Advice on 300mm F2.8 L

[wsmith96]

I'm considering purchasing a 300mm f2.8 lens to add to my kit for sports. I'd like to know if there are any users out there using the mk I version. If so, what do you think of it compared to the mk II version. This lens will be used on both crop and ff cameras.

I'm not opposed to used or a previous generation so long as it is still servicable.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[kaihp]

I'm considering purchasing a 300mm f2.8 lens to add to my kit for sports. I'd like to know if there are any users out there using the mk I version. If so, what do you think of it compared to the mk II version. This lens will be used on both crop and ff cameras.

I'm not opposed to used or a previous generation so long as it is still servicable.

Edit: I presume you talk about the IS versions. AFAIK, Canon won't service the non-IS any more.

For a short while, I had both the MkI and MkII lenses. Optically, it was splitting hairs. The MkII is noticably lighter, but then again the MkI acceptably light for me. The only reason that I went for the MkII was that I had the opportunity to get it at a very favourable price. As long as the MkI lens is in good condition, I would not hesitate to buy it.

I had the buyer of the MkI try out both the MkI and the MkII and he concluded that the MkI was "good enough" for his pro use.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have and use the MkI IS, it is a great lens that focuses instantly, has unbelievable IQ and is an all around amazing package. I don't use it that much nowadays but know I would regret it if I sold it. I use it with the 1.4TC MkIII too.

The MkII is not that different as a bare lens, I know some will get ruffled feathers saying that but it is the truth, the MkI is so good the MkII really isn't noticeably different, I know in blind tests nobody could reliably pick images from one over the other. Where the MkII does score substantially over the MkI is when you use the 2X TC, the MkI falls down a bit, AF drops off in both speed and accuracy and the IQ takes a hit, the MkII is a much better lens when used with the 2X TC, the MkII is also slightly better with the 1.4TC.

If you want the latest and greatest get the MkII, if you have a need for use with a 2XTC or regular use with a 1.4TC then look at the MkII but I'd suggest a longer focal length as a better alternative and would probably be more appropriate. If you want to save some money and intend to mostly use the lens as a 300mm then get the MkI, nobody will ever know from your images.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I would echo what the others have said. I use the IS Mk1 and have compared it to the Mk2. Yes the Mk2 is better but you wouldn't notice until you use the 2 x Mk3 extender when there is a noticeable IQ and functional improvement. When I say noticeable I mean that you can notice it - but you may have to look hard!
The Mk2 IS is simply a superb lens but the Mk1 IS is so good that there isn't much between them - though I rate the Mk2 a touch better with the 2 x Mk3 extender. It wasn't enough of a difference for me!

 

[danski0224]

Just keep in mind that at some point, the 300 f/2.8 IS will also be obsoleted by Canon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Just keep in mind that at some point, the 300 f/2.8 IS will also be obsoleted by Canon.

I know what you are saying, but, at some point, Canon obsoletes all of their lenses, you can't escape that.

 

[privatebydesign]

And unlike the fly by wire AF of the pre IS superteles I would think there will be a reasonable supply of parts for quite some time after they are officially 'dropped' from Canon support, but even better, they don't become a doorstop. The IS teles can all be focused manually without a working AF motor, unlike those pre IS versions.

 

[wsmith96]

Thanks for the feedback. I do have a tc 1.4 III that I will also use with the lens. I don't have a tc 2.0, but I haven't considered buying one at this time. I see myself using the lens by itself on ff for sports and by itself and with the 1.4 for wildlife on my crop.

Shopping around now.

 

[dash2k8]

I got a Mk1 for a terrific price and love it. Don't have the Mk2 so can't comment, but my friend who has it says its improvement is mostly in the IS and he thinks is not worth the difference in price. This is just for your reference.

 

[SJS]

When I bought the 300 f.28 Mk ii version I did try the mk I which was then available in India. Here are the differences one noticed immediately

- the weight, difference of 200 gms is not, by itself, an issue to decide in its favour.

- The minimum focussing distance is a much greater and important difference. At 20 inches or 50 cms it is a very significant reduction. How often it will matter to you will depend upon individual situation.

- The most important difference is the performance of the 2 lenses with TC's attached. Using the Mkiii version of extenders I found no difference (visually) in the results on the newer 300 lens when using 1.4x and very good results even when using the 2x. The same was not the case with the older lens.

