# Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS I USM



## chrysoberyl (Feb 16, 2018)

Are there any issues with this lens? Like getting parts for repair? Is the II version sharper?


----------



## AdamBotond (Feb 17, 2018)

Considering that it has been replaced by mark II 7 years ago, you might have difficulties when it comes to repair the mark I. Also, the mark II is sharper, has more contrast and somewhat reduced weight, as well. On the other hand, you can get second hand mark I for a reasonable price these days and they hold a great value (as long as you dont have to repair).


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 17, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> Are there any issues with this lens? Like getting parts for repair? Is the II version sharper?



It is a professional grade lens designed to withstand professional use. 

That said, as far as repair goes, it will most likely follow the predecessor USM and no IS lenses and become difficult/impossible to repair quickly with OEM parts. It is unlikely that there is a treasure trove of expensive parts like IS modules simply laying around in a warehouse somewhere... then finding a shop with the capability to repair it back to OEM specs when the OEM does not support it any longer.

At least the VI IS lenses will still focus if there is a USM motor failure.

The IS module seems to be designed to stay at a neutral state, because it doesn't do anything when it is "off", so with the exception of an unusual failure, the lens should still be usable even with a failed IS module.

The used prices for these have dropped significantly since Canon has rendered these lenses "obsolete". Only you can decide if buying the VI is worth it over buying a "current" VII.

The only way to really ensure repairability is to buy new or current production version lenses.

Yes, all of the VII IS lenses offer improvements over the VI IS counterparts.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 17, 2018)

Thanks very much! I can't see paying $3K for a paperweight, although I do want a fast, stabilized 300mm prime very much. Perhaps Tamron will release their rumored 300 2.8.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 17, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks very much! I can't see paying $3K for a paperweight, although I do want a fast, stabilized 300mm prime very much. Perhaps Tamron will release their rumored 300 2.8.



And what makes a 3rd party lens less of a paperweight than an "obsolete" Canon lens made for trade professionals?

I don't know anything about the Tamron, but I bet it is safe to say that it will not match OEM Canon lens performance on a Canon body and who's to say how long the Tamron would be serviceable, and how long such service might take.

Price is also an issue. How "inexpensive" can it be? If the price is anywhere near the cost of a nice used "obsolete" Canon IS VI, I know which one I would choose.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks very much! I can't see paying $3K for a paperweight, although I do want a fast, stabilized 300mm prime very much. Perhaps Tamron will release their rumored 300 2.8.



Look into the Sigma 120-300mm f/3.8. The latest version, the 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | S, is in the 'Sports' category of the 'Global Vision Series' that also include the 'Art' category. Compatibility with the Sigma USB dock goes a long way towards ensuring future firmware upgrades, if needed, won't require a trip to a service center. It's not quite as good as the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but neither is the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS. It is a bit longer and heavier than the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but then again, so is the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS.

It's not quite a prime, but it is a very high quality zoom that holds image quality at all focal lengths and apertures much like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II does.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/120-300mm-f28-dg-os-hsm-s 
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens.aspx


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 20, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Look into the Sigma 120-300mm f/3.8. The latest version, the 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | S, is in the 'Sports' category of the 'Global Vision Series' that also include the 'Art' category. Compatibility with the Sigma USB dock goes a long way towards ensuring future firmware upgrades, if needed, won't require a trip to a service center. It's not quite as good as the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but neither is the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS. It is a bit longer and heavier than the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but then again, so is the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS.
> 
> It's not quite a prime, but it is a very high quality zoom that holds image quality at all focal lengths and apertures much like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II does.



Thanks, Michael. The 120-300 is at the top of my list and I'll be looking at the links. How does it perform with Canon III TC's?


----------



## hne (Feb 20, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Look into the Sigma 120-300mm f/3.8. The latest version, the 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | S, is in the 'Sports' category of the 'Global Vision Series' that also include the 'Art' category. Compatibility with the Sigma USB dock goes a long way towards ensuring future firmware upgrades, if needed, won't require a trip to a service center. It's not quite as good as the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but neither is the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS. It is a bit longer and heavier than the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but then again, so is the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS.
> ...



