Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?

[JMZawodny]

I shoot mostly birds so my use slightly different.

I find the 300 f 2.8 L is ii to be easier to handle all day than the 70-200 ii is. I am not a strong man and in fact have rotator cuff issues which predate lenses. I find that in addition to the 300 2.8, the 500 f4 ii is is also a hand holdable manageable lens even with a 1.4 converter. The 400 f2.8 ii is too big with too much inertia for me to track birds with it off tripod.

I’ve never regretted the 300 f2.8, it’s a grand lens that is a joy to use.

If you can hand hold the 500/4 II then you are relatively strong!

I also shoot the 500/4 II handheld with the 1.4x and it is right at the limit of what I'd want to handhold for an entire airshow. I'm really hoping the 600 DO comes in at or below that weight. BTW, I do not consider myself strong.

 

[AlanF]

Admittedly, the 500/4 II + hood + 1.4xTc at 3.67 kg is the same as the Sigma 120-300mm at 3.67 kg, which I found very tiring to use when testing one. I found the 300/2.8 II +2xTC at 2.88kg OK (and find the 400mm DO II easy), but the extra 790g makes it hard work, especially as the 500 lens is longer.

 

[Cory]

Seems like literally everyone raves about the 100-400ll. For outdoors maybe one just can't go wrong with that?
I guess maybe that makes a ton of sense.
THANKS.

 

[ethanz]

Rent the lenses first.

 

[PCM-madison]

I agree that the 100-400mm IS ii is a great lens. I own this lens and use it mainly for wildlife. I think the key question is what are your expectations for the photos and the people that will benefit from them (friends/clients). For me, I am an amateur that takes photos of friends and family. With the large aperture lenses like the 135 F2 and 300 F2.8, the images are great, but the shallow depth of field (great for separating athlete from background) means that some shots may miss ideal focus. The wider aperture lenses like the 100-400 will give more wiggle room for focus, but the images that it produces don't "pop" as much for my tastes. Because I take many photos of not very many people, I much prefer the results from the wide aperture lenses like the 135 F2 and 300 F2.8. Here are two examples of a friend I photographed competing in Ironman Wisconsin. Bike is with the 300mm F2.8 L IS ii. Run is with the 135mm F2 L.

 

[jhpeterson]

If you can hand hold the 500/4 II then you are relatively strong!

+1
I don't think I ever hand-held a 300/2.8 until my early 30's. Then, when I switched to the EF system, it became my very first lens. It wasn't until decade later that I regularly began using longer ones. Now, moving on more than 25 years, the 500/4 has become my "go-to" and I can't wait to see what the future brings.
Paraphrasing the lines of an iconic American songwriter, "I may be older now than I was then, not necessarily wiser, but I'm stronger than that now".

 

[Cory]

Here are two examples of a friend I photographed competing in Ironman Wisconsin. Bike is with the 300mm F2.8 L IS ii. Run is with the 135mm F2 L.

That's exactly what I'm saying although these, with the 300 4.0 IS, look pretty good -
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sample-Pictures.aspx?Equipment=111

 

[Random Orbits]

For my kids' presentations on stage, I use the 70-200 on one camera and the 300 on another. The 300 f/2.8 IS II is an amazing lens, but I rarely use it alone (unless I'm taking pictures of the moon with a 2x TC). Outdoors, I'm using the 100-400 II.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Rent the lenses first.

I tried that once. Two weeks later I bought a Milvus 100. I stopped renting; clearly my willpower is insufficient.

 

[degos]

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy the 300mm f4 in 2018. Other than the extra stop it is completely obliterated by the 100-400 II, both in sharpness and IS capability. The IS on the zoom is so freakily performant that it can more than compensate for the smaller aperture. After all it is 20 years more advanced.

I got rid of my 300mm f4 with a few weeks of buying the zoom. It was an easy choice.


Along with the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 and 400mm f5.6 it is one of the shamefully overpriced antiques in the Canon lineup that just manages to scrape by on account of reputation.

Otherwise for sporting events the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 already mentioned seems worth trying though I haven't done so yet.

 

[slclick]

"Along with the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 and 400mm f5.6 it is one of the shamefully overpriced antiques in the Canon lineup that just manages to scrape by on account of reputation."

Yet those three lenses have yet to be updated so folks keep using them. Oh and by an update I don't mean a version with the same focal length but 5x the price.

 

[NancyP]

The 400 f/5.6L still doesn't have an equivalent in quality, AF speed, light weight at the price. You can get a used or refurbished one for 800.00 to 1,000.00. For specialized uses, it is unique. For most people, the Canon or 3rd party zooms are preferable for the IS.