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

[Roger Clark]

Agree and thanks a lot. The fact that we rarely make large prints (other than canvas) and sell our images primarily for we, book, and magazine use explains a lot. But when I hear folks talk about large prints I often wonder if they take viewing distance into account or if they are back to their microscopes.

In my opinion and experience, viewing distance is irrelevant. People view prints at all distances. If they can get close, they will get as close as the detail in the print will draw them in. In a large print, it is like walking into the scene. Attached is a 30x40-inch print where people walk right up and view it from a foot away., then step back and view the whole scene, then move in again, often exclaiming "WOW!" If the print is soft, they won't be drawn in, and they won't exclaim any wow.

Same in galleries. In most galleries, and those where my images have been displayed all allow the view to walk right up and view the print up close.

(The 30 x 40 inch print is a 4x5 image drum scanned producing the digital equivalent of a 200 megapixel camera.)

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Thanks. That's about as close to understanding that stuff as I have ever come. I will need to keep coming back and studying.

If folks under-expose images created with a small pixel camera like the 7D will the noise levels be worse than with a Mark IV for example.

On a related topic, a Canadian landscape photographer with a pretty good eye, Darwin Wiggett, absolutely trashed the image quality of the 7D when it first came out. I mean trashed.

If the detail on the target were the same and the 1DIV and 7D were equally underexposed using the same lens with the same aperture diameter and same exposure time, the images would have equal noise. We had a long thread on this subject, but here is an example that shows exactly that test: see this post and the following few frames.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...425#post762425
(best not to delve too far into this again--the last thread got heated and had to be closed).

Digital has changed many concepts, and if the landscape photographer trashed the 7D, he probably did not understand Etendue, which is the factor I have been talking about. There are many superb images being posted on BPN with the 7D. Look, for example at Sid Garige's recent images (two recent ones posted just before I wrote this)--absolutely stunning and made with a 7D. And his stunning polar bear image was with the 100-400 .

Roger

[adrian dancy]

ps: I tried to find the trashing on his site using the search feature with no luck. Off to the gate!

Arthur,

I think this might be what you were looking for:- http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

[Robert O'Toole]

Very interesting thread and a lot of good info from Artie, Roger and others.

Hi John,


The new 500 f/4 MTF charts (see Canon's web site) are almost perfect!!!!!.......


Roger

One note on MTF charts

BPN readers need to know MTF charts can be useful and interesting but each manufacturer has a different approach to MTF data. Canon's (and Nikon's and Sigma's) are computer generated theoretical figures and not made with production lenses. Its been along time but I remember Canon stating this somewhere in their literature. Zeiss and Hassy on the other hand publish actual real world MTF charts made on production glass and they state this (this may have changed). Real world MTF testing has to take in to account manufacturing tolerances etc since they show what the lens actually resolves so in most times the measured MTF is below the computer generated MTF.

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi Ian

........ 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? ............Thanks for your thoughts.

I have been interesting in this for some time also and talk about timing, I just got back from Japan last night and look what was waiting on my doorstep thanks to Sigma. A brand new 120-300 APO EX f/2.8 and 1.4X TC. Looking forward to burning through some megs (or gigs) next week photographing eagles during my eagle tour series in AK. I will be sure to post some images on BPN. If you want me to shoot a target or something let me know.

........ ............(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....

I tried that monster of a lens and on the sample unit I tried I found IQ fall off over 600-700 and at wide open aperture. If Sigma could come out with a new 300-800 more compact and with OS I think it would be a dream lens for a wildlife photographer.

Robert

[Robert O'Toole]

Ian,........
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. .................

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

You are correct Alan it does not, I have one sitting here next to me as I type. I will know how the AF copes with eagles in flight next week!

Sigma really needs to add distance limiters to their EX lenses and up the price if necessary. The focus range is too wide not to do so, the 50-500 focuses to about 3 feet at 300mm for a 1:3.2 macro ratio.

Ian,........

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

Very true, I have had a canon lens for years and sold it for about 90-95% of what I paid new. Sometimes with rebates you can sell it for more than you paid. I believe this would apply to Nikon but cannot say from experience since I have never sold any of my AF Nikkors.

Robert

[Ian Cassell]

Robert, I eagerly await your results from the Eagle trip. I own Sigma 1.4X and 2X EX converters, so all I am missing is the little lens :) My Sigma 100-300/4 has never done well with the converters, so I'm hoping this one does. I'm especially interested in how it does with a 2X as I already own the Canon 400/5.6 and it is that extra reach to 600 that I'm after.