I don't think I'd even bother try it considering these results comparing it to the Sigma 150-600 contemporary:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 21, 2018)

danski0224 said:


> And what makes a 3rd party lens less of a paperweight than an "obsolete" Canon lens made for trade professionals?
> 
> I don't know anything about the Tamron, but I bet it is safe to say that it will not match OEM Canon lens performance on a Canon body and who's to say how long the Tamron would be serviceable, and how long such service might take.


When you admit you "don't know anything", it's best to not say anything at all.

For the record, Tamron honour a warranty longer than any other lens manufacturer and have official repair centres in more countries than any other lens manufacturer, too. I've had to send in Canon, Nikon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Zeiss, Mamiya, Schneider Kreuznach (PhaseOne), Fujifilm, Zhongyi, Tokina, and Laowa lenses for servicing at various times, and Tamron have always been by far the fastest, cheapest (when outside of warranty), and most responsive to communication.

And given the recent Tamrons compared to their Canon counterparts, it's fair to assume that any Tamron 300mm will be optically superior, optically more consistent, and have more effective stabilisation than the Canon. The build quality is also more than good enough; about even with the mid-priced L lenses. I'd expect the AF to be a touch slower than the Canon, but equally as accurate, and for manual focusing the Tamrons are typically better. (Which is also why they're slower to autofocus.)


There are lots of lenses where I go straight for the first-party options, but when it comes to these kinds of telephotos, Tamron and Sigma have proved their worth with their zooms in this range and I've no issue expecting a Tamron prime at this length to be anything less than fantastic.


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 21, 2018)

Currently own a 300/2.8 I and consider replacing it. The Canon II sells for 6K, the current Sigma for 4K, and Tamron is vaporware at present. In that price range, the difference is not sufficient to affect decision on which one to get. One thing I look at is minimum focusing distance: Canon 2 m, Sigma 2.5 m. That is a significant point for me (venomous snake portraits). Not quite ready to pull the plug, I think a Coastal Optics 100 UV will be first.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 21, 2018)

Zeidora said:


> Currently own a 300/2.8 I and consider replacing it. The Canon II sells for 6K, the current Sigma for 4K, and Tamron is vaporware at present. In that price range, the difference is not sufficient to affect decision on which one to get. One thing I look at is minimum focusing distance: Canon 2 m, Sigma 2.5 m. That is a significant point for me (venomous snake portraits). Not quite ready to pull the plug, I think a Coastal Optics 100 UV will be first.



I do enjoy your input - I'd never heard of the Coastal Optics 100 UV! It looks quite nice. As far as 300mm goes, I've been patient for years and will be so until one feels right. Snakes are favorite subjects for me, too.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 21, 2018)

Main issues for third party lenses are 1. long term firmware compatibility with newer camera bodies 2. reverse-designed auto-focus protocols usually make AF slightly or markedly slower than OEM lenses. 

Sigma has promised to deal with problem #1 by the lens dock for updating firmware. This may also allow better reverse-designed AF protocols to be introduced.

I have several superb non-OEM lenses (2 manual focus: Voigtlander Apo and Zeiss; 1 Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4), but I will say that I don't shoot action with them. My birding lens is OEM, the lowly but reliable (and portable) 400 f/5.6L


----------



## NancyP (Feb 21, 2018)

lovely snake, Zeidora. 
180 macro, with or without 1.4x TC, is my current snake kit. Always with TC, for cottonmouths, who are cranky beasts. Other local venomous snakes are pretty laid back / predictable / downright shy if treated with respect.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 21, 2018)

Sorry, lovely snake portrait, CHRYOSBERYL! :-[


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 21, 2018)

Zeidora said:


> Currently own a 300/2.8 I and consider replacing it. The Canon II sells for 6K, the current Sigma for 4K, and Tamron is vaporware at present. In that price range, the difference is not sufficient to affect decision on which one to get. One thing I look at is minimum focusing distance: Canon 2 m, Sigma 2.5 m. That is a significant point for me (venomous snake portraits). Not quite ready to pull the plug, I think a Coastal Optics 100 UV will be first.


