# Canon 300mm f2.8 L



## rjackjames (Mar 6, 2010)

Hello,

I am thinking about getting the Canon 300mm f2.8L Lens with the 2x extender for an up coming wildlife trip to the Kenai Fjords national park this may. Would you recommend that lens setup for that tour. I have various lens in arsenal. I know the lens cost. I have the 100-400mm I am sometimes very unhappy with the quality the images it produce. I would appreciate any suggestions or advice.


----------



## TJ K (Mar 6, 2010)

Is it a lens you will want to keep? You can always rent if you don't want to keep it and save a ton of money. If not depending on the distance you might want something longer but with the 2X it should be good.
TJ


----------



## rjackjames (Mar 7, 2010)

TJ K said:


> Is it a lens you will want to keep? You can always rent if you don't want to keep it and save a ton of money. If not depending on the distance you might want something longer but with the 2X it should be good.
> TJ



Eventually I love too have that lens. Being in Alaska the wildlife is abundant. I know it could be a great investment. having the 2X converter will be sweet.


----------



## the iconic image (Mar 7, 2010)

If you're going to spend that kind of money on a mid range tele, then rent first. Kick the tires on the 300, then rent the 400, and the 500 before you buy either. In my opinion, the 300 is the best glass you can buy, but will be too short for some things and eventually you may regret not stepping up for range to the 4 or 500 depending on what you're going to use it for. In that price range, renting first is a wise decision.

the Iconic Image


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2010)

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_300_2_8_l_is_usm_review.htm

Most of the people I know who manage to get to affording the 300mm f2.8 IS L are wowed by its its sharpness and performance; even with a 2*TC its a sharp 600mm lens and vastly cheaper and lighter than a deciated 600mm lens. Infact many use it as their walkaround wildlife lens since its not too heavy (it is heavy but one can get used to the weight).

I got to use it once  a while ago.... I didn't want to give it back....... Image results were sharper and more contrasty than my 70-200mm f2.8 could muster (and both were using a 1.4TC) and interestingly the viewfinder image was much brighter (even though both are f2.8 max aperture lenses).


----------



## Tony B (Mar 7, 2010)

I recently sold my 100-400 & purchased the 300. My 100-400 was a sharp copy but it had difficulty producing good shots of early morning birds & animals.  The 300 + 1.4 is better.
As with most things photographic compromises abound. Mine was IQ, FL & weight. The weight fractor automatically excluded the 500 & above lenses as many of my shots are  taken during or at the end of sometimes very long bush walks. As I photograph birds, plants, reptiles mammals  & vegetatation landscapes I prefer to carry an extra body or two & lenses to avoid changing lenses &/or missing shots.
The 300 has not disappointed & is a versatile 300, 420, 600 & acceptable 840 (bearing in mind additional crop factors of FF, 1.3 & 1.6).


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 7, 2010)

Honestly...I would look at getting a new camera rather than lenses. If you were to get a camera with a full frame sensor rather than a crop, the 100 - 400 would be a good lens. You can get the 5D MK II for about $2500 vs. the 300mm 2.8 for around $4000 or more.
You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.
Just something to consider.


----------



## rjackjames (Mar 8, 2010)

Thanx everyone for their suggestions and input. I have the 100-400 I was debating on getting rid of that lens and upgrade too the 300mm. I have heard the 400mm is an awesome lens but I don't think i can afford that one. I plan too do a lot of hiking around here in AK and carrying that heavy lens I be real tired lol. I also was thinking of getting the 1D Mark IV or a full frame. I might get the full frame before the 1D. Alaska is so beautiful I happy i moved up here.


----------



## Overread (Mar 8, 2010)

All the top range prime lenses are super good - but yes weight is the main factor. The 300mm f2.8 is about the heavist most shooters are happy to walk around with whilst some others find they can use the heavier glass without problems - their own level of fitness and how much they want to carry that lens are key factors in this. I've known people return top range lenses because they were simply too heavy for their shooting style - fantastic glass - but not the right glass for them and how they want to operate.

On the subject of fullframe vs crop sensor 


> You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.