I'd love to see some baseline imaging with the lens of newsprint or some other target.

[Arthur Morris]

Arthur, I think this might be what you were looking for:- http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

Thanks Adrian. I did not agree at all with his findings. I would love for Roger to take a look at his methods and let us know what he did wrong with his comparisons. I loved my 7D files especially those created on sunny days.

[Arthur Morris]

In my opinion and experience, viewing distance is irrelevant. People view prints at all distances. If they can get close, they will get as close as the detail in the print will draw them in. In a large print, it is like walking into the scene. Attached is a 30x40-inch print where people walk right up and view it from a foot away., then step back and view the whole scene, then move in again, often exclaiming "WOW!" If the print is soft, they won't be drawn in, and they won't exclaim any wow.

Same in galleries. In most galleries, and those where my images have been displayed all allow the view to walk right up and view the print up close.

(The 30 x 40 inch print is a 4x5 image drum scanned producing the digital equivalent of a 200 megapixel camera.)

Roger

A few further thoughts. In my world, prints are to be enjoyed at a reasonable viewing distance. In my world I have never had a potential buyer say to me, "Your image does not have enough fine detail." Same with my eight BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year-honored images or my other major contest successes.

And I have sold 100s of images created with the 100-400 MTF charts aside.

Lastly, John Shaw who has sold a few prints of natural history subjects has stated, A good sharp image from a 4 mega-pixel camera will produce a better print than 35mm film.

I guess that we will need to disagree on the need for incredible fine detail in digital files.

[Arthur Morris]

If the detail on the target were the same and the 1DIV and 7D were equally underexposed using the same lens with the same aperture diameter and same exposure time, the images would have equal noise. We had a long thread on this subject, but here is an example that shows exactly that test: see this post and the following few frames.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...425#post762425 (best not to delve too far into this again--the last thread got heated and had to be closed). Digital has changed many concepts, and if the landscape photographer trashed the 7D, he probably did not understand Etendue, which is the factor I have been talking about. There are many superb images being posted on BPN with the 7D. Look, for example at Sid Garige's recent images (two recent ones posted just before I wrote this)--absolutely stunning and made with a 7D. And his stunning polar bear image was with the 100-400 . Roger

Thanks for the noise info. I do not see any mention of Etendue in this thread; did I miss something?

If you have time, please take a look at Darwin Wigget's post and let us know what he did wrong with his comparisons. The 7D stuff that he posted did look lousy: the link is in Pane 58.

As for Sid's polar bear image, that is my point. Folks hot for super fine detail often cannot see the forest for the trees.... And how can someone produce a superb image with a lens with such a poor MTF rating???? As I said, the next MTF chart I examine will be my first.

[Humberto Ramos]

Yes, I am saying there is great performance with a 7D versus larger pixel cameras. People complained about noise because they were mixing two (or more) things that affect noise. For example, a comparison might be 500 mm on a 7D and 1DIV, same f/ratio, same ISO, same shutter speed. But the 7D image shows more detail. The proper comparison is to add a 1.4x TC on the 1DIV then the pixel size on the subject (e.g. bird) is almost the same as the 7D + 500 (no TC). Then shoot at the same lens diameter (not f/ratio) (e.g. shoot wide open) and at the same shutter speed. Then the 7D and 1DIV images will be almost the same: same detail, same noise. No advantage to larger pixels. Larger pixels at a given focal length simply trade less detail for less noise.

Pixel size is interchangeable with focal length. Increasing focal length by adding a TC or changing a camera to one with smaller pixels can produce the same result in image detail and noise. This is a paradigm shift for photographers but is a trade space done all the time in remote sensing instrument design (e.g. spacecraft and aircraft imaging systems).

The game is changing. What formerly could be done with a large pixel camera and 1.4x TC on a 500 mm f/4 lens can now be done with no TCs and a 300 mm f/2.8 lens. Choose the camera with the lens. it is all part of the system design.

Roger

Roger, in that case the high ISO capabylities of the 1Dx when compared to the 7D, are due to the bigger pixels size but with lost of fine detail, is this correct?

[Humberto Ramos]

Thanks for the noise info. I do not see any mention of Etendue in this thread; did I miss something?

