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.