I disgree greatly with this - heck the 5DM2 and the 7D (as well as the 50D) all have the same factor that they will out resolve glass used on them and lower end glass will thus show up more errors on any of those bodies - you need pro end glass.
As for the fullframe giving better images over crop sensor that is simply not true - sure if you are comparing the high ISO quality of the cameras when using the same lens on each the fullframe options will win out but that is only one factor to consider when comparing. The AF of the 7D for example is far superior to the AF of the 5DM2. 
Heck even shooters like Juza have put the 7D as their main camera body over a 1.3 or fullframe sensor option 
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/index.htm

heck take a look through his galleries and you can see shots taken on 300D camera bodies through to the 1D line - the only common thing being that each was using top of the range pro end glass.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2010)

DRoberts said:


> You can get better photos with a good full frame camera and a crappy lens, than you can with a great lens and a 1.6 crop body.
> Just something to consider.



I tend to go along with that statement as long as the FF camera involved is in the 12,13,14 MP area, which Nikon,Canon,and Kodak have all made.


----------



## rjackjames (Mar 8, 2010)

Overread said:


> All the top range prime lenses are super good - but yes weight is the main factor. The 300mm f2.8 is about the heavist most shooters are happy to walk around with whilst some others find they can use the heavier glass without problems - their own level of fitness and how much they want to carry that lens are key factors in this. I've known people return top range lenses because they were simply too heavy for their shooting style - fantastic glass - but not the right glass for them and how they want to operate.
> 
> On the subject of fullframe vs crop sensor
> 
> ...




Thats guys photos are amazing I am so definitely getting the 300mm f2.8 lens and maybe the 1D MIV lol. That means I have too save up lots of money basically use all my savings. I have been reading lots into the lens so far i am sold. With all the interesting post you guys have basically having my mind made up lol.


----------



## patel140 (Mar 20, 2010)

Hi 
I have 2 canon 300mm f2.8 lenses and 2 canon 2x teleconverters with 2 canon eos 40d bodies, 1 canon 100-400mm and a 1.4x teleconverter lens with a 500d body, 1 sony 18-70mm sony lens, 1 sony 75-300mm lens with a sony alpha a350 and a sony 70-400mm lens with a sony alpha alpha a550. I am normally into wildlife photography and most of my pictures are taken in the masai mara in kenya and these lenses are amazing for photos.

Highly recommended are the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM lens with a 1.4x TC for bird photography and the 300mm f2.8 lens with a 2X TC for both birding and wildlife photography.

Do not use the 100-400mm with a 2x TC, this will mess up all your images as it will decrease the light conditions for your pictures. Instead use it with a 1.4X TC and also use a 300mm f2.8 with a 2x TC. Much better lens and auto focus works much faster.

If you have a canon eos 30d the 300mm f 2.8 works best on that camera body but it will also work on all the eos bodies with perfect quality pictures.

And finally most canon eos bodies are 35mm APSC bodies with a CMOS EXMOR sensor which means that a 100-400mm telephoto lens on a 35mm body would have a much longer focal length making it a super telephoto lens. But do not use with sigma lenses as this causes quite  a few problems.


----------



## icassell (Mar 20, 2010)

I was in Denali last June with my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 and  teleconverters.  It was that trip that convinced me to buy my new body (7D) to replace the 30D.  The 420 mm of the 300 + 1.4X TC was long enough for anything I wanted to shoot (I wasn't into shooting small birds  at that time) but needed significant crops occasionally which the 8MP of my 30D wasn't up to.  The new body was cheaper than buying new glass.  

That said, the 300mm f/2.8 is considered among Canon's best and it is supposed to perform well with either the 1.4X or the 2X converter.  If 600mm is long enough for you, that is a hell of a lot less expensive and easier to carry than the 600mm f/4.  I suggest you put a TC on your 100-400 and set the combination to 600mm.  Walk around taking some pix and see if that is a long enough FL for you.

Personally, I'm eyeing the 400mm f/5.6 which is closer to my price range.  I just wish it had IS.  Most bird photographers I know prefer it to the 100-400 in terms of IQ.

I wish Canon would make something like a 500mm f/5.6 for those of us who only cry when we see the price of the 500mm f/4.

BTW, another option to consider is the 400mm f/4 DO.  It is alot lighter and people love it or hate it.


----------



## Fusion (Mar 21, 2010)

Better glass all the way will give sharper picture with either crop of FF camera. FF cameras definately need the best glass you can afford to get the best from them. :thumbup:


----------



## icassell (Mar 21, 2010)

On a related note.  In this era of better ISO performance, is the IQ of the 300 mm f/2.8 far superior to that of the 300mm f/4?  At four times the price, are you getting 4 times the IQ or is the only difference the lens speed?  My 7D does so well at high ISO, that I keep thinking that if I were to get a 300mm prime, I might be happy with the f/4 and save a lot of money.  Does anyone know a link to a review that compares the IQ of the two?