If you have time, please take a look at Darwin Wigget's post and let us know what he did wrong with his comparisons. The 7D stuff that he posted did look lousy: the link is in Pane 58.

Hi Artie, I also use a 7D, and after some micro adjustments the images are a lot more sharp than before micro adjustments, but even before they where not as the ones seen in Darwin Wigget's, he might had some problems with his copy and/or some micro ajustments issues.


About sigma zoom lens, I had a 120-300mm f/2.8, first version (the EX IF), at close distances in a hide for small birds (4 or 5m), it was very sharp when stoped down, at f/2.8 or f/4 when using 1.4x TC it wasn't very sharp, when the distance increases, the lost (10m) the lost of quality increases.

[Roger Clark]

Thanks for the noise info. I do not see any mention of Etendue in this thread; did I miss something?

If you have time, please take a look at Darwin Wigget's post and let us know what he did wrong with his comparisons. The 7D stuff that he posted did look lousy: the link is in Pane 58.

Hi Artie,
It looks like his error is summarised at the end: he was using early versions of raw conversion software. The 7D has 4 color filters; red, blue, and two different greens. Early software didn't handle that well.

As for Sid's polar bear image, that is my point. Folks hot for super fine detail often cannot see the forest for the trees.... And how can someone produce a superb image with a lens with such a poor MTF rating???? As I said, the next MTF chart I examine will be my first.

In my opinion, image content trumps image quality if the IQ is not too bad. My first Natures best image was produced full page (fall 2004) and looks great. It is a 3 megapixel crop from a 6 megapixel camera. But it is soft. The image would have much greater impact if it was done on a 1DIV 16 megapixels with no crop--so I'll just have to try again . Of course that didn't exist a decade ago. An image can be soft and if not reproduced too large can still have great impact, and sometimes soft is also good (think nose hairs and skin pores in a model--we usually don't want to see that). So it al comes down to content, subject and how it is used/viewed.

Sid's polar bear image is great, but I bet if he were making a 16x24 inch print and it hung beside a nearly identical image taken with a better lens, the sharper print will have more impact. (No offense Sid in case you are reading--I would love to have made those images.)

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks. Funny that Darwin did not write to tell me that as he did write to take me to task after I trashed his original remarks online somewhere....

As for the 100-400 and it's lousy MTF charts we will need to disagree on the need for super-fine detail in an image (as I noted in another pane/thread recently). :)

Have fun at Venice.

[Arthur Morris]

re:

It looks like his error is summarised at the end: he was using early versions of raw conversion software. The 7D has 4 color filters; red, blue, and two different greens. Early software didn't handle that well.

Funny. I went to the thread and read the stuff at the end. Did not see anywhere that he said he was wrong. The conclusion was that "soft is soft and flat is flat." He did close comments on the thread. I guess that he did not like hearing that he was wrong about the camera.

[Roger Clark]

Roger, in that case the high ISO capabylities of the 1Dx when compared to the 7D, are due to the bigger pixels size but with lost of fine detail, is this correct?

Hello Humberto,
Yes, that is correct. It is a direct trade of pixel size versus noise. Here is another analogy.

Say you wanted to check how uniform a sprinkler waters a lawn. So you set out a whole bunch of buckets in a grid covering the lawn, and water for 5 minutes the the water turned on full blast. If you then changed the buckets to smaller one so you can get more detail in the water pattern. Again you turn on the water full blast for 5 minutes. In both cases you sprayed the same amount of water on the lawn for the same amount of time. In te send test with the smaller buckets, the amount of water in each bucket it less, but adding all the water in all the buckets, the total amount of water collected is the same.

The above analogy: the buckets are like pixel size, the force of the water is like the lens collecting light (turn the water on more is like opening the aperture), and the time the you water the lawn if like the camera exposure time. Changing pixel size does not change to total light collected, as long as sensor size is the same, but the detail per pixel changes with the size of the pixel.

(Ignore the fact that as you turn the water on more, the circle of water spray gets larger--that doesn't fit the analogy. That is why I kept the water spray the same in the two examples.)

Roger

[Roger Clark]

re:

It looks like his error is summarised at the end: he was using early versions of raw conversion software. The 7D has 4 color filters; red, blue, and two different greens. Early software didn't handle that well.

Funny. I went to the thread and read the stuff at the end. Did not see anywhere that he said he was wrong. The conclusion was that "soft is soft and flat is flat." He did close comments on the thread. I guess that he did not like hearing that he was wrong about the camera.

