tired ).

So what am I to do? No way my budget allows me to get this lens. I am trying to tell myself that not using a zoom at this range created some issues and that swapping lenses and TCs was a pain and that the lens was too heavy. But, I found myself putting it back on the camera every time I tried an alternative. If I need a good zoom, I guess I could always look at the 200-400 (yeah, right $$$$$).

So here I sit. I know I'll be renting this or another beauty again. Some consolation, there.....

Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?

Oh well.

 

[Loswr]

The 300/2.8 II is on my short list. The biggest issue for me is the 'little' purchases that eat into the gear fund, which needs to accumulate for a while to cover such a lens. After using the 600 II for over a year, the 300/2.8 II will probably feel small and light!

Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?

Not what you want to hear, but....no.

 

[takesome1]

The 300/2.8 II is on my short list. The biggest issue for me is the 'little' purchases that eat into the gear fund, which needs to accumulate for a while to cover such a lens. After using the 600 II for over a year, the 300/2.8 II will probably feel small and light!

Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?

Not what you want to hear, but....no.

+1 the 70-200mm will be no where close. That applies to both version I and II. If I were the OP I would seriously think about a used 300mm f/2.8L version I.

Neuro I think you have enough lenses in your kit that swapping a few for a 300mm f/2.8L II would be a good exchange.
I think I would start with the 28-300mm on my swap list. :
Is there a 100-400mm in there that might be good trade fodder as well?

 

[AlanF]

Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?

No!! The 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III is my stock combination for birds. I don't even find it tiring for birds in flight. I like the 100-400 and still use it for travel, but it is not in the same league as the 300mm plus the 1.4 and 2xTCs.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro I think you have enough lenses in your kit that swapping a few for a 300mm f/2.8L II would be a good exchange.
I think I would start with the 28-300mm on my swap list. :
Is there a 100-400mm in there that might be good trade fodder as well?

Actually, I've already arranged to sell the 28-300L next week. I'll likely list the 100-400L at some point soon - I like it and still use it, but my 70-200 II + 2xIII is almost equivalent optically - I'm going to shoot with that combo for a few outings and see if that'll work for me routinely.

 

[Halfrack]

This is why the lenses are white - as addictive as some of the other white power substances, yet not going to get you in trouble with the law. LR/LA has some of the 300 2.8 IS v1's for $3,700 - $3,850. Not to do in your credit cards, but with the price premium of the v2's, getting a good v1 is a time sensitive thing, so get it while available, otherwise the options to get one later on may be slim.

At least that's the logic I used to get a Hasselblad....

 

[mwh1964]

Damn it, I rented that lens as well. However, decided to let it go - for now.

 

[Steve]

If I were the OP I would seriously think about a used 300mm f/2.8L version I.

I agree with this. I use an ancient non-IS 300 2.8 + 2x tc and it works great. Its about the most cost effective way to get good reach with usable results. I even get half decent results with stacked tc's and retain (some) autofocus on my 1D4. The only real problem I have, other than no IS, is that with the TC the AF is a little too slow for reliable bird in flight shots. I can get them, but there are a lot of tossers. The IS version I would be even better, it is relatively affordable used and usually available on ebay.

 

[lux]

I rented the 300 2.8 v1 for a weekend...kids had 5 soccer games. It was amazing. took pictures under the lights for night games. focus was fast and accurate with my 6D center point. My borrowed 100-400 doesn't hold a candle. Been racking my brain trying to figure out how I can justify buying a used V1 for 3.5-4k but if I can rent one for $60 for the weekend it's hard to justify...even if I could afford it.

I mean buying a used 100-400 is going to cost 1K. I was going to buy the 24-70 v II which is 2k. and I could sell my 24-105 and 17-40 and buy a used 300 2.8 v1. The problems is then that I would have to stand at least 30 ft from anything I wanted to photograph...but this is the kind of thinking that has been going through my head since I rented the lens.

 

[scottkinfw]

Seems like a lot of us are in this boat. Restraint, and an eye on the long game is in order. Save your money, and get what you want. It may take some time, but persistence pays off. How about a thread for people saving for the 300 2.8 II- a support group on line (tongue in cheek there)?

sek

 

[Dylan777]

To all "Red Ring Acquisition Syndrome" out there, I know your feeling

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17620.0

I'm currently in 300mm f2.8 IS II "Red Ring Acquisition Syndrome" therapy, for some reason, I do not see any light at the end of tunnel yet :-\ :-[ :'( ??? : : ;D ;D

 

[JPAZ]

OK, so no "magic ideas" for me. I have, over time, purchased lenses new, purchased lenses form "broken down kits", purchased lenses from Canon Refurb, and also a few "used" (from B&H or Adorama but would also look at LR, KEH, etc). I did get one lens from an Ebay seller who was highly rated, but that only cost $100.