I think in this kind of case, where you're evidently looking and able to purchase any of them, the Canon is definitely the better buy. IS and weather sealing alone put it way ahead of the Sigma. One has to assume Sigma will rework the 300mm with OS and sealing as part of the Sport range, and Tamron will put out something similar. Until that happens, while I will vouch for Tamron's service and Sigma's quality in general, for _specifically_ 300mm, first-party wins.



NancyP said:


> Main issues for third party lenses are 1. long term firmware compatibility with newer camera bodies 2. reverse-designed auto-focus protocols usually make AF slightly or markedly slower than OEM lenses.
> 
> Sigma has promised to deal with problem #1 by the lens dock for updating firmware. This may also allow better reverse-designed AF protocols to be introduced.
> 
> I have several superb non-OEM lenses (2 manual focus: Voigtlander Apo and Zeiss; 1 Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4), but I will say that I don't shoot action with them. My birding lens is OEM, the lowly but reliable (and portable) 400 f/5.6L


So far, Sigma and Tamron have both kept up-to-date with their USB docks and the latest cameras.
The focus is definitely a bigger problem, but I think in Tamron's case it's not too bad. Tamron have elected to nail focus accuracy and consistency, at the cost of some speed. This is my preference, even in sports & wildlife lenses, because being quick is no good if the shot is blurry anyway. I also find the new Tamrons lenses are about as fast as the early-2000s Canons; not as fast as modern ones or the 90s lenses, but fast enough. My usual test for any long lens is to nip down to the nearby bird rehab and try to catch some shots of a resident Lanner falcon they have there. (Born in captivity at a zoo, too tame to survive in the wild, but is allowed to fly freely nearby.) That thing is around 24" all-round and flies at about 160mph; if a lens can keep up with that, it's good enough in my book. So far the Tamron 100-400 and 150-600 G2 have both kept up, even in English overcast light.
Wish I could say the same for Sigma... but then, Sigma's main market these days is portrait & landscape art shooters, so I understand why focus isn't their #1 priority.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 21, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Sorry, lovely snake portrait, CHRYOSBERYL! :-[



No worries! And thank you! So you go snaking with a 180 and a 1.4X TC... How do you get a cottonmouth to hold still? Or a copperhead? The last one I rescued would not hold still.

Sorry, off-topic.


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 22, 2018)

Nancy (or anybody else). Have you compared 300/2.8 (w&w/o extension rings) vs. 180TC at close range of the 300 for IQ? This something that is on my to-do-list.
Agree on the nice snake portrait Chryosberyl! Have only dealt with our local rattlers (Crotalus oregonensis) [and in Europe with Vipera berus], and they are quite friendly as long as you respect their comfort zone.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 22, 2018)

Zeidora said:


> Nancy (or anybody else). Have you compared 300/2.8 (w&w/o extension rings) vs. 180TC at close range of the 300 for IQ? This something that is on my to-do-list.
> Agree on the nice snake portrait Chryosberyl! Have only dealt with our local rattlers (Crotalus oregonensis) [and in Europe with Vipera berus], and they are quite friendly as long as you respect their comfort zone.



300 f/2.8 with/without extension tubes?

Some specifics here, about halfway down: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx 

Also mentioned is the 300mm f/4 (this lens has a macro designation too).

The 300mm f/2.8 lenses (all 3 generations) have been regarded as Canons best as far as sharpness is concerned. Probably better than the 180 macro too, but whether or not the 300 f/2.8 is useful for you is another matter.

A 1.4x teleconverter can also be used on the 300mm (and 180mm) before or after or in-between extension tube(s). Don't forget about the EF Life Size Converter designed for the 50mm Compact macro.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 22, 2018)

Given a choice, I'd prefer to be 2.5m from a venomous snake than 2.0m.