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2010)

The 300mm f4 is a very good lens, but you have to remember its about more than the speed of the aperture. From all I have seen comparing the 300mm f2.8 and the 300mm f4 (I belive Juza has spoken of it in some of his reviews, though I can't recall if he has done a comparison of both) the 300mm f2.8 is superior to the f4 especailly when combined with teleconverters. This refers to both the image quality and the auto focusing speed.

In addition remmeber that the f4 lens will lose auto focus on a canon DSLR (f4 minus two stops is f8 which is smaller than AF works with - it stops at f5.6 unless you use a 1D line body). Even though you can tape pins and trick the AF to continue to function accuracy and speed drop (especailly in more limited lighting) and there is far more chance for the setup to hunt for focus. 

The 300mm f4 is a lot lighter and has a greater magnification factor for close up shots, but for straight telephoto use whilst its impressive the 300mm f2.8 is more so.


----------



## icassell (Mar 21, 2010)

I just found Juza's comparison of the two.  He does say that the 2.8 has a slight edge, but he really likes the f4 as well.  At a $3K difference in price, I think my decision will be between the 300mm f/4 and the 400mm f/5.6.  I'd like something I can put a 2X on and my 100-300mm f/4 doesn't do so well with that.  On my 7D, the 400 won't AF even with a 1.4X and it doesn't have IS, so the 300 might win out.  A comparison of the 400 f/5.6 and the 300 f/4 with 1.4X TC would be nice too.


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2010)

I've read about those two setups - from what I gather the 400mm f5.6 keeps the edge by being sharper and with the general view that its AF is also a bit more speedy. However as you say it lacks the IS and a 1.4TC on a 300mm f4 should still be a very viable combo. Often when it comes to this grade of lenses whilst test shots can show one being superior over the other one has to remember that its splitting hairs with very good results to start with - so even if one is "better" its not a night and day difference.

Have to say though the new sigma 50-500mm with OS is interesting - sure image quality won't be quite as good as the primes, but its hone heck of a versatile zoom (in the same price bracket) and if you read Juza's super telephoto comparison the old 50-500mm ranks very well against the 100-400mm


----------



## icassell (Mar 21, 2010)

Overread said:


> I've read about those two setups - from what I gather the 400mm f5.6 keeps the edge by being sharper and with the general view that its AF is also a bit more speedy. However as you say it lacks the IS and a 1.4TC on a 300mm f4 should still be a very viable combo. Often when it comes to this grade of lenses whilst test shots can show one being superior over the other one has to remember that its splitting hairs with very good results to start with - so even if one is "better" its not a night and day difference.
> 
> Have to say though the new sigma 50-500mm with OS is interesting - sure image quality won't be quite as good as the primes, but its hone heck of a versatile zoom (in the same price bracket) and if you read Juza's super telephoto comparison the old 50-500mm ranks very well against the 100-400mm



Yes, exactly.  I'm waiting to see the new Sigma before I invest.  It will be interesting to see if it is the same optics with added OS, or if they have also improved it optically.  I know many birders who get gorgeous results with the non-OS version (preferring it to the 150-500mm OS) and this may be what I am waiting for.  I would love to have a 500mm lens, but the Canon 500mm f/4  is beyond my reach for the forseeable future.  I haven't seen any price mentioned for the new lens, either.


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2010)

I seem to recall $2400 on the 50-500mm OS though I have no idea where I saw that and I think it might have been avery early price. UK side I have seen Warehouse Express listing the lens at £1399.99 on pre order. The range it offers as well as image quality (even if its just the same as the original) really makes it so attractive. The 100-400mm gets used a lot professionaly and with the 50-500mm about on par, but with more range its so tempting

My thing is that a 50-500mm with OS ora 100-400mm IS is a nice single walkaround lens that is not too heavy and that can do a lot of work though the massive focal ranges on offer.
However something like a 300mm f4 could be agood stop gap in working toward something like a 300mm f2.8 - since one can sell well kept glass like hte 300mm f4 for a good price and thus have part of the money "invested" in a shorter term option. Whilst a zoom lens is something one might wish to hang onto for longer if even so as to just have a lighter walkaround option .


----------



## Jeremy Z (Mar 21, 2010)

If it is just the image quality, consider getting a 300 mm f/4 and 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Then, shoot at higher ISO when needed. The lens will be lighter, and you will have a lot more combinations for less money.