Frankly, I'd be very scared to buy something that costs this much from anyone but a seller who I felt was very trustworthy. Not to admonish folks who sell stuff on CR or Ebay, but they are not known entities. A lens for a couple of hundred that looks clean and seems to work well, yeah. But a lens that costs thousands, I don't think so.

I looked at the thread mentioned by Dylan777. The opening statement asks if anyone had a "bad" photo taken with this lens. I can assure I have a bunch. But they are all my fault. Then I get a photo like this (300 @ f/8 with 2x TC iso1600 1/4000) and I still really want this lens! BTW, This is jpeg right off the backup SD card in the camera and only cropped a bit and reduced to be able to be posted here.

 

[pwp]

Well let's face it, this is not a bad level of problem to have.

Years ago I borrowed a 300 f/2.8 series-1 a number of times over the space of a couple of years. It was a truly awesome lens and its performance would stand up to today's glass in almost every respect. All it lacks is IS. But be aware that this lens was introduced in 1987 and may have limited service support these days. Subsequently I bought a new 300 f/2.8IS about six years ago and I'd advise that this is the lens you should be looking for second hand if the budget won't stretch to the recently released 300 f/2.8isII.

Check the history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_300mm_lens

Depending what it is you're shooting, would it be worth considering one of the greatest "sleepers" in the EF lens range, the 300 f/4is. This lens is incredible, pin sharp wide open, light to carry, quick AF, takes 77mm filters and very moderately priced.

-pw

 

[JPAZ]

Appreciate the advice. Actually I rented the f/4 a few years ago and it also is a nice lens. Just did not feel the same infatuation. IQ was pretty good ( I used on my 50d) and despite the loss of a stop, it worked pretty well in low light but never tried it wit a TC. I'd be concerned about the focus ability with a TC although the 5diii is supposed to do OK with f/8.

It is a whole lot cheaper but, I'd really need to try it agin in low light to compare.

 

[Dylan777]

Well let's face it, this is not a bad level of problem to have.

Years ago I borrowed a 300 f/2.8 series-1 a number of times over the space of a couple of years. It was a truly awesome lens and its performance would stand up to today's glass in almost every respect. All it lacks is IS. But be aware that this lens was introduced in 1987 and may have limited service support these days. Subsequently I bought a new 300 f/2.8IS about six years ago and I'd advise that this is the lens you should be looking for second hand if the budget won't stretch to the recently released 300 f/2.8isII.

Check the history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_300mm_lens

Depending what it is you're shooting, would it be worth considering one of the greatest "sleepers" in the EF lens range, the 300 f/4is. This lens is incredible, pin sharp wide open, light to carry, quick AF, takes 77mm filters and very moderately priced.

-pw

Hi pwp,
I haven't try v1 or f4 version. However, I did get chance shoot with 300 f2.8 IS II + 5D III. AF is super fast(without TC of course). To me, IQ is better than 70-200 f2.8 IS II, might have to do with 300mm compression. I have no problem shooting this lens without mono/tripod.

Although I haven't try it yet, many claimed this lens works really well with TC III (x1.4 and x2). So having 300mm @ f2.8 IS II with couple TCs is not a bad idea for those on tighter budget(like me).

The number one reason holding me back is, I don't use this 300mm often. I hate to spend large amount of money on a lens that just sit in the bag. With 2 kids (2 & 5yrs) and busy work schedule, I'm not sure when I will be shooting wildlife & surfing etc...

 

[pwp]

I did get chance shoot with 300 f2.8 IS II + 5D III. AF is super fast(without TC of course). To me, IQ is better than 70-200 f2.8 IS II, might have to do with 300mm compression. I have no problem shooting this lens without mono/tripod.

Although I haven't try it yet, many claimed this lens works really well with TC III (x1.4 and x2). So having 300mm @ f2.8 IS II with couple TCs is not a bad idea for those on tighter budget(like me).

The number one reason holding me back is, I don't use this 300mm often. I hate to spend large amount of money on a lens that just sit in the bag. With 2 kids (2 & 5yrs) and busy work schedule, I'm not sure when I will be shooting wildlife & surfing etc...

Yes, unless you have a comfortably high disposable income or have reasonable certainty that a high cost lens like a new 300 f/2.8isII will be important to your business and earn you plenty of money, then providing for your family really must come first. Young kids are awesome!

Any business should do a properly informed ROI calculation (Return-On-Investment) on any major purchase. If the sums don't stack up, then leave your credit card in your wallet or pretty soon you won't have a business at all.

-pw

 

[drummstikk]

Depending what it is you're shooting, would it be worth considering one of the greatest "sleepers" in the EF lens range, the 300 f/4is. This lens is incredible, pin sharp wide open, light to carry, quick AF, takes 77mm filters and very moderately priced.