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 22, 2018)

Danski: I have used the 300/2.8 with extension tubes. Works sufficiently well. IQ is generally assessed at infinity focus (or thereabouts) and close focus plus extension tubes can make IQ worse. So question is, what is better:
- superior lens at suboptimal settings.
- somewhat inferior lens at optimal settings.
Only some testing will resolve that.

Steelee: strike distance is at most body length. I have yet to see a 2 m rattle snake. Story is different say with Australian brown snake ... There I'd run at 10 m.


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > Currently own a 300/2.8 I and consider replacing it. The Canon II sells for 6K, the current Sigma for 4K, and Tamron is vaporware at present. In that price range, the difference is not sufficient to affect decision on which one to get. One thing I look at is minimum focusing distance: Canon 2 m, Sigma 2.5 m. That is a significant point for me (venomous snake portraits). Not quite ready to pull the plug, I think a Coastal Optics 100 UV will be first.
> ...


As you said: latest cameras. Current latest cameras. You do NOT know what will happen in the future but we DO know that Canon lenses will keep being compatible. And ANYONE can express opinions in a forum. It is up to the person asking to decide for themselves. By the way I do have a paperweight 3rd party lens even from the film era (It didn't work on the newest of my Canon film camera!) True it wasn't Tamron (it was a Tokina ATX28-70 2.8 which by the way was nice optically) but that doesn't change a lot. Do you think I will trust 3rd party completely? I may buy a 3rd party out of necessity only if there is no counterpart in Canon (like Sigma 14mm 1.8 ) but I will do it knowning there is a risk (low but risk never the less) But there is NO 100% guarantee that 3rd party lenses will fully work with the future Canon cameras. 

By the way the issues with Sigma lenses from the film era were that they could not stop down and they worked only fully open with Canon digital cameras. 

To sum it up: Anyone can buy 3rd party for any reason (IQ, cost, size, etc) but it's good to do it well-informed of the slight but no zero risks. (And if the cost is significantly lower even in a compatibility case in the far future it will not matter much if the 3rd party vendor has an even better but equally cheap lens).


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 22, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Given a choice, I'd prefer to be 2.5m from a venomous snake than 2.0m.



In my experience, rattlers have a smaller personal space than I. And as Zeidora mentioned, they are pretty well mannered. A more critical factor is that they are frequently in pairs and well-camouflaged. I have been guilty of spotting one, easing in for a photo, then noticing the other inches away from my leg.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 22, 2018)

All, thank you for your perspectives. The 300 f/2.8L V1 remains the most desirable (EX condition, too, for $3K), but for now I'll hold off on any such purchase. Just when will Canon update the 300mm f/4L, anyway? Probably long after ahsanford's 50mm appears.


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> All, thank you for your perspectives. The 300 f/2.8L V1 remains the most desirable (EX condition, too, for $3K), but for now I'll hold off on any such purchase. Just when will Canon update the 300mm f/4L, anyway? Probably long after ahsanford's 50mm appears.


The 300mm f/2.8L IS remains a very good lens.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

Above is a comparison between the latest Tamron 150-600 G2 at 600mm at f/6.3 with Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS with an old (v2) Canon teleconverter at f/6.3 to compare equally.

Canon wins. Also, use a EF2XIII instead the EF2XII of the test and you will see some additional improvement.

Of course you lose the zoom capability. Some may care, some may not (depending on each needs).


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 22, 2018)

tron said:


> The 300mm f/2.8L IS remains a very good lens.
> 
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3
> 
> ...



Thank you and wow - at 300mm, Canon really wins. Which it should, at almost 3X the price. At 600mm, Canon only wins in the center, and not greatly. I assume that is a TC effect.

Thanks again for very interesting data!


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > The 300mm f/2.8L IS remains a very good lens.
> ...


