Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM vs Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
May 8, 2019 07:38:50   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
Jerrin1 wrote:
I once owned a secondhand Canon 300mm f2.8L IS and, coincidentally, used it on a 7D mark II with a Canon 2 x TCIII and can honestly state that it was a tremendous lens. In fact, the combination was brilliant - even with the 2 x TC. I have to say that I doubt the mark II is worth the extra $1600, tempting though it is. But, as far as I am aware, it has does have better IS and is a little lighter. I also owned a Canon 100 - 400mm f4.5 - 5.6 mark II and had that on my 70D. I was never a fan of my Canon 400mm f5.6, probably because it wasn't stabilised, and sold it after a few months. If I owned the kit you currently have, I would sell the lot and buy one (or two) secondhand Nikon D500 bodies, a Nikkor 500mm f5.6 PF ED VR + Nikkor TC14EIII and a secondhand Tamron 150 - 600mm G2 (alternatively a secondhand Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6). I used to own a D500, Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR + TC14EIII and a Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6. As a system, it blew my old Canon kit out of the water (with the exception of the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS). I now own a Sony A9/A7III system and will not be going back to Canon or Nikon. Good luck, I doubt you will be disappointed with either of the Canon 300mm f2.8 lenses.
I once owned a secondhand Canon 300mm f2.8L IS and... (show quote)


Thank you for your experience with the 300 f/2.8.
I have a 400 f5.6 and don't really like it either. I prefer the 100 - 400mm mark II for IQ.
I do not see any reason to sell my Canon gear, however thank you for the suggestion.

Reply
May 8, 2019 07:39:50   #
DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri
 
ggab wrote:
I am familiar with the light transmission reduction that comes with the extenders. Even using the 2x, my aperture would only increase to f/4 at 600mm. This is far better than what I have now.

Would not a 2.8 lens with a 2X extender become a 5.6 aperture?
Good luck with you decision.

Reply
May 8, 2019 08:27:14   #
catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
 
ggab wrote:
I am looking at one of the fast 300mm Canon L Lens. My wallet will not allow me to buy a new lens :(.

My question is, is the ver II worth the prox $1600.00 premium over the ver. I?
I would like responses from those that have used both.
I am not a professional and would shoot with an EOS 7D MKII, typically with a Canon extender 1.4III and 2.0III. Some hand held, some tripod/gimbal mounted. Sports, Birding etc.
I have a 100-400 IS L USM II and a Tamron 150-600 Gen2 as well as a 300mm f/4 IS and 400mm f/5.6.
I would probably sell the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6.

Thanks
George
I am looking at one of the fast 300mm Canon L Lens... (show quote)


Be smart, this is a specialty lens with limited use for most people. I purchased the version I last year, and it is a great lens. I found a pristine one used at 1/4 the price. It is slightly heavier but not that noticeable, especially with a tri-pod.

Save your bucks and put your money in the incredible 200mm F2.0L IS instead. With a 1.1/4 extender it will be more usable and as sharp, unless you need the reach for bird images.

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2019 08:32:02   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
DaveJ wrote:
Would not a 2.8 lens with a 2X extender become a 5.6 aperture?
Good luck with you decision.


YES...

Reply
May 8, 2019 08:38:18   #
BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England
 
ggab wrote:
Scruples and CHG_Canon, thank you for the rapid reply.
It would probably be a staple in my nature/sports kit.
How would the old lens work with the current extenders? I am familiar with the light transmission reduction that comes with the extenders. Even using the 2x, my aperture would only increase to f/4 at 600mm. This is far better than what I have now.
If it would work well, I can see eliminating one or perhaps two lens from my current kit. I suspect this would reduce my total load when hiking.

I guess I am the only one that can decide if the differences are worth the $1600.00 delta.
Scruples and CHG_Canon, thank you for the rapid re... (show quote)


Wouldn’t a 2X extender on an f/2.8 lens increase it to f/5.6?
Bud

Reply
May 8, 2019 08:40:26   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
ggab wrote:
Thank you for your experience with the 300 f/2.8.
I have a 400 f5.6 and don't really like it either. I prefer the 100 - 400mm mark II for IQ.
I do not see any reason to sell my Canon gear, however thank you for the suggestion.


I have done testing of the 1-400 II and the 400 prime on an 80D and, properly used, they are EQUAL ! But I do use a special bracket with the prime to keep my hands OFF the focus ring when hand holding and I also use a facial stabilizer on my camera body. I have used and continue to use 300 2.8's - but I very much appreciate the weight, size, and fast focus of the little 400 prime !

If you must have a 300 2.8 and save a lot of money - https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/300mm-f28.htm - but there are no parts available for repair. Yes, I have owned one with NO problems.
.