Had to take a minute to second this motion. I took a major financial hit earlier this year that forced me to sell off my 70-200 2.8 and a well-loved 400mm 5.6. It's a stretch to say photography is my "business" anymore (I work another job to make ends meet and for health insurance), but I do do still service a couple of substantial contracts and have a small but loyal clientele. Losing those two lenses put me back into "fake it 'till you make it" mode, and I do quite a bit of lens renting. I've rented 300mm 2.8 and 300mm 4.0 lenses multiple times each, and other than the times when "only 2.8 will do," I find the 4.0 lens to outshine the 2.8 in just about every way. Handling, weight, and balance are all superior with the 4.0 (at the cost of an f-stop, of course), and the biggest surprise is that autofocus is noticeably snappier with the 4.0. Even when I manual focus (which I do quite a bit) the image in the viewfinder is crisp enough that I can forget I'm looking through an f/4.0 lens.

As a side comment, I'm amazed how much I *DON'T* miss the 70-200mm 2.8. My 24-105 covers part of the range and a 135 2.0, occasionally with 1.4x converter, covers the rest. It's rekindled in me shooting methods and strategies I learned when I first started in photography in the 80's. (Yeah, baby, remember the 80's? It was the time when nobody called lenses "primes," we just called them "lenses" because zooms were the oddballs and, for the most part, sucked.)

The zoom encourages a lot of standing in one place "cropping in lens" when it is a good exercise sometimes to just move your physical butt closer to the subject or, sometimes, to know when to back off. I'd encourage anyone to leave the zoom at home from time to time and explore other hardware and to question the presumed indispensability of the 70-200.

 

[AlanF]

Drumstikk
What body were you using when you compared AF speeds of the 4 and 2.8? Roger from Lensrental once explained that the II series big whites use a feedback loop for which you need the 5DIII or 1Dx to take advantage, I find the f/2.8 300mm II does focus much faster on the 5DIII than on the 7D. This is most noticeable when the 2xTC III is attached.

The reason I went for the f/2.8 was to use it with extenders for nature photography. The f/4 is a very fine lens when bare but it takes a hit with the 1.4xTC, whereas the 2.8 doesn't, and a big hit with the 2xTC, whereas the f/2.8 is still excellent. There will be some people for whom the f/4 with 1.4xTC is good enough, but even more would prefer the good old 400m f/5.6.

 

[P_R]

JPAZ, thank you for creating an itch that few of us can scratch! There is a medical term for this surely...

Still, in the overall scheme of things, spending money on photography, even for a 300 f/2.8 (or 1dx for that matter) is small change compared to people with gambing / drinking / drugs / womenising (or men-ising!) / choose your addiction(s). You know why you want this lens, because it does what others cannot.

At least that's how I justified to my wife a recent body upgrade. And when you have the results to show for it, then it can be partially justified. That is of course if you have the money but not the approval!

If you don't (and that's me) then you keep trying to scratch...

Now I'm going to search for a thread titled "Anything shot with a 300 f/2.8....."

 

[drummstikk]

Drumstikk
What body were you using when you compared AF speeds of the 4 and 2.8? Roger from Lensrental once explained that the II series big whites use a feedback loop for which you need the 5DIII or 1Dx to take advantage, I find the f/2.8 300mm II does focus much faster on the 5DIII than on the 7D. This is most noticeable when the 2xTC III is attached.

I wouldn't say I was "comparing" as such, but simply noticing the performance of what I happened to be using at a given time. I use 7D's and have heard this assertion before about 1D's in particular being better at AF, in part due to the higher voltage battery that simply yields more power for driving the AF motor. Though it does seem odd/interesting to imply it takes a body manufactured in 2011-12 to fully utilize the advantages of a lens released in 1999.

My choice of 7D's relates to their good balance of reasonable cost in relation with very good sensor performance. There's also the good number of megapixels that gives decent room to crop without gobbling up my terabytes any faster than necessary. Also the "gripless" configuration is preferable to me, especially in the not-infrequent cases where I use a flash bracket.

The reason I went for the f/2.8 was to use it with extenders for nature photography. The f/4 is a very fine lens when bare but it takes a hit with the 1.4xTC, whereas the 2.8 doesn't, and a big hit with the 2xTC, whereas the f/2.8 is still excellent. There will be some people for whom the f/4 with 1.4xTC is good enough, but even more would prefer the good old 400m f/5.6.

Yes, I was one who preferred the 400mm 5.6 by far over the 300mm 4.0/1.4x combo (and why I was so sad to sell the 400mm). We definitely agree on the fact the 300mm 4.0 does take a performance hit with the 1.4x. I never use a 2x and can't comment on that. Results with lenses like the 135mm 2.0 or the 300mm 2.8 coupled with a 1.4x, even my 20-year-old "Mark 1" version, are virtually indistinguishable from the same lenses "solo."

And I certainly didn't mean to give any impression I criticize anybody's decision to go with a 300mm 2.8. Believe me, if I had a good financial cushion and could afford the lens without using "what's in your wallet?", I would buy one TODAY. But finance charges on such a lens would exceed what I lay out in rental in a given year. If I *had* one, I'd use it very frequently, but I have to look at how often I *need* one, which is far less.