Field Tested: the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II

John Chardine said:

This has been a really useful thread. As mentioned in an earlier thread I am looking at the new 300/2.8 II instead of the new 500/4 II for a variety of reasons- size and weight, transportability, hand-holdability, flexibility, and cost amongst them. So here's a direct question- if you did not have a Canon super-tele (but had the version III TCs), and could only own one super-tele, right now, would you pick up the 300/2.8 II or wait a little for the 500/4 II? Thanks in advance for any insight here.

Click to expand...

If I liked birds, I'd probably go for the 600 II.... All else being equal. That raises the question: which camera body??? When using the 2X III TC with an f/4 Series II super-telephoto with the 50D, 7D, MIV, 5D II, 5D3, or 1DX you will not enjoy AF..... You will have central sensor only AF only with the pro bodies, the MII series, the MIII, and the MIV....

While that is no big deal to many it is important to note that about 40% of the images in ABP II were created with either the 500 or 600 f/4 with a 2X TC.... It has long been my belief that skilled competent photographers with good sharpness techniques should be ale to consistently create sharp images with either the old 500 or the old 600 and a 2X at shutter speeds as slow as 1/60 sec.

Here's a relevant excerpt from BAA Bulletin #400:

An e-mail conversation with Rudi Van Minnebruggen:

AM: Hi Rudi, re:

RVM: In your post: “Will the EF 800mm f/5.6L IS Soon Become Obsolete?” you stated: “In my humble opinion folks who purchase expensive super telephoto lenses would be best using a Mark IV body with it for a variety of reasons. I will try to remember to do a blog post on that soon”. I am very much interested in your humble opinion, so I have been searching your website, blog, bulletins etc etc but could not find anything.... Would you please be so kind to send me the link to the article.

AM: Well, I never followed up on that; here is what I was/am thinking:

With any Canon body that focuses only to f/5.6--including the 50D, the 7D, the 5D MII, and even the new pro body--the Canon EOS-1DX--coming sometime this year--if you have the 800mm f/5.6 you have only one focal length. You cannot get AF with any teleconverter because the lens is (already) at f/5.6.

With a Mark IV (and previous generation pro bodies) you get AF with the lens alone and with the 1.4X II TC. This gives you limited flexibility--two focal lengths--but it is better than being stuck with only one focal length.

The 300 and 400mm f.2.8L IS II lenses suddenly become much more attractive especially for folks who live in areas with lots of tame birds and wildlife or those who travel to places like the Galapagos or the Southern Oceans. That said the 400II with a 2X II TC is nothing to sneeze at in terms of focal length. And with each of these lenses any of the above-mentioned cameras will AF with both the 1.4X and the 2X TCs; this will give you three focal lengths.

With the two new Series II super-telephotos--the 500 and 600 f/4L IS II lenses will have AF with the aforementioned bodies only with the 1.4X TCs. Therefore, if you want to use either of these new lenses with a 2X TC and have AF you will need to hold on to a Mark IV body or two....

I agree with Artie, 600 is THE ultimate birding lens and the new one weighs as much as the old 500 making it perfectly hand-holdable. A 300mm lens is just too short for general bird photography unless you shoot at the zoo or captive birds. There is no way of getting around this fact. If it was possible to even get close to the performance of 600mm or 500mm prime with a 300 and 2X TC that's what everybody would do...you may not be very critical about pixel level sharpness but AF will be painful no matter what generation lens/TC/camera body you use. Slow is the word.

As for body I am going to skip 1DX as the resolution is too low for my application as the primary body. My goal is to nail faster and faster birds in flight so I want to use the naked lens as much as possible for maximum AF performance. The 1DX will kill all the extra reach I will get from my new 600 and put me back where I am with MKIV and 500 today so it also defeats the purpose of the extra 8 grand I am spending to upgrade my primary lens.

I will wait until Canon can makes a high speed and high resolution FF sensor with at least 27 Mpixel (equal to MKIV pixel size) to upgrade my 1D4. In the mean time if I like the 5D3 AF I will use it as my backup body for low-light conditions, similar AF but more resolution than the 1DX. I think MKIV is still the best overall birding camera.
The 1DX is just not a birding camera IMO (well, unless the AF is SO much better than the MKIV making up for all other short comings and justifying the 7-grand MSRP)

Although 1DX and a 600 would be fun to handhold from a boat or when standing in the water in Tampa bay, almost 20 grand in your hands so you will hold tight

I agree 100% with everything that Arash says above but for the fact that for many folks an 8 1/2+ pound lens is not perfectly hand holdable. I will be trying out the AF on both new camera bodies asap .

