300/ 2.8 vs. 4.0

[Rosl Roessner]

Hi Guys,
while I am really happy and glad with my big toy, the 500/4.0 IS, I think about buying a 300mm lens too.
I think, I have to put money aside until I have enough to buy the 300 / 2.8 (Canon).
Now I saw lots of images, made with the 300/ 4.0. The pictures look sharp and with good details and everything fine.
If the 4.0 lens would be "good enough", I would be happy, because I have enough money right now, to buy that lens, which is much cheaper. :cool:

But I think, it is worth to wait a wile, and have the 2.8 - Version, right? :o It will take me about a year to have the money for the 300/2.8 :(

Can you tell me about that, does anyone use the 300/4.0 ?
Thank you for answering.....

[Doug Brown]

Boy, the 300 f/2.8 is a great piece of glass! Really quick AF and super sharp. I don't have any experience with the f/4 version. I'd wait till you could afford the 2.8 Rosl.

[Amy DeStefanis]

I was logging on to ask basically the same question - Bigger? or Faster? which is more valuable?

I already have the 70-300 VR (4.5-5.6 Nikon), and am thinking about getting the 70-200 2.8, which just seems redundant to me, but for being on the river under the shade of the trees, I realize I really need the faster lens. Someone had recommended elsewhere that for longer shots, the 70-200 2.8 works well with the 1.4 TC.... So, that's where I'm leaning.....

Even though others might be using the huge glass, I like hand-holding. I like the freedom it gives me, and I don't generally travel down to the coast to set up a huge tripod and stay in one place shooting big birds from a fixed position.

I'm not sure I'm ready for the truly big glass. It's overkill for where I usually shoot (a river that's only 50 yards wide at the widest where I go). But I sure could use the wider aperture to blur out that background, and give me more light under the trees.....

I guess it basically boils down to what kind of shooting you do, and what are you trying to overcome in your equipment choices. For me, it's needing more light, being small enough for hand-holding, and having the DOF options to really blur backgrounds since I shoot into the woods from my kayak.

I think I just answered my own question. I hope my musings were of some help.

Thanks for "listening".

Amy D.

[Alan Melle]

Here is another thought. Buy the 300 f/4 now, since you have the money. Keep saving for the 300 f2.8 if you still want it and sell the f/4 when you have the rest of the money needed. In a years time you won't lose much on the f/4 and you'll have the use of the lens for a year.

[Desmond Chan]

I already have the 70-300 VR (4.5-5.6 Nikon), and am thinking about getting the 70-200 2.8, which just seems redundant to me, but for being on the river under the shade of the trees, I realize I really need the faster lens. Someone had recommended elsewhere that for longer shots, the 70-200 2.8 works well with the 1.4 TC.... So, that's where I'm leaning.....

But if you use a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC, your 70-200 is not really faster than 70-300 by a whole lot in those situations you photograph. Besides, you lose the range a bit. Image quality wise I'm not sure you gain a lot there either. A 300 prime, either a f2.8 or f4, is still better in image quality than a 70-200 + 1.4 or 1.7 according to what I read. It seems to me you'd still have to use high ISO or use flash - if the situations allow - with a lower ISO.

Don't get me wrong, 70-200 f2.8 VR is definitely a better piece of glass than 70-300 though.

[Rosl Roessner]

Thank you for your ideas... I think about your idea, Alan, to buy a f 4.0 and sell it after a while.
What I do own now is the 100 - 400.
Is the quality of the 300 / 4 at 300mm much better, than the quality of the 100 - 400 at 300mm?
I am sure, that there is a big difference between the 300/ 2.8 and the 100 - 400, special with the wider aperture. But what about the 300 / f 4?

[Markus Jais]

The 2.8/300 is one of the best lenses Canon has. Extremely fast AF, even with extender, superb optical quality. Maybe their sharpest lens.

That said, I love my 4/300L IS. It's very sharp, the AF is very fast with my EOS 40D and it is very light. Great for flight shots when birds are close (for example on Helgoland with Gannets). The 4/300 is also great for flowers and large insects and combined with a 1.4x and an extension tube even great for smaller insects. It has a shorter closest focusing distance than the 2.8/300.

I sold my 100-400 and replaced it with the 4/300 and the awesome 4/70-200L IS. The 100-400 is more versatile and though mine was sharp it was not as good as the 4/300.

Maybe I we can meet at the Federsee in October. Then I bring it and you can try it.

Markus

[Rosl Roessner]

Hi Markus,
yes, a meeting would be nice. I'll stay in Contact with H.P.; he'll tell me, when we should go...
Well, I love the versatility of the 100-400 too.

What about an older 300/2.8 without IS?

[Markus Jais]

Hi Markus,
yes, a meeting would be nice. I'll stay in Contact with H.P.; he'll tell me, when we should go...
Well, I love the versatility of the 100-400 too.