For those with no higher focal length option in their gear set I would say THIS is the main reason to go for the 300. You get a focal length of 420mm without any issue and an extremely good and acceptable result at 600mm. This can not be overstated for those with no longer lenses.

 

[King Eyre]

Perhaps I could throw another lens into the mix....the new 400 DO mk2.
My photography is mainly wildlife, and I've had both the mk1 and mk2 versions of the 300 2.8 and I'd agree with everything said above regarding image quality with both the mk1 and 2, it's extremely close between the two and frankly difficult to justify the cost to upgrade from one to the other, except if you plan on using a mk 3 2x extender a lot....which was my reason for upgrading as I got an excellent 2nd hand version of the mk2.

However I bought the new 400 DO mk2 as I hoped that it would also improve on the mk1 version when used with a 2x extender, giving me the option of 800mm albeit at f8 and I haven't been disappointed.....and so much so that I sold my mk2 300 2.8 as I just wasn't using it.

I also have the mk2 100-400, and ok you lose a stop or so, but it's really light compared to the other lenses above, and it's image quality is excellent, and if you can live with the one or two stops less then it's worthy of consideration and l lot cheaper!!...and is now my "go to" lens for a great majority of the time....I only use the 400 DO when I need that bit extra reach, and usually with an extender.

If however you need 2.8, then a good 2nd hand mk1 will usually be more than adequate.

George.

 

[Zeidora]

- The minimum focussing distance is a much greater and important difference. At 20 inches or 50 cms it is a very significant reduction. How often it will matter to you will depend upon individual situation.

The *difference* of close focus distance is 50 cm, from 2.5 to 2 m, that is 20%. Has anybody looked at close focus performance, maybe even with extension ring, vs. 180LMacro plus 1.4x or 2x converter? I got the 300/2.8 IS (I) for portraits of venomous snakes and other skittish reptiles. Have been wondering whether i can somehow justify the upgrade to an ISII. On my 5DsR I can crop 20% with no sweat.

 

[danski0224]

Try a 25mm extension tube on the 300 2.8.

Also try the 1.4x teleconverter before and after the extension tube.

 

[Zeidora]

Try a 25mm extension tube on the 300 2.8.

Also try the 1.4x teleconverter before and after the extension tube.

I've used 25 and also 25+13 mm Extension tube on the 300/2.8 IS (I). It works, no question. I wonder whether people have evaluated side-by-side close-up performance of IS (I) and ISII, possibly even with extension ring. In general, teles are optimized for infinity focus (or somewhere close there). They may focus close, but IQ may suffer.
Then the question becomes, with 50 cm closer close-focus distance of the ISII (2 vs. 2.5 m), is IQ maintained, or does it degrade? Putting an extension ring on a 300 is certainly not a typical application either, well understood.

Just recently pondered that and whether my approach to that subject matter is appropriate or in need of revision (300 with extension ring, or 180M +1.4x). This thread came along just by fortuitous coincidence.

 

[danski0224]

I've used 25 and also 25+13 mm Extension tube on the 300/2.8 IS (I). It works, no question. I wonder whether people have evaluated side-by-side close-up performance of IS (I) and ISII, possibly even with extension ring. In general, teles are optimized for infinity focus (or somewhere close there). They may focus close, but IQ may suffer.
Then the question becomes, with 50 cm closer close-focus distance of the ISII (2 vs. 2.5 m), is IQ maintained, or does it degrade? Putting an extension ring on a 300 is certainly not a typical application either, well understood.

Just recently pondered that and whether my approach to that subject matter is appropriate or in need of revision (300 with extension ring, or 180M +1.4x). This thread came along just by fortuitous coincidence.

Somehow, I really doubt that the IQ of the big whites falls off as MFD is approached. If it does, is it noticeable in real life, or is it a data point for measurebators?

If you were to use something like a 300 f/2.8 near MFD all the time, then doing AFMA at the distances that the lens is used would certainly help. If you are at MFD without an extension tube, you will likely be close to infinity focus with an extension tube at the same distance (or further than infinity, depending on the extension tube(s) used).

One thing that the 300 will do is obliterate the background much more effectively than the 180 will, at non-macro distances.

The 300 will also focus much, much faster than the 180 by itself, not even considering the 1.4x + the 180.

In some ways, extension rings kinda suck because you lose infinity focus. You really need at least 2- the 12mm and 25mm (Canon tube sizes).

I'm gonna have to try putting an extension tube between the TC and the lens and after the TC to see what happens.