Reply
May 8, 2019 08:48:02   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
The lighter physical weight and the improved IS of the v II make a real difference in the usefulness of this lens. Optically, both are near the apex of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever created. If you don't envision this lens being an everyday, handheld option, the older model from a tripod is an economical approach.




If you are doing wildlife/birds/sports IS is of very limited value on heavy 300 2.8 that you are likely NOT hand holding anyway and using FASTER shutter speeds anyway ! And, IMO, AF is faster without IS. I use facial stabilizer, bodypod and monopod with my 300 2.8's. If I think I am doing BIF, I use the much more manageable 400 prime.
.

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2019 09:27:47   #
RRS Loc: Not sure
 
ggab wrote:
Scruples and CHG_Canon, thank you for the rapid reply.
It would probably be a staple in my nature/sports kit.
How would the old lens work with the current extenders? I am familiar with the light transmission reduction that comes with the extenders. Even using the 2x, my aperture would only increase to f/4 at 600mm. This is far better than what I have now.
If it would work well, I can see eliminating one or perhaps two lens from my current kit. I suspect this would reduce my total load when hiking.

I guess I am the only one that can decide if the differences are worth the $1600.00 delta.
Scruples and CHG_Canon, thank you for the rapid re... (show quote)


Your aperture would increase to f/5.6 with the 2X and to f/4.0 with the 1.4. Regis , an active member here on the Hog shoots the series II lens with a 2X all hand held and his results are stellar. As has been said already, both lenses are equal as to the IQ. I shoot with the series two and the big difference is the weight.

Reply
May 8, 2019 10:20:51   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
imagemeister wrote:


If you are doing wildlife/birds/sports IS is of very limited value on heavy 300 2.8 that you are likely NOT hand holding anyway and using FASTER shutter speeds anyway ! And, IMO, AF is faster without IS. I use facial stabilizer, bodypod and monopod with my 300 2.8's. If I think I am doing BIF, I use the much more manageable 400 prime.
.
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)


I never turn off the IS. I don't find an AF impact at any shutter speed. I use a tripod when I can. Indoor aviaries and prop planes at airshows are two examples of slow shutter speeds in the 1/200 to 1/400 range at @600 where the AF and IS combine for great results in long days in handheld situations. Different EOS bodies respond and behave differently with the bodies following the AF enhancements initially developed for the EOS 1DX showing Canon's recent tracking features.

Bill Stein by Paul Sager, on Flickr

Reply
May 8, 2019 10:37:40   #
catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
 
Nice shot!

Reply
May 8, 2019 13:40:38   #
Stevewayne23 Loc: Sacramento, CA
 
I rented the Canon 300 2.8 version 3 several times and loved it, but ended up buying the first non-IS version for $1,800 and it's by far my sharpest lens for sports.

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2019 14:00:58   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
ggab wrote:
I am looking at one of the fast 300mm Canon L Lens. My wallet will not allow me to buy a new lens :(.

My question is, is the ver II worth the prox $1600.00 premium over the ver. I?
I would like responses from those that have used both.
I am not a professional and would shoot with an EOS 7D MKII, typically with a Canon extender 1.4III and 2.0III. Some hand held, some tripod/gimbal mounted. Sports, Birding etc.
I have a 100-400 IS L USM II and a Tamron 150-600 Gen2 as well as a 300mm f/4 IS and 400mm f/5.6.
I would probably sell the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6.

Thanks
George
I am looking at one of the fast 300mm Canon L Lens... (show quote)


Both versions of the 300mm f/2.8L IS USM have extremely good image quality. Some reviewers have called each of them the "sharpest lenses Canon or anyone else ever made".

The EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM II is almost 1 lb. lighter than the original version... just over 5 lb. vs close to 6 lb. (For comparison, your 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L are each around 3 lb.)

The "II" also has the latest and greatest Image Stabilization system... possibly good for another stop of assistance, also with "Mode 3, Instant IS" which only activates during the actual exposure.

Probably the most concerning difference... Canon no longer supports the original lens. Spare parts to repair it have run out. As a result, if anything breaks, it may not be possible to repair it.

Is that worth the extra $1600? It would be IF the original lens' autofocus or other mechanisms fail, it's unrepairable and becomes little more than an expensive paperweight!