What about an older 300/2.8 without IS?

I think they are optically very similar. But I've come to really appreciate the IS. The older version would probably be cheaper if you get it used.
I depends on how much you use the IS.

Markus

[Rene A]

Rosl,

I have the 300 f2.8IS and it's besides the 70-200 f4 IS my best sharpest lenes on a 5D or 30D. On the MarkIII nothing but trouble but it seems to be the camera body. If you want to use that lens on any other camera besides the MarkIII it should be ok unless you are one of the "few" that have a perfect sample.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

I could only afford the 300/4L for now and find it is compact, super sharp and a very, very light hand holdable lens. I love it. One day I aspire for the 500/4L IS but until that time this will do.


With the 1.4x it will still give you awesome image quality without a doubt, is very usable with 2x too in relatively good light. Not in low light, I have found. On my 30D, there is NO AF at f/8 with 2x, and for that I hate Canon.

The 100-400 does NOT compare to the 300/L and 1.4x combo at all. Two different worlds IMHO.

On a bright note, a friend just bought the 300/2.8 IS and is in love. His wife is getting very concerned. He had the 100-400 and is still kicking himself for using that for years.
Get what you can for now.

[Petros Petrou]

Hello Rosl,
I own both the 500L and the 100-400L like you, and in addition I also have the 300 f/4L IS. I have to say that usualy I take the 500 and the 100-400 with me when I go for birding trips leaving the 300 behind. This is not because the 300 f/4 is a bad lens. When it comes to image quality the 300 is a better performer than the 100-400 (this is not the case when the 300 is used with the 1.4x extender). The 100-400L is a very nice lens and wins due to flexibility and very good performance for a zoom.

That said, I do not intent to sell the 300 because I am using it in cases I want to go light. When I want to go for a walk to a local park where I know that I may find some interesting subjects, I only take my camera with the 300L fitted, and the two extenders. Sometimes I also take a monopod for added stability when I feel I will need it. The 2.8 version is better, but the 300 f/4 is usable even with the 2x entender and can still autofocus (with an 1 series body). The "macro" capability of the f/4L is an added bonus. Great for dragonfly and flower pictures.

I do not feel that I NEED the 2.8 version. It is heavier and I could not use it like the f/4 version. When I can and want to use something heavier than the 300 f/4L, I will use the 500L. The 500L is a better general purpose birding lens than the 300 f/2.8L anyway. That said, I live in Greece which is a usually sunny place and the light is enough most of the time.

Finaly, I suggest you to think this: Do you really need to spend a years savings for a second big gun? Are you going to use it enough? I am asking this, since nature photography is a hobby to you as it is for me, and we are not making a living out of it.

Petros

[Rosl Roessner]

Thanks for all your helpful comments.
I decided to buy a used 300mm/ f 4 lens, which is not very expensive.
I think, this will fit all my needs. Just, like you say, Petros, I will use the lens not too much. I think I will take it for flight shots (where the 100 - 400 is often too slow, and the 500mm is often too big - and the bird so difficult to find....). Also I will take it, when light is low, and I can get close enough to the birds.
I'll get one 300 / f 4 tonight and I'll tell you, if I am lucky with it. Now I am sure, that I will spend my money for traveliing to MAKE pictures, not too much in the lenses.... Thanks for helping me, finding that solution!

[Maxis Gamez]

Rosl,

I have used both 300's and I can tell you that the f/4 is an amazing lens. My website home page image was taken with the 300 f/4. Amazing lens for sure!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Rosl,
Another vote for the 300 f4. I had bought it as it was cheaper than the 300 f2.8 . It's very sharp and you can handhold it. I use it when I am tracking tigers from top of an elephant. The IS helps and the light weight makes it easy to get sharp shots at lower shutter speeds.

[Rosl Roessner]

Thaks to all of you!
I bought one 300 / f 4 IS, a used one, 5 years old.
I tried the lens yesterday with some of my Icelandic Horsesand was not really happy with the results; to me the images look a bit soft. Now I heard something about the IS, that it needs one or two seconds, until it is "ready" for sharp images, when shooting in AI Servo. Is that true? Do you have to wait one or two seconds, bevor you can start "firing"?

I am not sure about the soft images, might be, that I only had not enough DOF, when shooting Horseportraits at f 4.0.
I'll giv it another try today and take more time for it.
The lens usually is well known for its sharpnes.

[Rosl Roessner]

Everything alright now. The lens had some problems with the AF. The Af did not really "stuck" on something. After some images it stopped working completely and the Camera told me, to clean the contacts betwees lens and Camera. And that was ist!
After cleaning the contacts the AF worked well and now I've got my sharp images!
I hope that this was the whole problem....