Canon 300f4 IS to 300 f2.8IS

W

woollyback

Messages
1,417
Edit My Images
No
Folks,

Looking for views from anyone who has made the switch from baby 300 to full grown up version.

I have a Wildlife & sports slant with percieved view of enhanced focus speed and IS from 300 f2.8, downsize +£ and +weight.

Plan is to hire one for a trial but interested in longer term users views.

Question is how much of an improvement (if any) did people see over 300 f4.

Any views would be great.

Cheers

Rob
 
Rob,

The 300 f2.8 IS is awesomely fast at locking AF, nothing like it!

Have never used the f4 IS, but the glass has no problems in focusing...

Very sharp and the bokeh is breathtaking :woot:

Bit heavy for Bridie I'd imagine ;)
 
Mark,

Thanks for the reply, It confirms what I was thinking. I guess it's a bit like the 40D - 50D debate - how much of an improvement will I see. But I really want one - I'm just looking for a sanity check before splashing out.

God, if Bridie gets wind of it I will have lost it before I start - she did manage the 500 Sigma though so....

Thanks for the reply


Rob
 
No brainer really, and the 2.8 works superbly well with both converters. The 2X TC gives you a relatively light and compact 600mm f5.6 which will AF on any Canon body and deliver superb results even wide open. Yes I'd buy it again if I had to.
 
woollyback said:
Mark, Malla,

If you had to would you buy the 2.8 again?

Rob
Click to expand...

Absolutely, 100%

Haven't looked back and it works a treat with a 1.4x converter, with hardly any loss of IQ.

Have never used it with a 2x though

I don't think you'd be disappointed
 
markta said:
Absolutely, 100%

Haven't looked back and it works a treat with a 1.4x converter, with hardly any loss of IQ.

Have never used it with a 2x though

I don't think you'd be disappointed
Click to expand...
Yes I would, I use mine wide open most of the time and its the sharpest
lens I have ever had.
 
Go for the f2.8 if you have £4k to spare, and plan on using it on a tripod or monopod. However, I suggest you wait as there are rumours of an improved model with better IS coming in the Autumn. I would love the f4 version as it is a good hand-hold (a few friends sware by it), where the f2.8 is too heavy to hand-hold.
 
One of my amigos went Canon 300 f4 to 300 2.8 and its head and shoulders better it really is.

The other amigo went Nikon 300 f4 to 300 2.8 and the same again.

The curious thing is that in both cases I ended up with their 300 f4 :D

One thing though, you won't necessarily see the difference in a small internet sized jpeg - but when you see it printed out A3, you'll know exactly why you spent the money!
 
markta said:
Rob,

The 300 f2.8 IS is awesomely fast at locking AF, nothing like it!

Have never used the f4 IS, but the glass has no problems in focusing...

Very sharp and the bokeh is breathtaking :woot:
Click to expand...


:agree:

Haven't used the f/4 but I would consider the f/2.8 to be my favourite lens - excellent IQwith a 1.4 or 2.0 TC.

Most of my birding shots here have been taken with this lens and one of those TC.

Hire one & try it out but be warned you will want it :D
 
I've got both versions.....chalk and cheese really. There's nothing wrong with the f/4 and it'll do the job in most instances and also takes the 1.4x without too much trouble as well as being relatively inconspicuous. It has Canon's older version IS design.

The f/2.8 is up into the next league, takes either T/C without so much as a murmur and somehow makes it difficult to take a bad shot but it's hard not to be noticed walking around with it and has improved stabilisation
.
To sum up, the only thing they really share is the focal length.

Note: Brachytron seems to think it's not "hand-holdable" and I have to strongly disagree.....mine's rarely been on a tripod or monopod except in the garden at home....it's 100% hand-holdable.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I've got both versions.....chalk and cheese really. There's nothing wrong with the f/4 and it'll do the job in most instances and also takes the 1.4x without too much trouble as well as being relatively inconspicuous. It has Canon's older version IS design.

The f/2.8 is up into the next league, takes either T/C without so much as a murmur and somehow makes it difficult to take a bad shot but it's hard not to be noticed walking around with it and has improved stabilisation
.
To sum up, the only thing they really share is the focal length.

Note: Brachytron seems to think it's not "hand-holdable" and I have to strongly disagree.....mine's rarely been on a tripod or monopod except in the garden at home....it's 100% hand-holdable.

Bob
Click to expand...


Just to confirm what Bob is saying I had a visit to whipsnade recently. And used bob's 300mm 2.8 with and without the 2xtc for the whole day " sorry bob i must learn to share" All shots from the day 2x and 300mm where all hand held.. WHAT A BEAST...


MD:thumbs:


ps I had the 300mm f/4 last year myself very nice lens:clap:
 
I used mine 50% on tripod and 50% handheld.

Definately need to spend time with it getting used to the weight as it weighs a bit, even with the IS on. IS is rated at 2 stops by the way ;)
 
Right.. off to the hire shop.

Me thinks I am on the slippery slope.

Thanks for all your views and taking time to comment

Cheers

Rob
 
Trouble is, once you've hired it you WILL want it!
 
sort of related,

How does the older non-is model 300/2.8 compare to the newer one?
Im especially interested in its results with the 2x, really as cheap way of getting a decent long lens that will af on a 40d.
 
My opinion of the 2x on that from having seen a lot of my colleagues work with it is that the 2x drops the IQ to barely acceptable. Use it if you've got to get the shot, but you won't be making many high quality poster prints from it.

Works ok if you are trying to make a 3"x2" picture for a newspaper though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top