Is it worth it to buy the EF 300mm IS f/2.8?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Is it worth it to shell out the extra buxx for the 2.8, or should I just buy the EF 300mm IS f/4.0? I am planning to use this thing for all sorts of applications, like sports and portraits and wildlife...I will even buy the 2x extender. Which one should I get?

-- Steevens Alconcel (psxguy85@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002

Answers

Not only does it cost more but the f/2.8 version is considerably larger and heavier. Certainly noticable if you were to pack it very far. But the extra speed of the f/2.8 would be real nice with sports & wildlife.

The f/2.8 version with a 2x TC would be an f/5.6 lens and will AF with any EOS camera. The f/4 version with a 2x TC would be an f/8 lens and would need an EOS 3 or 1v to AF.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), April 12, 2002.


ah yes, i have the EOS 3. I'm still deciding, but I'm not sure still if I want to spend about 2000-2500 more just for the 2.8

-- Steevens Alconcel (psxguy85@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

From an image quality point of view, there is said to be VERY little difference between the two.

So, view the difference as being that one is a stop faster, three times the price, twice the weight, etc....

If that breakdown doesn't lean the decision one way or the other, then it's time to rent the lenses in question.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.


I have a the EF 300mm IS f/2.8 and use it with the Canon 2X teleconverter about half the time. I shoot the resulting 600mm f/5.6 at f/5.6 quite often to blur the background. Personally, I find the lens to be manageable. I have had very good results using it (without the 2X) attached to my EOS 1V HS hand held with the tripod collar removed. Sure it is heavy, but so is a EF 70-200 f/2.8L for what it is, but I wouldn't trade mine for anything. Bottom line is I value the added speed/creativity that the f/2.8 affords enough to pay the difference. You need to decide what you want to accomplish with this lens. If speed and the ability to throw the background out of focus are critical, you need to step up to the 2.8, if not same your money and your back and go 4.0

-- Robert DiTommaso (newbabyd@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002.

Even if you have one of the bodies that will AF at f/8, remember that it will only do that with the central focus point; all of the other 44 focus points will be shut down.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), April 12, 2002.


Instead of buying a new 2.8/300 IS I decided to get a new 4/300 IS AND a used 2.8/300 (without IS). Image quality of the 2.8 is better but the lens is very big and heavy. I use the 2.8 version for motorsport pictures (on my digital body it's an 480mm lens) together with 1.4x and 2x extender. For travelling I take the 4/300 IS version with me. This lens is light and with the IS feature I don't need to carry an extra monopod with me.

Hope I could help.

-- MartinH (mh-photo@chello.at), April 14, 2002.


wait, so is it cheaper then if I buy both the 4.0 IS and 2.8 used, or just the 2.8 IS?

-- Steevens Alconcel (psxguy85@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Steevens,

Yes, it's much cheaper to buy a new 4/300L IS and a used 2.8/300L instead of buying a new 2.8/300L IS. I paid $ 2500,-- for both lenses, a new 2.8 IS is aprox. $ 3.800,--. Got my second hand 2.8/300L from ebay in mint conditions.

Best, Martin

-- MartinH (mh-photo@chello.at), April 16, 2002.


I have heard (not seen) that the 300/4 IS is of lesser optical quality than the 300/4 (non-IS). It has MTF of 3.4 vs. 4.3. http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

-- Yakim Peled (yakim.peled@orange.co.il), May 14, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