how to get 300 2.8

[lux]

I have long coveted 300 2.8. I have used 100-400 but heavy overcast, night games and sidelines with lots of clutter have stymied my photography. It is possible that I have made this complaint on more than occasion and my ruthless annoying complaining has finally worn the boss (my wife) down and I have been given permission to seek the 300 2.8. But how to obtain such nirvana.

1)300 2.8 L IS II…just kidding you didn't really think I could do that did you?
2)300 2.8 L IS I…seems like it can be purchased for around 3500 depending upon from where/condition etc
3)Sigma 120-300 sport (around 3500 again)

So 300 L IS I or sigma 120-300…

Primary purpose is for taking pictures of kids playing soccer. I use a 6D (though might someday buy a used 7DI as a second body). I shoot with a monopod when renting a 300 I which I have enjoyed. I have not ever used the 120-300. I would like to try some birding. I live near a lot of good birding locations. I would probably buy a 2xTC for that.

Any thoughts?

 

[viggen61]

The 300 f/2.8L IS USM II is selling for $5,279.20 refurbished in the Canon USA store. Full 1 year Canon US warranty, and all accessories (caps, hood, straps and the suitcase).

I doubt you can go wrong with either the original or the sequel, but if you can swing it, I'd try for the II. Especially at that price!

 

[Dylan777]

Many claimed there is not much diff. in IQ between Canon 300mm f2.8 ver.1 and 2(only weight). I had the oppertunity shooting with ver 2 for over weeks. IQ is just SUPER.

If I have to choose one one, I would go for Canon.

 

[pwp]

Do a CR search...there have been useful threads on the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 right here on these forums.

I have the 300 f/2.8isII. Little needs to be added about this incredible lens. For some sports I often think it would be useful to have a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It's a lens that has intrigued me for years, but I've never gone through and bought one. When I shoot football (various codes...) I have the 300 f/2.8 on one body and a 70-200 f/2.8 on the other. A Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 would free me up to just work with one body for most shots, and leave a wide on the second body.

Unless you are Mr Muscles, this is a monopod lens. It's heavy. Much heavier than the Canon 300 f/2.8. Another thing to investigate further are reports that the Sigma may not be a true 300mm, more like 280mm though this may only be at the minimum focusing distance. Check it out and decide whther this is important to you or not.

https://fstoppers.com/gear/review-you-should-want-sigmas-120-300mm-f28-sport-lens-3096
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm
http://petapixel.com/2013/11/01/review-sigma-120-300-f2-8-one-sexy-beast/

And also check out the Fred Miranda user reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104

-pw

 

[lion rock]

Lux,
Welcome to the dilemma.
My story is not much different from yours. I started drooling after the Canon 200-400mm lens, but after renting it for 2 weeks, I feel I can't wield the monster so well because of my 5'4" size. Still love the lens. So, after a long while sulking about the lens, I started lusting after the 300mm. Boss lady even went with me 3 weeks ago 520 miles to B&H to look at the 300! It is hand holdable, not sure how long I can shoot with it, though.
But, my thought is that with a X2 on my 70-200 f/2.8 II, I have the reach, maybe not the sharpness nor light gathering capability of a f/2.8. Still the combination on a full frame will give me enough use.
Now, my hope is for the introduction of the mark II of the 100-400. And hope that it would be a big improvement over the current model.
Now, unlike you, there is not many exotic wild life where I live (adjacent to the Jefferson National Forest), just small birds and deer, so a long lens is used only on occasion, and I travel to foreign countries annually, but air travel with heavy gear is not encouraged.
Hope you come to a satisfying decision. Keep us informed.
-r

 

[jdramirez]

I don't recall how much the 300 mkii was with the cpw group buy... but I would guess used is the way to go. I haven't used either... but I kinda want it every now and then.

I flirt with Sigma, but inevitably I come back to Canon. It just feel right.

Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc? It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have the MkI Canon IS, I recommend it highly and the IQ is stunning, the only real performance difference between the MkI and MkII is the use of the 2X TC, both take the 1.4X TC superbly, but the MkII takes the 2X TC very well too, it also has fractionally faster AF especially when using the TC's.

I have felt no strong desire to upgrade from my MkI, mainly because I rarely use TC's. If longer than 300 is going to be a regular requirement I would suggest saving a bit longer and try for a MkII, if you really just want 300 and the occasional 420mm f4 then the MkI and 1.4 TC are very very good, and I can't see them depreciating much in the mid to long term either, I could basically get what I bought mine for ten years ago.

 

[candc]

I have the sigma sport and it is a fantastic lens. From what i have seen It is not quite as good at 300 as the canon 300ii but its very close and its a zoom. It is really good with the canon 1.4xiii or kenko pro tc to give you 168-420 f/4. I am excited to see how it does with the new sigma tc's, the current ones are not the best.

