The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Experiences with Canon 300/2.8 IS?

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
I'm thinking of adding this to my kit to fill between the 200/2.8L and the 400/5.6.

I would be using it for horses at pasture and other livestock with some landscape and street mixed in.

It also appears to play well with the 1.4ext.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Hi John,

Do like big lenses? If so, the 300 f/2.8 will be rather fulfilling in that respect. I've had a couple friends sell theirs because they grew weary of it's size. Another friend loves it for motor sports because the f/2.8 allows for a bit more separation from the background. He shoots the 500 f/4.0 also for the same subjects.

I opted for the 300 f/4.0 for weight and size, and was pleasantly surprised at how much subject isolation one can achieve with the f/4.0. Still, I've been invited to Kenya and I think I'd prefer the f/2.8 for that trip.

Probably not too useful of a reply, but thought I'd throw it out.

Cheers,

Dale
 

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Love big lenses and don't mind the weight if it give me the style I want. I'm looking for subject isolation and find the 400/5.6 doesn't give that unless one is a very narrow sweet spot in terms of distance. I'm thinking the 2.8 will give me more control on background blur at a longer distance and still be man portable. I just don't think the 400/2.8 makes it there.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
My limited experience and the more extensive experience of a few friends who own or owned the lens is quite favorable in regards to image quality, bokeh, etc. I often hike some distance in steep terrain so like having the f/4.0, but would also like to own the f/2.8 for times when the load isn't such a concern.

I agree that the 400 f/5.6 doesn't have the image isolation that I like. I think a nice 400 f/4.0 IS (non D.O.) would be a useful lens. I think I'd like the price more than the D.O. or the 400 f/2.8 too. ;)

I've seen some very nice images made with the 300 f/2.8, including with the 1.4x t.e.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Well if subject isolation, at long distances is your need, you should look at the 400 2.8. Except for the fact that that the front element is the size of a very large soup or vegetable can, this may be the best lens for the purpose. I tried the new Nanocrystal coated variety and was way impressed with what was obviously a first rate product in terms of construction and glass. The results were just superb. The cost is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you are a pro and can depreciate this investment then you are O.K. If, like me, you are an amateur and just want the option to get the results possible from this lens, you have a major financial issue!

I don't know if there is a better lens than this out there. The results are simply wonderful. Maybe someday but I suspect I will rent this lens about five times over the next two years and hope for the best.

Always

Woody
 

robsteve

Subscriber
John:

The Canon 300mm f2.8 IS could probably be considered the best of class. It is better than the Leica 280mm f2.8 and just slightly behind the Leica 280mm f4. If you get a good copy, the images shot with it will make the 400mm 5.6 or the 300mm f4 images look soft in comparison.

If you buy one, test it carefully because some can be soft if used and abused. The little element that does the IS work can get out of whack.

The big Canon telephotos are also sharper if you turn off the IS.

Robert
 

mark1958

Member
I agree the 300/2.8 IS is an incredible lens. You might consider the 400mm/4 DO. It is not quite as good optically but this lens can be handheld. The 400mm DO is not as contrasty but the 300 plus 1.4x is just a tad better than the 400mm DO. The difference in weight really makes a difference.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I had a Canon 300 f/2.8 (mine was non-IS) and I was very pleased with it. It had great subject isolation and I was able to handhold it or use it on my monopod. It had much better IQ than the 300 f/4 IS and 400 f/5.6 lenses that I also owned and much better isolation than either.
 

dseelig

Member
besides all that has been said the 300 2.8 also works better then any other caqnon lens with the 2 ex . So you c an have 600 that is fairly sharp. Great lens David
 

robmac

Well-known member
The 300 IS, like most of Canon's long glass shows the efforts of all the R&D they put into winning the sports market (Pham Min Son once quoted me a number that was simply outrageous) - they are as good as C's WAs are bad. Stellar.

Their long glass are probably the few Canon lenses whose real world MTFs actually live up to their theoretical published ones. IS unit is reputed as sharper than Non and, as mentioned above, also takes converter very well. MR at LL has a write up on it and (as he put it): "...I am in awe of this lens...".

It's a HEAVY lens. Owned a non-IS briefly (had to be returned due to a stiff focus ring) and it was a considerably heavier than say the 400 Leica (sampled Rob Steve's briefly). All the AF hardware adds some weight to the lens - and the hood is bloody massive.
 
Last edited:

dseelig

Member
The 300 2.8 canon also works well with the 2x get the model 11 though more important on the 2x then the 1.4 x David
 
Top