Canon 300mm F4 or F2.8?

BBones

Looking to buy the 300mm Canon IS L lens but not sure about which to buy. Primarily I shoot racing photography but I hope to use my longer lenses for animal/wildlife shots too. I have had resoundingly good success with the 70-200 IS L 2.8 and even found out that that particular model was weather proof whereas the other similar models are not.

Sooooo....is the 2.8 model worth the difference?

And before you say it, the 400 IS L 2.8 is out due to weight issues, there is no way I can quickly manuever that beast on a race track.

gsgary

Here in the UK there is a £2300 difference:jawdrop I'm going for the F4 £929

BBones wrote:

Looking to buy the 300mm Canon IS L lens but not sure about which to buy. Primarily I shoot racing photography but I hope to use my longer lenses for animal/wildlife shots too. I have had resoundingly good success with the 70-200 IS L 2.8 and even found out that that particular model was weather proof whereas the other similar models are not.

Sooooo....is the 2.8 model worth the difference?

And before you say it, the 400 IS L 2.8 is out due to weight issues, there is no way I can quickly manuever that beast on a race track.

mercphoto

I bought a 300/2.8 for football before I learned how much I dislike shooting football. (little down-side risk, considering how easy it is to sell that lens) For that, f/4 is simply not enough, especially in stadium lights. So now I have a 2.8 to do my karts and motocross. I have to admit, big as it is, it is a lovely lens. Focuses really, really fast. Really, really sharp images. Will work with the teleconverters better than the f/4 model as well for your wildlife shots. I have no idea if the f/4 will work for your needs or not, but I thought I was gonna sell the 2.8 if the football didn't work out. I have almost talked myself out of that. Does that speak well for the lens, or speak poorly of my sanity? :chuckle

BBones

Yeah, that is the other thing, I think I need the 2.8 since I will add on the 1.4x TC on the back end of it so I can get more impact area shots without being the impact area.

*sigh*

2.8 it is then, I had forgotten about the TC. Still another $800 to go then for saving up and then start saving all over again for a 1DMark2. At least those have dropped a few bucks since the N version came out, I really see no need for me getting that.

mercphoto wrote:

I bought a 300/2.8 for football before I learned how much I dislike shooting football. (little down-side risk, considering how easy it is to sell that lens) For that, f/4 is simply not enough, especially in stadium lights. So now I have a 2.8 to do my karts and motocross. I have to admit, big as it is, it is a lovely lens. Focuses really, really fast. Really, really sharp images. Will work with the teleconverters better than the f/4 model as well for your wildlife shots. I have no idea if the f/4 will work for your needs or not, but I thought I was gonna sell the 2.8 if the football didn't work out. I have almost talked myself out of that. Does that speak well for the lens, or speak poorly of my sanity? :chuckle

ian408

I think you'll do well with the 2.8. Especially coupled with a 1.4 TC.

Ian

BBones

undoubtedly it will do great...just frustrated about having to come up with another $800 for that plus I still semi-need the new camera body all by March.

pathfinder

BBones wrote:

Yeah, that is the other thing, I think I need the 2.8 since I will add on the 1.4x TC on the back end of it so I can get more impact area shots without being the impact area.

*sigh*

2.8 it is then, I had forgotten about the TC. Still another $800 to go then for saving up and then start saving all over again for a 1DMark2. At least those have dropped a few bucks since the N version came out, I really see no need for me getting that.

BB, just to perk your interest in the 300 f2.8 IS L a little more. I use mine most of the time any longer with a 2X TC on it and have a hand holdable 600mm lens that shoots nicely at f5.6 ( wide-open) and great at f8 ( one stop down from max aperature).
It still focuses as close as the 300 also, and weighs less than half what a 600mm f4 weighs. Don't believe all those stories about poor images with the 2x - With a great prime, like the 300 f2.8 the images will sing even with the 2x.
And focusing is better with a f2.8 than an f4 also. It does cost almost 4x as much also. That said, I won't part with mine unless I need the money for food.

I have not tried stacked TCs with it yet 1.4 + 2x, but Art Morris, pro bird shooter and owner of www.birdsasart.com uses stacked TC frequently. Check out his pictures from stacked TCs.

Here are two shots with a 300 + 2x..Very nice bokeh with this glass, wouldn't you agree?? Not the best pictures, but good demonstration of the usability of the 300+2x....

SteveF

Hello,

I have the 2.8 IS and love it.

Carry around a 400/2.8 or a 500/4 and the 300 will seem like a pretty small reasonable lens. (I'm not kidding. )

Great with the 1.4x and 2x. Super fast focus, great bokeh. This lens is a favorite.

OTOH, I like to take pics of dragonflies and butterflies, and for this the 300/4 IS is a better choice IMHO. It is much lighter and can focus much closer, so it depends a little on what you are going to do with it. But getting looks when I'm chasing butterflies with this (the 2.8) beast is worth it too.

Here's a shot with the 2.8 IS and a 2x converter. Tripod, MLU and if I remember right the settings were f/5.6 and 1/60. It is hanging at a show printed at 20x30 and is pretty darn sharp. It was also snowing pretty hard and so the weather sealing is a bonus too.

BBones

you guys are killing me here



thanks for the input. 2.8 it is so I can use the 1.4xTC I already have.