If you can afford and are willing to carry the 2.8, that is better not only because it is 2.8, but also because when you add a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter, you're only at f/4 and f/5.6, respectively, instead of f/5.6 and f/8


----------



## table1349 (Mar 21, 2010)

the iconic image said:


> If you're going to spend that kind of money on a mid range tele, then rent first. Kick the tires on the 300, then rent the 400, and the 500 before you buy either. In my opinion, the 300 is the best glass you can buy, but will be too short for some things and eventually you may regret not stepping up for range to the 4 or 500 depending on what you're going to use it for. In that price range, renting first is a wise decision.
> 
> the Iconic Image



:thumbup: +++

I own both the 300 f2.8 and the 400 f2.8.  They are two totally different beasts that both produce amazing results.  I would strongly recommend iconic's suggestion.  Rent them and see which works best for you.  Personally for wildlife (the real they can hurt or kill you kind of wildlife)  The longer the glass the better.   I shoot bears up in the Mountains of New Mexico and as a general rule, unless you are not shooting at least a 400 mm lens and the bear nicely fills you view finder we have a term for you.  DINNER!!!   As an Alaskan I am sure you can relate.


----------



## rjackjames (Mar 21, 2010)

Wow thanx guys for the ideas, comparisons and the reviews on each lens. In all I say you get what you paid for. As for the Canon 300mm f2.8 is an awesome lens, if I can afford it i will go for it, the 400mm f2.8 L wow that beyond my league, and I take forever too pay that beast off.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 22, 2010)

rjackjames said:


> Wow thanx guys for the ideas, comparisons and the reviews on each lens. In all I say you get what you paid for. As for the Canon 300mm f2.8 is an awesome lens, if I can afford it i will go for it, the 400mm f2.8 L wow that beyond my league, and I take forever too pay that beast off.



Depends on how dedicated you are.  I paid for a good portion of my 400 f2.8 by eating peanut butter for 18months.  Every time I looked at spending money that wasn't for shelter, or bills I asked myself if I really needed it.  If the answer was no then those couple of bucks went into the fund as well.


----------



## icassell (Mar 22, 2010)

Overread said:


> I seem to recall $2400 on the 50-500mm OS though I have no idea where I saw that and I think it might have been avery early price. UK side I have seen Warehouse Express listing the lens at £1399.99 on pre order. The range it offers as well as image quality (even if its just the same as the original) really makes it so attractive. The 100-400mm gets used a lot professionaly and with the 50-500mm about on par, but with more range its so tempting
> 
> My thing is that a 50-500mm with OS ora 100-400mm IS is a nice single walkaround lens that is not too heavy and that can do a lot of work though the massive focal ranges on offer.
> However something like a 300mm f4 could be agood stop gap in working toward something like a 300mm f2.8 - since one can sell well kept glass like hte 300mm f4 for a good price and thus have part of the money "invested" in a shorter term option. Whilst a zoom lens is something one might wish to hang onto for longer if even so as to just have a lighter walkaround option .



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-500mm-4-5-6-3-Telephoto-Canon/dp/B003980YK6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269305211&sr=8-5]Amazon.com: Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM SLD Ultra Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera: Electronics[/ame]



http://www.adorama.com/SG50500OEOS.html


I got e-mail from Sigma today that the Canon version has begun to ship.  Now I have to wait and see if it is any good (I don't want to be the first).  $1600 seems pretty reasonable if it turns out to be a good lens.


----------



## rjackjames (Mar 23, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> rjackjames said:
> 
> 
> > Wow thanx guys for the ideas, comparisons and the reviews on each lens. In all I say you get what you paid for. As for the Canon 300mm f2.8 is an awesome lens, if I can afford it i will go for it, the 400mm f2.8 L wow that beyond my league, and I take forever too pay that beast off.
> ...



I am very dedicated and with my current job. I only have weekends too enjoy myself. The 300mm f2.8L with the 1.4x or 2x convertors. is my choice for now until later on when i can afford the 400mm. For the wildlife where in Alaska i think the 300mm is for now until I want to step-up because i am only here for 3 years.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 23, 2010)

300mmF4L non is + 1.4x on a 10D
















300mmF4L non is only on 1D


----------



## rjackjames (Mar 23, 2010)

gsgary said:


> 300mmF4L non is + 1.4x on a 10D
> 
> 
> 
> ...




those images are very stunning..... i miss playing cricket such a lovely game. Those were take with the 300mm f4L.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 23, 2010)

Yes non IS





One more with it, i wish i had kept it but i sold it for a 300mmF2.8L


----------