Thank you very much for the replies. A few points:

- you can't make a 600 into a smaller focal length lens, but you can make a 300 into a longer lens. In other words the 600 is less flexible.
- the 500 and 600 would be much more prone to low quality air and shimmer because of the larger camera-subject distances.
- weight/mass is one aspect of size but bulk is another and this is a growing problem if you fly in smaller or restrictive aircraft with your equipment, like I sometimes do. And no, I am not prepared to check a 500 or 600!
- I am as picky as the next person about "pixel-level sharpness" so maybe the 300/2.8II and the TC IIIs won't cut it. However, Artie in the first post states that the lens is "sharp" with the TCs and in a later post Chas says it's a "stellar" performer with the converters. If they consider the combinations sharp, they will be sharp enough for me.
AF speed may be an issue with TCs but pre-focusing may solve the problem to some degree.

Maybe I should rent the new 300/2.8 and see how it goes.

Hi John,

re:

- you can't make a 600 into a smaller focal length lens, but you can make a 300 into a longer lens. In other words the 600 is less flexible.

The 600 Series II is not less flexible when hooked up to a Mark IV. Each gives you three focal lengths to choose from..... 300, 420, and 600 for the 300 II & 600, 840, and 1200 for the 600 II.

The 500 and 600 would be much more prone to low quality air and shimmer because of the larger camera-subject distances.

In my 28 years of working with long lenses I have come across that problem perhaps once or twice.....

Weight/mass is one aspect of size but bulk is another and this is a growing problem if you fly in smaller or restrictive aircraft with your equipment, like I sometimes do. And no, I am not prepared to check a 500 or 600!

I fly everywhere with my 800 and lots of other lenses and three bodies in my big Think Tank bag. Everywhere.

I am as picky as the next person about "pixel-level sharpness" so maybe the 300/2.8II and the TC IIIs won't cut it. However, Artie in the first post states that the lens is "sharp" with the TCs and in a later post Chas says it's a "stellar" performer with the converters. If they consider the combinations sharp, they will be sharp enough for me. AF speed may be an issue with TCs but pre-focusing may solve the problem to some degree.

Maybe I should rent the new 300/2.8 and see how it goes.

Good plan but bird photographers always want longer lenses.... In the original ABP I wrote, bird photographers should always choose a longer slower lens over a shorter faster one... That advice still holds here.

Respectfully posted.

Arthur Morris said:

Good plan but bird photographers always want longer lenses.... In the original ABP I wrote, bird photographers should always choose a longer slower lens over a shorter faster one... That advice still holds here.

Click to expand...

Hi Artie,
Note though, that with digital, and in particular the latest range of digital cameras: pixel size changes the game. For example, here is little difference between a given lens on a camera with small pixels as the same lens with larger pixels and TCs. Not that long ago, the top Canon camera was the 1D Mark II with 8.2 micron pixels. Now we have a 7D with 4.3 micron pixels, so we have the detail with the 7D with a bare 500 mm that with the 1DII needed 950 mm (so a 2x TC) to get the same detail on a subject. And with the improved pixel efficiency, the 7D would actually have better signal-to-noise ratios given the same shutter speed. And better AF because you would be working without TCs. So with a 300 mm f/2.8 and a camera with small pixels, people can do better than the top gear using TCs of only 5 or 6 years ago. There are a couple of threads in the BPN gear forum on this subject I started over the last couple of months, and I've started writing up the concepts here:

Telephoto Reach, Part 2: Telephoto + Camera System Performance (A Omega Product, or Etendue, Advanced Concepts)
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/

(Warning: this is more technical than my usual stuff! And note this is a new article I'm still refining. Once I have more examples, I'll make an article for BPN.)

I also have been using my 300 f/2.8 more. It is now the main lens I will take on safari to Africa. But I still like then 500 too.

Roger

Thanks again Artie and Roger.

Regarding shimmer, I live in a coastal area where the water is usually a lot cooler than the air. Also winter runs from Nov-Mar. These conditions create shimmer for me at least several times of year. It almost always happens on sunny days so it's pretty easy to avoid but every now and then it happens. What I meant about flexibility is that 600mm would be way too much in many situations I shoot, and you can't just take a hacksaw and cut it in half to get a 300mm lens but you can make a 300mm into a 600mm lens. I realise with the 300mm you lose the long reach of the 600 with TCs.

I owned the Canon 500/4 until it was stolen last August. It was a dream for me to own for 3+ years and it still hurts to think about it gone! I know, it was only a "thing", but it was a very nice "thing"! So I am familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of a long lens. I am now starting from scratch so to speak and the new version II 500 has complicated the future decision. This is why I am toying with the 300/2.8 II. All the very positive reviews and comments on the lens, including the OP here has just got me thinking more.