Frankly, I don't see why you need either. The EF 300mm f/4L IS USM is quite good, both alone and with the more recent 1.4X teleconverters. So is the 100-400L II! The 400mm f/5.6's image quality is superb, too... though it lacks image stabilization. Their size and weight also make them all much more "hand holdable" lenses and preferable for hiking or travel. (I've traveled with 300mm f/2.8L! It ain't easy, but it does seriously impress the TSA inspectors. )

Much as I like "big glass", I now only get out my 300mm f/2.8L when absolutely needed for challenging, lower light conditions. As DSLRs have offered higher and higher usable ISOs, that's been less and less often. I found I was stopping the 300mm f/2.8 down to f/4 or smaller often, anyway... looking for sufficient depth of field. I now use my 300mm f/4L or 100-400 II FAR more often. I use those lenses hand held much of the time. With the 300/2.8, which I don't use enough to justify upgrading to the II, I nearly always use a tripod with gimbal mount. It's hand-holdable briefly... But when I'm photographing a sporting event it's often an all-day shoot. It's often similar with wildlife, too. I sometimes put the 100-400mm II on a tripod w/gimbal (it's, what, 4.5 lb?).

I cannot recall the last time I turned off IS on any of these lenses. In fact, on many of my lenses with IS I have the switch covered with gaffer tape to be certain I don't accidentally turn it off! Even when it's not needed because I'm using a fast shutter speed, I find that it can stabilize the image in the viewfinder to some extent, which I find useful when trying to track moving subjects.

The 300/2.8s and 100-400 II all have "self-cancelling" IS that detects lack of movement, such as when locked down on a tripod, and turn IS off automatically themselves.

The 300mm f/4L IS doesn't have this type of IS (neither did the original "push/pull" 100-400mm and three other specific, but now discontinued Canon IS lenses)... That form of IS can "freak out" on a tripod, actually causing "shake blur" when there's no movement to correct. HOWEVER, these lenses are ones I use hand-held 90 or 95% of the time anyway. On a monopod, IS can stay on. There's plenty of movement to correct. Even on a tripod with a gimbal, there's no need to turn it off. It's only when a lens is fully locked down in some way, that five of the Canon lenses (the 300mm f/4L IS the only one that's still in production) might require turning IS off manually at the switch.

All the Canon IS lens manuals suggest turning it off on when using them on a tripod and/or at higher shutter speeds. Howerver, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's former tech guru, this is merely suggested to save a little battery power. (Very little... IS doesn't seem to draw very much power. I notice virtually no difference in the number of shots I get using IS and non-IS lenses alongside each other on identical cameras.)

Nikon users feel that their VR system tends to slow autofocus slightly, and there seems to be some evidence to support that belief. Personally, after using a variety of different Canon IS lenses for over fifteen years, I feel it's the opposite... that Canon IS actually helps AF perform better. Keep in mind that each manufacturer's stabilization system is a unique, patented design. So even though they are all intended to serve the same purpose, it's likely there are some differences between them. Also, Canon had a pretty big head start, putting stabilization in lenses 8 or 10 years before Nikon started doing it too.

You may want to turn off IS when shooting video or possibly if trying to be very precise with the framing of your image. That's because IS can cause a little "jumpiness" or "slow drift" that might effect videos or subject framing.

Reply
May 8, 2019 14:32:31   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
Stevewayne23 wrote:
I rented the Canon 300 2.8 version 3 several times and loved it, but ended up buying the first non-IS version for $1,800 and it's by far my sharpest lens for sports.


Just to clarify... I think what you are referring to as "version 3" is the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM "II".

I suspect you're counting the EF 300mm f/2.8L USM "non-IS" as "version 1", and the original EF 300mm f/2.8L "IS" USM as "version 2".

The reason I'm clarifying is because it's very likely an EF 300mm f/2.8L USM "III" is coming soon (which you'd call "version 4", I suppose).

There are already "III" versions of the EF 400mm f/2.8 IS, EF 600mm f/4 IS, as well as the more recent 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. Along with the EF 300mm f/2.8 IS III, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similarly updated EF 500mm f/4L IS III. These are the third revision of the IS line of lenses (distinct from the earlier non-IS models, as Canon designates them).

Reply
May 8, 2019 15:42:30   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
catchlight.. wrote:
Be smart, this is a specialty lens with limited use for most people. I purchased the version I last year, and it is a great lens. I found a pristine one used at 1/4 the price. It is slightly heavier but not that noticeable, especially with a tri-pod.

Save your bucks and put your money in the incredible 200mm F2.0L IS instead. With a 1.1/4 extender it will be more usable and as sharp, unless you need the reach for bird images.


Thank you for the input.
My use will be for birding, sports, general nature. I believe the 300 provides me with the most versatility for the type of photography I do.

George

Reply
May 8, 2019 15:52:48   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
amfoto1 wrote:
Both versions of the 300mm f/2.8L IS USM have extremely good image quality. Some reviewers have called each of them the "sharpest lenses Canon or anyone else ever made".

The EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM II is almost 1 lb. lighter than the original version... just over 5 lb. vs close to 6 lb. (For comparison, your 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L are each around 3 lb.)

The "II" also has the latest and greatest Image Stabilization system... possibly good for another stop of assistance, also with "Mode 3, Instant IS" which only activates during the actual exposure.

