Canon 300 2.8 Lens ?

[DennyKyser]

Early Spring I had to do some studio renovations, and with the economy would not go in debt, so the 500 f/4 was sold to fund it, had a horrible year with birds too.

I am needing a long lens again, and although I LOVE to shoot little birds in the NW Pennsylvania winter, I make my living shooting portraits, weddings and some sports. (Baseball, Soccer and HS football)

I used to have the 300 2.8 before, sold it to get the 500 4.0, did not have it that long so not sure if its even usable for birds.
I do not do BIF, only little winter birds and wondering if I work at it can I get them a little closer so I can have a lens that covers all I want to do.

The 500 4.0 is an amazing lens but for portraits just not an option.

My current gear is.
1d IV, 1ds III, 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark II, 24-105 4.0 IS L, 16-35 2.8 L, 1.4 extender.

I normally use the 1D IV for wildlife and birds, so would have the addition sensor crop to work with.

Anyone using this lens for wildlife, and birds and happy with the results?
I know I may need to add the 500 4.0 later, but hoping I can get some decent results for now.

[Roy Churchill]

I use the 300/2.8 + converters for birds - for my style and age the 500/4 is just too heavy/bulky. Had it about 9 months now and have not been disappointed, even with a 2x attached. HERE is a link to some sample shots with either a 1.4 or 2x tc attached to give you an idea.

[DennyKyser]

I use the 300/2.8 + converters for birds - for my style and age the 500/4 is just too heavy/bulky. Had it about 9 months now and have not been disappointed, even with a 2x attached. HERE is a link to some sample shots with either a 1.4 or 2x tc attached to give you an idea.

Thanks, that is the information I was hoping to find, again know its not THE lens of choice, but is much more usable for the things that pay the bills. Its easier to justify when its used on paying clients. :)
Hopefully I will be able to get the 500 at a later date.

[Joel Eade]

Denny,

The only telephoto I own is the 300 2.8L.....I have been shooting birds (mostly small ones) in my backyard using a feeder and a camo hide for about 2 years now. I have used it almost exclusively with the 1.4 TC...I have no complaint with image quality whatsoever....it's a great lens. I have used it on a 40D and 1D MKIII. No problem in a situation where you can get close. Although I can see why having the reach of a longer focal length lens would be very nice I am not disappointed with the 300 2.8L.

I have also used it for shooting some sports (without the TC) like my daughter's dance team at college and a friend's son playing little league baseball. It performed great.

The image quality is great, it focuses fast, it's amazingly sharp with great color, contrast and bokeh......it' easy to carry around shoot hand held for me and it fits in a standard size camera bag.

I would love to someday have the 500 f4 and 800 f5.6 as well but will probably always keep the 300 f2.8

Joel

[Chris Sloan]

I own the 300 f2.8 and it is my standard lens for shooting birds. I love it. I use a Black Rapid shoulder strap to carry it around in the field, and it is a fabulous lens. I almost always use with the 1.4x TC, although sometimes on pelagic trips I'll shoot without the TC.

[Chris Brennan]

Denny -

Even though you're in need of a long lens again, is the economy that stable in your part of PA that you can afford to shell out big $$ on a 300/2.8? If so, that's great!! However, I'm going to make a couple of lower cost suggestions and hopefully I won't get "knocked down" by too many people :)...

You might consider picking up a 100-400 IS L zoom; copies built in the last couple of years have been very sharp (I have one) although nothing is as sharp as the 300/2.8, and since you have Series 1 bodies, you can AF with the 1.4x converter. The other suggestion is to pickup a 300/f4 IS. Although I don't have one, I have several friends who do, and the quality of those images have been stunningly crisp and sharp. I understand that it handles a 1.4x very well...

[Chris Sloan]

I own the 100-400 also, and it was my standard lens before I bought the 300/2.8. The 100-400 is a great lens, but in comparison to the 300/2.8 it's like going from single A baseball to the majors.

[DennyKyser]

Denny -

Even though you're in need of a long lens again, is the economy that stable in your part of PA that you can afford to shell out big $$ on a 300/2.8? If so, that's great!! However, I'm going to make a couple of lower cost suggestions and hopefully I won't get "knocked down" by too many people :)...