I just want to throw a wrench into this discussion from an amateur who can't even dream of owning one of these super-tele's (although I keep buying powerball tickets). This question is addressed to those who have been using the 300/2.8 with TC's. Last year, Sigma updated their 120-300/2.8 and the price is far below the Canon 300. Has any one of you given it serious consideration? Why or why not? (I know the Sigma 300-800/5.6 has some strong followers, so I assume it is not just because of an intrinsic bias against 3rd party lenses). I keep thinking it might be the only way some of us could afford to get an AF 600mm. Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi Ian- In a sense the comparison is Apples and Oranges because the discussion is about primes and you are talking about zooms. By all accounts the Sigma long primes are quite competitive IQ-wise and still a lot cheaper than the Canon or Nikon super-teles.

Yes and no, John. That all depends on how far superior the IQ of a 300 prime is to the IQ of a 300 zoom, right? Does the Canon 300/2.8 prime run circles around the Sigma zoom (my guess is the answer is Yes, but I've seen nothing to document that fact)?

Ian,

Many moons ago I owned the Sigma 300-800/5.6 lens. This is an incredible lens. It's downfall however is that the autofocus is slow due to this lens not having a focus-limit switch. Trying to do any birds-in-flight is very hard to do. The only way to get this to work is to prefocus manually, then autofocus.

I believe the Sigma 120-300/2.8 also does not have a focus-limit switch on the version II with OS. I know for sure the first version did not and therefore I would not waste my time with it. Also, back about 8 years ago, some Sigma lenses had compatibility issues with the newer Canon bodies. Some lenses Sigma "rechipped" while others weren't as lucky. I had a 400 f/5.6 that was not capable of being "rechipped" and had to sell it for a loss. Both the lack of a focus-limit switch and incompatibility issues with Canon bodies has left a bad taste in my mouth and I will not touch them.

Canon L lenses are an investment and rarely go down in value. I know they are extremely expensive, but you do get what you pay for.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

Ian Cassell said:

I just want to throw a wrench into this discussion from an amateur who can't even dream of owning one of these super-tele's (although I keep buying powerball tickets). This question is addressed to those who have been using the 300/2.8 with TC's. Last year, Sigma updated their 120-300/2.8 and the price is far below the Canon 300. Has any one of you given it serious consideration? Why or why not? (I know the Sigma 300-800/5.6 has some strong followers, so I assume it is not just because of an intrinsic bias against 3rd party lenses). I keep thinking it might be the only way some of us could afford to get an AF 600mm. Thanks for your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Ian Cassell said:

Yes and no, John. That all depends on how far superior the IQ of a 300 prime is to the IQ of a 300 zoom, right? Does the Canon 300/2.8 prime run circles around the Sigma zoom (my guess is the answer is Yes, but I've seen nothing to document that fact)?

Click to expand...

Ian,
Check lensrentals.com: they have MTF charts for all (most) tele lenses. I look at the sigma zoom MTF charts from another thread here, and like typical zoom (not offending an manufacturer here), it is soft compared to the fixed focal length lenses. So if soft and slower AF, then one has to weigh those factors against continuing to save for a better lens (again independent of manufacturer).

In general, telephoto zooms have been softer and AF slower, but we can hope that will change with new designs. The Nikon 200-400 narrowed the gap between zoom and fixed FL lenses; will the new Canon? We need the gap narrowed and the price reduced. :w3

Roger

Thanks Alan and Roger for your input. Yes, the lack of the limiter caught my attention. I use it constantly on my Canon 400/5.6 and, frankly, was surprised when Sigma didn't add one. I agree with your statement, Roger -- we need the gap narrowed and the price reduced (although the Nikon 200-400 is not an inexpensive piece of glass). All of the hearsay about the new canon 200-400 does not suggest that the price will be low :|

Roger Clark said:

Hi Artie,
Note though, that with digital, and in particular the latest range of digital cameras: pixel size changes the game. For example, here is little difference between a given lens on a camera with small pixels as the same lens with larger pixels and TCs. Not that long ago, the top Canon camera was the 1D Mark II with 8.2 micron pixels. Now we have a 7D with 4.3 micron pixels, so we have the detail with the 7D with a bare 500 mm that with the 1DII needed 950 mm (so a 2x TC) to get the same detail on a subject. And with the improved pixel efficiency, the 7D would actually have better signal-to-noise ratios given the same shutter speed. And better AF because you would be working without TCs. So with a 300 mm f/2.8 and a camera with small pixels, people can do better than the top gear using TCs of only 5 or 6 years ago. There are a couple of threads in the BPN gear forum on this subject I started over the last couple of months, and I've started writing up the concepts here:

Telephoto Reach, Part 2: Telephoto + Camera System Performance (A Omega Product, or Etendue, Advanced Concepts)
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto.system.performance/

(Warning: this is more technical than my usual stuff! And note this is a new article I'm still refining. Once I have more examples, I'll make an article for BPN.)

