Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
I already have the version I of this lens and have been thinking about selling it and upgrading. Is it worth it? I also have a 1.4x III and use it to get close enough to 400 that I don't think I can justify getting the 400 as a second lens. I would also love to have the new 200-400 but the cost is just ridiculous although it would be perfect for me - I shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse . . . ). So again anybody that has upgraded for the version I of this lens, was it worth it?
Thanks,
Andy
Thanks,
Andy
Upvote
0
I recently upgraded from mk1 and am absolutely delighted I did. Performance is stunning even with 1.4 mk111, extender. 2 x extender mk111 is still very good with a slight loss of IQ. Is there much difference between the lenses, I would say yes, using the lens at f2.8 is out of this world. I for one will never own a better lens. Use on a full frame body for best results, I have the 5dmk111 as well as the 7d.
My main use of the lens is wildlife, especially animal photography, the lens is really to short for birds but with extenders does the job. And yes I am fussy about image quality.
My main use of the lens is wildlife, especially animal photography, the lens is really to short for birds but with extenders does the job. And yes I am fussy about image quality.
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:Daniel Flather said:
Pretty girl and all you see is the Jersey, tsk tsk
Yeah, well, it's a nasty sweater and it got all my attention.
Upvote
0
I have Canons top zoom, new 500 and the 300. Im no pixel peeper and if it needs to be said Ill say it. If its good, ill say its good, if its bad ill say its bad. I rate Canons top primes at 9.9/10. The new ones are damm near perfect. I have Canons top zooms which I rate at 9.9/10 (for a zoom and damm close to a prime). I rate the new 300 10/10. Lazer fast autofocus, less weight, 4 stop IS that works, etc etc all good. But for some reason and I dont know why, every time I take the 300 out, the pics I get back have an x factor I have never seen in another lens. I love Canons new lens's but the 300 is king.
Upvote
0
This review is very much a waste of time. It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.
Upvote
0
acoll123 said:
Hi Andy, if you can afford it, absolutely do it.
I was always impressed with the Version 1 300f/2.8, but the advantages of the Version 2 are immediate weight gain, this Lens is about as Hand Holdable (is that a word??) as the 70-200f/2.8 L II, it's amazing how they got this (and the 400V2/600v2) Lens so light. You will see an immediate gain in Focus snap on, this V2 focuses faster, I get a lot more In Focus shots now than I did with the V1 Lens, agreed, I'm now using the 5DMK III & 1Dx so some o0f the faster response etc perhaps go to the new Cameras, I used the Version 1 Lens with the 5DMK II & 1DMK IV.
I have the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 v2, 400f/2.8 v2 & 600f/4 v2, the 200-400f/4 I'll have hopefully by the end June this year, and the only Lens I intend then selling will be the 400f/2.8 v2, the 300 I'll likely die with, this without any doubt is the sharpest Lens I own. The 200f/2 is no slouch either, but it's not as fast as the 300 v2.
The 3 Lenses i have that I use the most & just love the Images that come from them, in order of Love, 300f/2.8 v2, 200f/2, 85 f/1.2 L II.
Upvote
0
i agree with alan.
Also, i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the unflattering nature headshots taken with this lens. either i didn't read it correctly, and i might not of as i started to space out and skip over the boring stuff, or he is saying it's not good for head shots. if that's what he's saying, i really have to call BS. either he doesn't get that perspective isn't based on what lens, but on distances, or ....? or i don't know..... he likes big noses, and little ears.
but maybe i'm silly, if you've got some examples of how a 300mm lens makes for crappy headshots i'd like to take a look.
Also, i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the unflattering nature headshots taken with this lens. either i didn't read it correctly, and i might not of as i started to space out and skip over the boring stuff, or he is saying it's not good for head shots. if that's what he's saying, i really have to call BS. either he doesn't get that perspective isn't based on what lens, but on distances, or ....? or i don't know..... he likes big noses, and little ears.
but maybe i'm silly, if you've got some examples of how a 300mm lens makes for crappy headshots i'd like to take a look.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though ;D
You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.
A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.
Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though. Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.
Upvote
0
risc32 said:
Maybe I wrote it wrong, so I present a headshot taken (of me). See how the compression just flattens my head SO MUCH that it looks wide and distended? I'd be hard pressed to find someone going for *that* look. While shooting super telephoto may not be my strong suit, I do like to think I know a thing or two about portraits, what my clients like, and what gets published, by now.
And no, I don't like big noses and little ears, but there's a flattering "sweet spot" for head-shots that I hope we can agree is somewhere above 24mm and below 300mm.
Now pulled back a bit the photos make more sense. Maybe a 1/4 profile or "bust" shot works, but at that 2m minimum focusing distance I'll pass.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I also have this photo of my son, which is from a bit farther back than 2 meters, it's not as bad as my face (after all, it was *my* face), but his ears now have become bigger than they need to be since they're completely flattened to the frame. Of course it's a bit exaggerated by his head being turned sideways, but my point is that this is NOT a portrait lens, not for the price, not for the weight, with the exception of full-body environmental portraits like I did of the young lady in the Sens jersey.
Attachments
Upvote
0
"Cons
Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"
Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...
Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"
Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...
Upvote
0
- Status