Probably the most concerning difference... Canon no longer supports the original lens. Spare parts to repair it have run out. As a result, if anything breaks, it may not be possible to repair it.

Is that worth the extra $1600? It would be IF the original lens' autofocus or other mechanisms fail, it's unrepairable and becomes little more than an expensive paperweight!

Frankly, I don't see why you need either. The EF 300mm f/4L IS USM is quite good, both alone and with the more recent 1.4X teleconverters. So is the 100-400L II! The 400mm f/5.6's image quality is superb, too... though it lacks image stabilization. Their size and weight also make them all much more "hand holdable" lenses and preferable for hiking or travel. (I've traveled with 300mm f/2.8L! It ain't easy, but it does seriously impress the TSA inspectors. )

Much as I like "big glass", I now only get out my 300mm f/2.8L when absolutely needed for challenging, lower light conditions. As DSLRs have offered higher and higher usable ISOs, that's been less and less often. I found I was stopping the 300mm f/2.8 down to f/4 or smaller often, anyway... looking for sufficient depth of field. I now use my 300mm f/4L or 100-400 II FAR more often. I use those lenses hand held much of the time. With the 300/2.8, which I don't use enough to justify upgrading to the II, I nearly always use a tripod with gimbal mount. It's hand-holdable briefly... But when I'm photographing a sporting event it's often an all-day shoot. It's often similar with wildlife, too. I sometimes put the 100-400mm II on a tripod w/gimbal (it's, what, 4.5 lb?).

I cannot recall the last time I turned off IS on any of these lenses. In fact, on many of my lenses with IS I have the switch covered with gaffer tape to be certain I don't accidentally turn it off! Even when it's not needed because I'm using a fast shutter speed, I find that it can stabilize the image in the viewfinder to some extent, which I find useful when trying to track moving subjects.

The 300/2.8s and 100-400 II all have "self-cancelling" IS that detects lack of movement, such as when locked down on a tripod, and turn IS off automatically themselves.

The 300mm f/4L IS doesn't have this type of IS (neither did the original "push/pull" 100-400mm and three other specific, but now discontinued Canon IS lenses)... That form of IS can "freak out" on a tripod, actually causing "shake blur" when there's no movement to correct. HOWEVER, these lenses are ones I use hand-held 90 or 95% of the time anyway. On a monopod, IS can stay on. There's plenty of movement to correct. Even on a tripod with a gimbal, there's no need to turn it off. It's only when a lens is fully locked down in some way, that five of the Canon lenses (the 300mm f/4L IS the only one that's still in production) might require turning IS off manually at the switch.

All the Canon IS lens manuals suggest turning it off on when using them on a tripod and/or at higher shutter speeds. Howerver, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's former tech guru, this is merely suggested to save a little battery power. (Very little... IS doesn't seem to draw very much power. I notice virtually no difference in the number of shots I get using IS and non-IS lenses alongside each other on identical cameras.)

Nikon users feel that their VR system tends to slow autofocus slightly, and there seems to be some evidence to support that belief. Personally, after using a variety of different Canon IS lenses for over fifteen years, I feel it's the opposite... that Canon IS actually helps AF perform better. Keep in mind that each manufacturer's stabilization system is a unique, patented design. So even though they are all intended to serve the same purpose, it's likely there are some differences between them. Also, Canon had a pretty big head start, putting stabilization in lenses 8 or 10 years before Nikon started doing it too.

You may want to turn off IS when shooting video or possibly if trying to be very precise with the framing of your image. That's because IS can cause a little "jumpiness" or "slow drift" that might effect videos or subject framing.
Both versions of the 300mm f/2.8L IS USM have extr... (show quote)


Thank you for your input. According to the spec's, there is roughly .5 lbs difference between ver. 1 and ver. 2. Not a big deal. I just need a reason to justify a $1600.00 delta in price used.
I have a 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 now. I don't actually use the 300 f/4 because IMHO the IQ from the 100 - 400 ver. II is superior. While I lose a bit in aperture, it is not too bad. If I am shooting in the evening, I drop to my 70 - 200 f/2.8 vIII and crop the image. It is still superior to the 300 f/4.

I like the 300mm focal length, I am just looking for a faster lens.

Your reasons are valid:
"The "II" also has the latest and greatest Image Stabilization system... possibly good for another stop of assistance, also with "Mode 3, Instant IS" which only activates during the actual exposure.

Probably the most concerning difference... Canon no longer supports the original lens. Spare parts to repair it have run out. As a result, if anything breaks, it may not be possible to repair it."

Especially the repair reason. I will need to check with Canon and verify this. If it is indeed true that the 300 f/2.8 ver I can no longer be repaired, since I will be buying a used lens, the decision is a no brainer.

George

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.