20 Years apart: Comparing the 300mm 2.8 II & the 300mm f4 Non-IS

[micloi]

A quick/non scientific comparison of the Canon 300mm 2.8 II & the 300mm f4 Non-IS.

All 100% crops

1st Shot - f6.3: Non-IS 300mm f4 + 1.4x MKI (1st version)

2nd/3rd Shots - f4.5 and f6.3: 300mm 2.8 II + 1.4x MK III

It is true that the old f4 is one of the sharpest lenses Canon released and is noticeably sharper than the IS version.

 

[desantnik]

You'd probably find the 300 f4 is better than that if you actually drop a whole stop down from the maximum aperture (f5.6 on the 300 2.8 and f8 on the 300 f4).

You can see that in that the visual acuity of the f6.3 300 2.8 shot is better IMHO than either of the other two and no surprise that the f4.5 shot is not good.

However, this is where the 300 2.8 really scores, if you follow that wisdom then having a lens that you can only use at f8 or smaller can give you issues both in amount of available light (albeit modern bodies handle higher iso better than the past) but also in subject isolation.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Well, I would say that the third shot is sharper than the rest.

It does beg the question as to whether it is worth the considerable extra outlay though!

 

[admirable]

Non scientific I know but they're not the same shutter speeds or even taken with the same camera.

 

[micloi]

Non scientific I know but they're not the same shutter speeds or even taken with the same camera.

They are at the same ISO and the 550D and 7D have essentially the same sensor so close enough for a non-scientific test

Could not have the same shutter speed when using a different aperture and ISO without over or under exposing.