I agree, he didn't really admit he was wrong. But the "New Updates" after his conclusions tell the story. He also used CS4 and the thread was closed in January 2010. At that time software was still getting refined to deal with the new style filters on the pixels. Here on BPN there was discussions about these problems. Then at some point Canon's DPP was doing quite well until CS5 ACR caught up. I remember Arash pointing out these problems and elsewhere on the net people complaining about different problems, including "mazing." But once software got better, these problems went away. I held off quite a while because of those issues before buying a 7D (bought it well after my 1DIV). I haven't seen these issues with my 7D. The small pixels, however, require smaller tolerances on AF calibration.

Roger

[Steve Uffman]

Ditto on the AF calibration on the 7d..I did not think about it being related to the size of the pixels....at first I was frustrated with the 7D, but then starting seeing some fantastically sharp images being posted here with the 7d..that gave me confidence in the camera if mine was calibrated properly...once I did, things improved a ton...and my camera needed substantial adjustments to pass the calibration test.

[Tom Rambaut]

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

just seen that it has been posted OPPS!

Sorry I do not understand all the tech stuff to make a comment.

[Arthur Morris]

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

just seen that it has been posted OPPS!

Sorry I do not understand all the tech stuff to make a comment.

Hi Tom,

Confused. What is OPPS?

See you in Bosque!

[Mike Atkinson]

Hi, All.

Wow, this thread has certainly covered some ground!

There has been a lot of talk over the last few months about the merits of the Series II long lenses but, now that two of them are available, I'm surprised there haven't been more image quality comparisons with the outgoing versions.

Are you guys aware of anyone who has taken photos of the same real-world subjects (preferably birds) with the same camera body and distance, having switched from a 300mm f/2.8 Series I to a Series II between frames?

There must be many photographers out there who, like me, have Series I lenses and are wondering what benefit they will get if they upgrade. There may well be improvements in AF, IS, etc., but these just increase the percentage of keepers - they don't impact the IQ of the shots that are well-focused and free from motion blur.

To give a specific example, I have seen marked improvements in IQ going from a cheap 70-300mm zoom at the long end to the use of a Canon 300mm f/4 prime and then to a Series I 300mm f/2.8. The last of these has a crispness that really makes subjects pop. Would a Series II 300mm f/2.8 continue that trend, or would the images look pretty much the same as the Series I lens?

To give a second example, I get better subject detail and fewer aberrations with my 500mm f/4 lens than I do by adding TCs to my 300mm f/2.8, so I normally lug the 500mm around because I'm not prepared to sacrifice IQ. Would the Series II 300mm f/2.8 be so much better in this area that I could save myself the extra weight and bulk? I'm not getting any younger.

Again, I'm interested in real-world comparisons, not how they compare on paper (e.g. in MTF charts).

Any links to test results greatly appreciated!

Mike.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi, All.

Wow, this thread has certainly covered some ground!

There has been a lot of talk over the last few months about the merits of the Series II long lenses but, now that two of them are available, I'm surprised there haven't been more image quality comparisons with the outgoing versions.

Are you guys aware of anyone who has taken photos of the same real-world subjects (preferably birds) with the same camera body and distance, having switched from a 300mm f/2.8 Series I to a Series II between frames?

There must be many photographers out there who, like me, have Series I lenses and are wondering what benefit they will get if they upgrade. There may well be improvements in AF, IS, etc., but these just increase the percentage of keepers - they don't impact the IQ of the shots that are well-focused and free from motion blur.

To give a specific example, I have seen marked improvements in IQ going from a cheap 70-300mm zoom at the long end to the use of a Canon 300mm f/4 prime and then to a Series I 300mm f/2.8. The last of these has a crispness that really makes subjects pop. Would a Series II 300mm f/2.8 continue that trend, or would the images look pretty much the same as the Series I lens?

To give a second example, I get better subject detail and fewer aberrations with my 500mm f/4 lens than I do by adding TCs to my 300mm f/2.8, so I normally lug the 500mm around because I'm not prepared to sacrifice IQ. Would the Series II 300mm f/2.8 be so much better in this area that I could save myself the extra weight and bulk? I'm not getting any younger.

Again, I'm interested in real-world comparisons, not how they compare on paper (e.g. in MTF charts).

Any links to test results greatly appreciated!

Mike.