You might consider picking up a 100-400 IS L zoom; copies built in the last couple of years have been very sharp (I have one) although nothing is as sharp as the 300/2.8, and since you have Series 1 bodies, you can AF with the 1.4x converter. The other suggestion is to pickup a 300/f4 IS. Although I don't have one, I have several friends who do, and the quality of those images have been stunningly crisp and sharp. I understand that it handles a 1.4x very well...

If I were getting a lens just for birds, and fun I would probably go a different route, I have no problem investing in a lens that can be used for portraits, our portrait business strives because we do so many different things, this lens give another look that will be hard to reproduced with a kit lens that most new photographers have.

[David Israel]

Denny -

Even though you're in need of a long lens again, is the economy that stable in your part of PA that you can afford to shell out big $$ on a 300/2.8? If so, that's great!! However, I'm going to make a couple of lower cost suggestions and hopefully I won't get "knocked down" by too many people :)...

You might consider picking up a 100-400 IS L zoom; copies built in the last couple of years have been very sharp (I have one) although nothing is as sharp as the 300/2.8, and since you have Series 1 bodies, you can AF with the 1.4x converter. The other suggestion is to pickup a 300/f4 IS. Although I don't have one, I have several friends who do, and the quality of those images have been stunningly crisp and sharp. I understand that it handles a 1.4x very well...

Hi Denny, I do not think that you are the only person in this boat (given how the economy has been the past 2 years, or so). I am very fortunate to own a lot of very nice gear and have owned seven copies of the 300 2.8 IS, at various times. I shoot birds primarily (as well as sports) and the 300 2.8 IS was the first lens (along with a 1.4x TC) that allowed me to start shooting birds seriously. However, I no longer own or use a 300 2.8, and mostly use the 500 and 800 now.

I really like Chris's suggestions. Naturally, the downside to the 100-400 is speed and I do not use my copy for sports. However, my current copy of this lens is quite sharp and has produced some real nice keepers for me (including BIF). The 300 f/4 is another great suggestion by Chris, and I do use that lens for HS baseball. It can be used with a TC and produces very nice images.

If you can afford a bit more than the 300 2.8 but don't have quite enough for the 500, I'm a big fan of the 400 DO (which I do shoot some football with, but mostly use for BIF). The 300 2.8 IS may be the best all around solution for somebody who shoots portraits, sports and some birds, however. On the other hand, if your shooting style changes to Birds and nature, followed by sports and portraits then you should give some serious consideration to Chris's suggestion.

Best of luck to you with whatever you decide.

[DennyKyser]

Well, I bit the bullet and ordered the lens, will be here tomorrow, have to love amazon's $3.99 one day shipping. I normally order from B&H since there is no shop with in an hour of me, and even that one does not carry high end lenses, but Amazon was a hundred bucks cheaper and cheap overnight shipping. :) Just realized now I need to purchase another Wimberley Head, luckily still have the Gitzo tripod.

[David Israel]

Hey, a super big CONGRATULATIONS to you Denny, for your new 300!

Given the type of photography that you do, I believe that you made the best choice (presuming that you ordered the 300 2.8 IS). It is definitely one of Canon's finest. It is an easy lens to fall in love with.

A bit of advice... If you don't like parting with your money then do not try out the 200 f/2 IS. If you like the 300 2.8 you will absolutely love the 200 f/2.

I'll look forward to seeing some images posted from your new lens.

[Jeff Cashdollar]

Nice purchase - many think it is Canon's sharpest lens and it is fairly portable. I would use the tripod with the TC's looking forward to some pictures.

[DennyKyser]

Well got the lens, and it is super sharp but when I went to photograph deer, was really wanting more, hate to say it but probably going to send it back for the 500, if I can pull of sports with it.
I looked at samples from both the 400 2.8 and 500 4.0 and maybe its because their are more from the 500 but boy it seems to produce sharper images than from the 400.

EDIT.... I just got done processing some images and I am amazed at what this lens can do, I can not expect it to jump out there and photography deer at 150 yards away. Thinking I will keep this lens, and just add the 500 4.0 for the birds and long wildlife shots.