I also have been using my 300 f/2.8 more. It is now the main lens I will take on safari to Africa. But I still like then 500 too.

Roger

Click to expand...

Hi Roger and thanks. When it comes to pixels size and pixels on the subject I am very confused. I thought that larger pixels were better for controlling noise. And when it comes to image quality it seems that you are saying that the 7D is great. If that is true than why has everyone been bitching about lack of image quality and noise with the 7D for years?

I will skip the link thank you very much . When I try to read those threads my brain hurts. I try a new camera, look at the images without blowing them up to check for sharpness, and work the images. If I like what comes out then I like the camera.

John Chardine said:

Thanks again Artie and Roger.

Regarding shimmer, I live in a coastal area where the water is usually a lot cooler than the air. Also winter runs from Nov-Mar. These conditions create shimmer for me at least several times of year. It almost always happens on sunny days so it's pretty easy to avoid but every now and then it happens. What I meant about flexibility is that 600mm would be way too much in many situations I shoot, and you can't just take a hacksaw and cut it in half to get a 300mm lens but you can make a 300mm into a 600mm lens. I realise with the 300mm you lose the long reach of the 600 with TCs.

I owned the Canon 500/4 until it was stolen last August. It was a dream for me to own for 3+ years and it still hurts to think about it gone! I know, it was only a "thing", but it was a very nice "thing"! So I am familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of a long lens. I am now starting from scratch so to speak and the new version II 500 has complicated the future decision. This is why I am toying with the 300/2.8 II. All the very positive reviews and comments on the lens, including the OP here has just got me thinking more.

Click to expand...

YAW. Obviously you will be losing a lot of reach with the 300 not the 500. 25 to 9 is how I calculate the size of the bird in the frame with the two, the square of the focal length....

Birds too close? That's why I always have the 70/200 usually with a 1.4X on a Black Rapid RS-7 strap with me at all times.... Or the 300 carried the same way as I did in Japan.

Sorry to hear of your loss. One thing that you might consider with your next piece of big glass is equipment insurance.

Ian Cassell said:

I just want to throw a wrench into this discussion from an amateur who can't even dream of owning one of these super-tele's (although I keep buying powerball tickets). This question is addressed to those who have been using the 300/2.8 with TC's. Last year, Sigma updated their 120-300/2.8 and the price is far below the Canon 300. Has any one of you given it serious consideration? Why or why not? (I know the Sigma 300-800/5.6 has some strong followers, so I assume it is not just because of an intrinsic bias against 3rd party lenses). I keep thinking it might be the only way some of us could afford to get an AF 600mm. Thanks for your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I have seen the images that Robert O'Toole produces with various Sigma zooms. The quality is amazing and the versatility of his 50-500 with stabilization often has me thinking about quitting photography. And very light weight too. If I can wiggle around my Canon contract I would very much like to try one of those....

ps: to Johh. You might wish to consider renting the new Canon 200-400 w/TC for your Africa trip depending on the timing. Or a 70-200 if you have the 300 2.8 or a 500 by then.

Roger Clark said:

Ian,
Check lensrentals.com: they have MTF charts for all (most) tele lenses. I look at the sigma zoom MTF charts from another thread here, and like typical zoom (not offending an manufacturer here), it is soft compared to the fixed focal length lenses. So if soft and slower AF, then one has to weigh those factors against continuing to save for a better lens (again independent of manufacturer).

In general, telephoto zooms have been softer and AF slower, but we can hope that will change with new designs. The Nikon 200-400 narrowed the gap between zoom and fixed FL lenses; will the new Canon? We need the gap narrowed and the price reduced. :w3

Roger

Click to expand...

Again we get to the "How sharp do your images need to be under a microscope and why?" question. I have seen the RAW files that Robert O'Toole creates of birds in flight and action with various Sigma zooms. They are astounding. And sharp. And the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS trumps the in general comment. At least for me. But I don't use a microscope. And I have never once in my life looked at an MTF chart. There are many who say that MTF charts should be viewed as advertising only as they are created by the guys who make the cameras....

Thanks for your input, Artie. I have also been impressed with Robert's images and, in fact, was going to drop him a line for his input and to see if he's had a chance to try that particular lens. When I went to LensRentals.com, Roger, I saw that they do have the lens. I might try renting it and evaluating it myself (although, I must admit, my evaluation at my stage of development would be limited and I would love to see the results in the hands of someone really good!)

Artie- The equipment was insured of course, but as anyone can attest who has been through a total loss like I did, the insurance never covers it. Many factors here not the least of which are price hikes and cheaper models being replaced by more expensive ones. Of course you are right about switching to another lens in tight situations. I decided to replace the 70-200/4 with the 70-200/2.8 II so have that one in hand. Roll on spring, summer and fall!