 

[takesome1]

The 300 f/2.8 L IS is easy to get. Just meet me at the local McD's with $3700 and I will trade you mine for the cash.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 300 2.8 IS is pretty fantastic. The IS is a little bit old, but it's amazing. FF crisp corner to corner. Just crazy sharp. Beautiful bokeh, so smooth like a 135 2.

I haven't tried the newest Sigma 120-300. But the old pre-OS one, wasn't as good as the Canon prime. It was sharp but not insanely sharp, closer to the 300 f/4L sharpness. The Canon prime + 1.4x TC was still a full match for the bare sigma lens. The sigma was like 280mm and f/3.0 if you took the Canon prime to have been 300mm and f/2.8. The Canon has better AF too. The Canon prime weighs a bit less as well. Despite the prime being a prime and not being as flexible, I never once saw anyone take the sigma from the newspaper lens pool if a 300 2.8 IS was still available.

Anyway the old sigma certainly was a pretty good lens but normal standards, but it wasn't a match going by the insane standards of the CAnon super-teles.

That said, I do believe the new sigma 120-300 is supposed to have been improved. (although I believe it's even heavier in comparison to the 300 2.8 IS than the old one was).

 

[Jim Saunders]

Two fliers on the plot:

200 f/2.8 & crop; it could work if you're not producing big prints.

300 f/4: Sharp, cheap, light weight, if you can afford a stop.

I put these to you as questions to consider to make sure you need to spend for a 300 f/2.8; you're the one who knows for sure.

Jim

 

[nc0b]

Jim has a good point about considering other lenses if you are interested in birds. For a while I tried the 2X III TC on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for BIF. Perched, fine; in flight - forget it. If you lose focus, which is considerably slower with the 2X TC attached, you may never reacquire focus when it gets lost in a blue sky. On the other hand the 400mm f/5.6 or the 300mm f/4 will focus or refocus quite quickly. I have never used the 300mm f/2.8, so I am making do dispersions on the lens. The TC might be fine if you are shooting sports from above in the stands, but at least from my experience the 2X III TC isn't a good choice for BIF.

 

[kaihp]

my ruthless annoying complaining has finally worn the boss (my wife) down and I have been given permission to seek the 300 2.8. But how to obtain such nirvana.

1)300 2.8 L IS II…just kidding you didn't really think I could do that did you?
2)300 2.8 L IS I…seems like it can be purchased for around 3500 depending upon from where/condition etc
3)Sigma 120-300 sport (around 3500 again)

The main differences from my experience is that the MkII is lighter and has better IS. It is slated to take the 2xx MkIII TC better, focus slightly faster and be slightly optically sharper than the MkI, but I didn't notice that.
I guess you already checked out Bryan's review on TDP.

Considering that the MkII is about 2x the price of a well-kept MkI (at least where I am), you need very (very) good reasons to go for the MkII.

The 300's are quite handholdable at 2,35-2,55kg, even with the 2x TC, whereas the Sigma 120-300mm is 3,4kgs.

 

[Dylan777]

Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc? It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.

I played with it last couple days. Just like many mentioned, the compression of 200mm and f2 are insane.

My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014

 

[kaihp]

My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014

Famous last words, or just because you'll buy it on Dec 31st?

 

[jdramirez]

I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.

 

[Dylan777]

I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.

Congrats JD
I think 85L II and 200mm f2 will be great for kids. Want to race to 200mm f2 finish line with me? ;D

 

[jdramirez]

I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.

Congrats JD
I think 85L II and 200mm f2 will be great for kids. Want to race to 200mm f2 finish line with me? ;D

With your wife, I think you have an insurmountable head start. Does she know that we are all green with envy with her level of understanding?

Having said that... I have 2 grand in my camera fund, and I would probably sell my 70-200mkii for 1900ish, so I'm only a few grand away...

 

[NancyP]

Rent it? My local camera shop has one for rent, apparently it is popular. That way, you get to handle it and see if it suits you.

 

[Dylan777]

I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.

Congrats JD
I think 85L II and 200mm f2 will be great for kids. Want to race to 200mm f2 finish line with me? ;D

With your wife, I think you have an insurmountable head start. Does she know that we are all green with envy with her level of understanding?

Having said that... I have 2 grand in my camera fund, and I would probably sell my 70-200mkii for 1900ish, so I'm only a few grand away...

Good compliments on her NEW hand bags & shoes will earn a lot of credit

I like your thinking about selling the 70-200 when 200mm f2 is in consideration. I'm few steps away from that 200mm f2 IS. I'm working on a deal package right now, including 35mm f1.4, 16-35 f4 IS and 200mm f2 IS. The store manager is playing hard-to-get right now(he thinks I want those lenses). I'm trying to keep my cool during negotation(I'm drooling from the inside though ;D).