300 2.8L vs. New 300 2.8L IS

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I am looking to buy a 300mm lens in the next few months. It will be my longest lens and I want the best possible performance when mated to a Canon 2X TC. Does anyone have experince between the IS and non-IS versions of Canon's 300 2.8 lenses? I will be shooting with Eos 1VHS and an Eos 3.

-- Bob DiTommaso (newbabyd@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000

Answers

That 300 f/2.8 IS is bad ass. I handheld with a 1.4X TC (so it was actually a 420 f/4 IS) and the slides were tack sharp. No blurriness whatsoever. I am really strong though. Really. 6'5" even. I lugged around a 400 f/2.8 on a monopod with a 300 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 in a backpack at the zoo for 6 hours. Even if you only needed it 15% of the time, you will really be thankful you have that little IS switch. Save your latte money for the IS model.....

BTW, any L series lens will perform very well. Mind you the 1.4X is rumored to be a bit sharper than the 2X TC

-- Colin Miler (ckmiller@pond.net), August 08, 2000.


I'm nowhere near rich enough to afford this kind of glass, so I can't provide personal experience.

For what it's worth, Canon says "Best image quality ever in a Canon 300mm f/2.8 lens". And in Peter Burian's review of this lens in the August 2000 issue of Shutterbug, I believe he gave it 9.5/10 wide open.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), August 08, 2000.


I have never used the non-IS 300 2.8 but have had the 300 2.8 IS for the past 8 months. I use it with a EOS-3 and a EOS-1V HS. It's performance with the 2X is awesome with both cameras. Hardly lose any AF speed with it. I use it quite a bit handheld with the 2X too but don't handhold with the 2X below 1/200-300 unless you are real steady.

-- Ken Cravillion (kenc@execpc.com), August 08, 2000.

For the past 8 years I used the EF300F2.8L lens and appreciated just how good the lens really was. On a recent trip overseas the lens and other equipment was stolen and I was able to replace it with the new IS version. My first big assignment with it was shooting last weeks PGA tour stop, "The International" at Castle Pines Colorado. In previous years I always carried the 600mm F4, 300mm F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 and the 20-35,(yes I have an assistant). This year after a couple of days I ended up just carrying the 300mmF2.8 IS and the 100-400 IS. I usually had the 2x on the 300mm and performance with the Eos 3 is outstanding, much faster AF than the old 300mm. The lens smaps right into focus,no hunting at all. Seems as fast with the doubler as the old 300mm was without. I haven't seen a lot of the film yet from the tournament but what I have seen is extremely sharp. I used a mononpod most of the time having to handhold the lens for long periods of time will tire you out. The lens is noticably lighter than the old 300mm. The full time manual focus is very nice. Only thing I don't like as well is the the new removable tripod collar. It's not as smooth as the old style and doesn't have the stop points when you get to verticle. I hand-held the 100-400mm for quick action and it was great. I would say this lens will be a real winner.

-- D. Robert Franz (DFranz8260@aol.com), August 09, 2000.

I own the IS and a few years ago had the non IS for a year or two. You probably would battle to see much difference optically with the bare lenses side by side but I personally believe that the new IS is sharper with a 1.4x and 2x TC than the old one was. Overall verdict in all areas, I believe, goes in favour of the new IS

-- Clive Culverwell (culverwellc@aurorabio.com), August 15, 2000.


I've just bought an old 300mm f2.8 second-hand (just over $2200). The first thing I did with the lens was photographing a sheet of newspaper print (photo reduced onto card), at about 4m, using Fuji Velia and a solid tripod.

The results are outstanding, I compared them to a similar tests on the 400mm f2.8 IS and my old 75-300mm IS zoom (@300mm). The lens is probably a touch sharper (esp. at f2.8) than the 400mm, something I doubted possible!! Looking closely at the slides projected in a dark room I can even see the fibres in the card!!!

I don't think I have ever seen news print looking this sharp!!!

Interestingly this test really shows the poor quality we get from zoom lenses. With the 75-300mm IS zoom at 300mm much of the smaller text is unreadable!!

Although the IS is great I would consider how often you will handhold this lens. I am also 6'6'', but would not like to support an almost 3kg lens for a full mornings shooting. The old L lenses are currently a great buy second-hand, for what you spend on a new 300mm f2.8 IS lens you could pick up a 300mm f2.8 and a 500mm f4. Many pro's are now converting to the new IS models and the older non-IS (often with relatively light usage) are turning up regularly on e-bay.

I am still waiting to be convinced that IS is any use on a 400mm+ lens, certainly for all my photography I am not even going to consider handholding a 400mm lens (6Kg!!). It might be great for a snatched picture of a Royal, but hardly useful in a cramped nest hide!!

Incidentally both the 300mm and 400mm are great with the 1.4x multiplier. However, at 420mm (300x1.4) the 300mm is no longer sharper than the 400mm it’s a really tight call but I think the 400mm has it!!!

-- Andy Thompson (prsast@bath.ac.uk), April 24, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