No and no clue. In my 28 years of doing this I have never conducted either a single test or a side-by-side comparison. And sorry, I have no plans to start now.... And to tell the truth, I have been doing OK my way.


I have left it to others to marvel at the sharp images that I have created with the 800 f/5.6L IS and the 300 f/2.8L IS II. And I am betting that the same will be true with both the 500mm and 600mm f/4L IS II lenses that I will be purchasing this spring.

[Colin Knight]

Artie- This is off topic. You mentioned your Think Tank bag. Could you fit a 7D with grip, 1D body, flash, 17-40mm, 70-200mm 2.8, 500mm in there?

[Arthur Morris]

Artie- This is off topic. You mentioned your Think Tank bag. Could you fit a 7D with grip, 1D body, flash, 17-40mm, 70-200mm 2.8, 500mm in there?

Hi Colin, With tons of room to spare! There is a thread on the Think Tank bags just below in this forum. Yesterday I wrote:

I have actually gotten more than 50 pounds in the Think Tank International bag! See here for details: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/...g-combination/

Most recently was 49 to Japan with: 800 f/5.6 L IS, 300 f/2.8L IS II, 70-200 L IS II, 16mm f/2.8L, 8-15mm, two MIV, 1 5D II, 2 @ 1.4X III TC, 2X III TC, 25mm Extension tube, and some extra caps and batteries.

I have never once been hassled for size and very rarely for weight.

[Colin Knight]

Yes, sorry to take your time. After I posted that I went over to the other forum and saw you had answered my question already in replying to someone else. I also saw the images on your blog. Just ordered mine from BandH. The rolling feature and LOCK is very important to me. This will be my new bag for weddings/sporting events....and ultimately Denali in Sept. =) Thanks!

[Arthur Morris]

Good move. Did you start your search with a BAA B&H link?

[Colin Knight]

Yes sir. Guess that's good for you? I'm sure they'll be shipping your 5D III soon.

[Mike Atkinson]

Thanks for the reply, Artie.

I know you've made world-class bird images with your existing lenses, but that begs the question why someone with those lenses would buy the new 500mm and 600mm lenses this Spring.

If I do that in the UK, it will cost me £20,000 (roughly $30,000)! I don't think I'm alone in being reluctant to part with so much money without some evidence that my images will be better, hence my questions.

Respectfully,
Mike.

[Arthur Morris]

Yes sir. Guess that's good for you? I'm sure they'll be shipping your 5D III soon.

Yes. Good for me and much appreciated :). I just wrote to ask when the 5DIII bodies will be shipping.

[Colin Knight]

This is a good question Mike, and one that I've wondered too. Even if I could justify moving from the 1st to 2nd version of the 500mm, I could never justify purchasing the 600mm II- it's $2500 more than the new 500mm II. I can't get over that- $2500 for an extra 100mm.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the reply, Artie.

I know you've made world-class bird images with your existing lenses, but that begs the question why someone with those lenses would buy the new 500mm and 600mm lenses this Spring.

If I do that in the UK, it will cost me £20,000 (roughly $30,000)! I don't think I'm alone in being reluctant to part with so much money without some evidence that my images will be better, hence my questions.

Respectfully,
Mike.

Hey Mike, I understand completely. My position has long been that folks should spend more time worrying about learning to use the gear that they have and more time studying and practicing their craft and less time worrying about the latest greatest new gear....

One way for me to get folks to understand this concept is to ask, "What do you do with your images?" Therefore I must ask, "What do you do with your images?" In the same vein please remember that I have never had an image rejected by a publisher for being unsharp.

So that would lead to the question "Why are you buying the two new big lenses?" If that is what you are asking let me know :).

Last thought: toys for boys....And for girls.

[Mike Atkinson]

Hi, Artie.

I take images both for my own pleasure and to sell but, whatever I end up doing with an image, I want to know it has the highest possible quality. My day-job is a double-edged sword in that it removes pressure to make money from photography, but also takes up so much time that I don't get to do much photography. (Maybe one day.)

I'm definitely not an equipment junkie and only rarely buy new gear. The 500mm f/4 lens I bought 6 years ago has been used for 99% of my bird images. I added the 300mm f/2.8 a year ago because I was finding the 500mm unwieldy for close-range BIF shooting. I've never bought a single piece of equipment as a toy or to have the latest gear - I always buy for a specific purpose and known benefits.

