Canon 300/4 versus 300/2.8

mercphoto

I can't see myself using a lens as big and heavy as a 300/2.8, but maybe there is a reason to. Besides being a full-stop faster, what else is different about the two lenses? Big difference in optical quality? Focus performance? Image stabilization differences? Just wondering what makes it 4X the money.

OlgaJ

Some of my shooting buddies have that lens. Its claim to fame is sharpness and incredible bokeh. It's used a lot for outdoor sports, from what I've observed. It is HUGE! Weighs over 5 lbs, IIRC.

Olga

pathfinder

mercphoto wrote:

I can't see myself using a lens as big and heavy as a 300/2.8, but maybe there is a reason to. Besides being a full-stop faster, what else is different about the two lenses? Big difference in optical quality? Focus performance? Image stabilization differences? Just wondering what makes it 4X the money.

I own the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L and like it a great deal. Like its reputation, it is tack sharp wide open, and relatively light and small. I said relatively.

What I really like about it, Bill, is that I can use it with a 2x extender and still have an f5.6 hand-holdable 600mm lens that AFs fairly quickly even with a 20D. The f4 300 is cheaper, but cannot be used nearly as nicely with a 2x extender. IF you KNOW you only need 300mm, the 300f4.0 or the 400 f5.6 are great lenses and will serve very nicely. The reason f2.8 costs more is that 1 extra stop requires an optic that is 2x times larger in frontal area....as well as a larger and heavier barrel and iris assembly.


Even with a 2x I get results like this - check the sharpness and the bokeh


Any images of birds at pathfinder.smugmug.com shot at 600mm were shot with this combination. I find it quite useful. I was roaming around Arthur Morris website www.birdsasart.com and found he uses a 2x with his primes quite a bit. You read so much stuff on the web about how the 2x extenders degrade the images so badly, but I notice Arthur Morris uses a 2x a lot, or even stacks a 2x and a 1.4x on his primes. Stacking a 1.4ex behind a 300+2x = 840mm at f8. Now that is really getting some reach. And Art Morris' images are superb. The glass is up to the task if we just do our part with it.


Typical 600mm lenses are much heavier and more expensive than this combination. I can easily carry this lens/camera in my left hand as I hike about the countryside. Hiking with 500f4, would be much more tiring and have less reach.

luckyrwe

You have those birds in Indiana???

mercphoto

pathfinder wrote:

What I really like about it, Bill, is that I can use it with a 2x extender and still have an f5.6 hand-holdable 600mm lens that AFs fairly quickly even with a 20D.
Even with a 2x I get results like this - check the sharpness and the bokeh.

Amazing.

You read so much stuff on the web about how the 2x extenders degrade the images so badly,

Yes I have read all the "bad" reviews of the 2X. Those images suggest otherwise.

Thanks!

wxwax

I'm one of the ones who's said bad things about the 2x. To be fair to Canon, I've only used it on the 300 f4.

Based on what PF has posted, I shall have to try it on the 300 f2.8. I admit to be skeptical, especially wrt stacking the 2x and the 1.4x, a combination which was just brutal on the f4.

I find it hard to believe that the f2.8 can really rescue the situation, but I'll give it a try. When I do, I'll be sure to post the results.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

I'm one of the ones who's said bad things about the 2x. To be fair to Canon, I've only used it on the 300 f4.

Based on what PF has posted, I shall have to try it on the 300 f2.8. I admit to be skeptical, especially wrt stacking the 2x and the 1.4x, a combination which was just brutal on the f4.

I find it hard to believe that the f2.8 can really rescue the situation, but I'll give it a try. When I do, I'll be sure to post the results.

I will be very interrested in your results too, Sid. I don't know if they will vary from lens to lens or what.

I never would have thought that stacking a 1.4 on a 2x was a good idea for a professional quality image and I have not rec'ed it either... But...

GO to Art Morris's website www.birdsasart.com He always lists the lens used and the exposures. I was feeling frustrated because I always felt the image I was getting was too small on my sensor - many of my perching birds are 1/4 sensor sized images.

When I was reviewing the images by A Morris - he has a number of books of bird images published - I realized many of his shots were with stacked telexetenders. I was surprised, and decided I needed to rethink this issue myself rather than just read about it on the web. Like I said, just my 2 cents - YMMV.

I do plan to do some shooting with a stack of a 1.4 and a 2x on my 300 f2.8. I do believe that you must start with good primes. A poor quality lens will just have its defects magnified with adding extenders I suspect. I will not be able to hand hold 840mm though. It will def be tripod territory and 1/1500 shutter speeds.