Most of my images are wild bird portraits and I'm more interested in their 'look' than pure sharpness. For that reason, I've been solely using a 5D Mk II for the last 18 months because I love its rendition of colours and tones, even though I have to work harder due to its limited reach and AF ability.

So, now the Series II superteles are finally materialising, I am no longer sure I'm getting the best available raw quality in my images and would like to test this hypothesis.

I have no intention of buying both the 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses, but would consider buying one or the other if they represented a significant increase in image quality (not handling).

Similarly, I would consider replacing my 300mm f/2.8 with its Series II equivalent if there was a significant IQ gain. I could hire a Series II lens and perform my own testing but, at this early stage, I would just like to know if anyone has already done this.

Hope this clarifies my question(s).

Mike.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi, Artie.

I take images both for my own pleasure and to sell but, whatever I end up doing with an image, I want to know it has the highest possible quality. My day-job is a double-edged sword in that it removes pressure to make money from photography, but also takes up so much time that I don't get to do much photography. (Maybe one day.)

I'm definitely not an equipment junkie and only rarely buy new gear. The 500mm f/4 lens I bought 6 years ago has been used for 99% of my bird images. I added the 300mm f/2.8 a year ago because I was finding the 500mm unwieldy for close-range BIF shooting. I've never bought a single piece of equipment as a toy or to have the latest gear - I always buy for a specific purpose and known benefits.

Most of my images are wild bird portraits and I'm more interested in their 'look' than pure sharpness. For that reason, I've been solely using a 5D Mk II for the last 18 months because I love its rendition of colours and tones, even though I have to work harder due to its limited reach and AF ability.

So, now the Series II superteles are finally materialising, I am no longer sure I'm getting the best available raw quality in my images and would like to test this hypothesis.

I have no intention of buying both the 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses, but would consider buying one or the other if they represented a significant increase in image quality (not handling).

Similarly, I would consider replacing my 300mm f/2.8 with its Series II equivalent if there was a significant IQ gain. I could hire a Series II lens and perform my own testing but, at this early stage, I would just like to know if anyone has already done this.

Hope this clarifies my question(s).

Mike.

Thanks Mike. Not a lot to add. I will say that the four-stop IS on the 800 is a huge improvement. After that it is pretty much guaranteed that all things being equal images made with the new lenses will be somewhat sharper than images made with the older lenses. Please do not think me being a wise *** but when you say, I "I want to know it has the highest quality possible" that sounds a lot to me like "I want the very best equipment even though I am making sharp sale-able image with my current gear...." As I said, toys for boys. And girls.

[Mike Atkinson]

'Sharp, sale-able image' = 'all that matters'
'Striving for highest image quality' = 'toys for boys'?
Maybe you're right, but I'd need to sleep on that one!
Mike.

[Colin Knight]

BandH shipped my Think Tank already- in less that 4 hours. Unreal.

[Gary Kinard]

I have the 300 2.8 1 and just went to the 11. Interesting I have not seen views on this lens or others in jungle use. When in America I can see where these views come from. I always use my 500 and usually with a t.c.

Back to the 300 11. It is a tool that is my preferred lens for jungle shooting. Light, sharp and IS is amazing. I was always just short of a great pic with the 300 IS 1. I have many but walking in the jungle and shooting with a tripod is kind of a pain for me. And carrying the 500 with tripod and head is out of the question for me. The 300 11 is a total revolution for me. AMAZING is not to much praise for this lens. That said the difference is so great I am waiting on pins and needles for the new 500.... :)
If the 500 is as an upgrade as the 300 I will be set for sure.. America and Asia.

I still shoot both but the 300 ll is in a very special place for me.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

[Gary Kinard]

I have both the 300mm IS l. And just bought the version ll. There is a world of difference. I tested the 300 ll against my 300 l for three hours on FF. I really was not prepared for the difference in the field. Truly amazing.
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

[Arthur Morris]

I have both the 300mm IS l. And just bought the version ll. There is a world of difference. I tested the 300 ll against my 300 l for three hours on FF. I really was not prepared for the difference in the field. Truly amazing.

4-Stop IS is both real and amazing .

[Arthur Morris]

PS: I can finally quit borrowing this lens from CPS; I ordered my own yesterday through the Explorers of Light program. Will have it this week :).

[Mike Atkinson]

Gary, thanks for sharing your overall impression after using both versions of the 300mm f/2.8, but could you provide more details about how you compared the two and what specific differences you found both in lens operation and image quality (preferably with comparison images)?