Actually Canon at 600mm wins a lot at the corner (less vignetting, more resolution, less chromatic aberrations, but the corner is less noticed in telephoto bird or action shots anyway. Of course Tamron has value for money. Happy comparisons


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2018)

Sorry, but my usual mantra. TDP is testing only one copy of each lens at different times. My copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C is as sharp at the centre at 600mm f/6.3 as was my now sold 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII at f/5.6 (and my current 400mm DO II + 1.4xTCIII). At 300mm, they were very similar. You have to test a copy of the lens yourself to see whether it is a good copy or not.


----------



## tron (Feb 22, 2018)

If someone has the ability to do that fine but this is not possible everywhere on the planet so someone must make an educated guess at some point.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 23, 2018)

Zeidora said:


> Danski: I have used the 300/2.8 with extension tubes. Works sufficiently well. IQ is generally assessed at infinity focus (or thereabouts) and close focus plus extension tubes can make IQ worse. So question is, what is better:
> - superior lens at suboptimal settings.
> - somewhat inferior lens at optimal settings.
> Only some testing will resolve that.



Given the pro nature of the 300mm f/2.8, I wouldn't expect too much of a variance in image quality when comparing results at MFD and at infinity... but I haven't (and won't) test it.

I frequently use a couple of lenses with extension tubes, and there isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference between the new MFD and "infinity" (maybe around 6 feet in my usage), so it would seem that it shouldn't be a problem to move back just a little bit... or add a little bit more extension tube.

Throwing a 1.4x in there is also interesting.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 24, 2018)

hne said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Clark said:
> ...



Yeah, the Sigma 120-300 seems to struggle a bit in that test with a 2X TC (at least a Sigma one which is what Bryan uses to test Sigma lenses). *Looking at other Sigma telephoto lenses when tested at TDP used with presumably the same Sigma 2X TC, perhaps the poor performance is more indicative of the Sigma 2X TC than the lenses used with it.*

On the other hand, the Sigma with a 1.4X for 420mm at f/5.6 beats the Sigma 150-600mm C at 400mm and f/6.3 fairly handily.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 24, 2018)

*Re: Sigma 120-300/2.8 performance with Canon extenders*

As always, you can find examples of images shot with a particular lens or lens+TC combo at flickr.

Even with an EF 2X III it does well enough in the right hands:



038 by roberts614, on Flickr



IMG_3377 by Joseph Liang, on Flickr



IMG_7222 by Joseph Liang, on Flickr



IMG_5583 by Joseph Liang, on Flickr



IMG_5535 by Joseph Liang, on Flickr

With EF 1.4X III:



004 by roberts614, on Flickr

There are a ton more by the same photog at the same event with the EF 1.4X III included in the search results here:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Sigma%20120-300mm%20f%2F2.8%20Sports

This photog's 'Sigma 120-300mm Sports' album has some pretty good stuff in it. He doesn't say what TCs he is using in the ones with the lens shown as 168-420 or 240-600, but when he uses a 2X Extender with a Canon lens it is reported as the EF 2X III in the EXIF info of those images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yutsungliang/albums/72157650623746695/with/13339600185/


----------



## wang890 (Apr 13, 2018)

hi guys
I had the 300mm 2.8 IS version 1 for a while and have the 2.8 non IS one from 1991 still in my possession, together with a new 400mm IS II. 

just my personal pixel peeping experience, the 300mm non IS is sharper than the IS. I like the size of the old one for my small hand is easier to hold and the IS version 1 is a lot fatter on the body even a little lighter. build quality the old one has a more dense feel and buttons are made from copper not plastic.

last weekend I tested the 400 IS II with my 300 non IS on a 1ds Mark II and I can't tell the sharpness difference, I take the 300 non IS to the field more because it's lighter. but one thing I remember is extender worked a little better on the IS version 1, that is the 2x III, with that said I do get great results with the non IS as well, even at 600 5.6, go down to 6.3 improve a bit. 

the 400 2.8 IS II take extenders well even at 800mm it's sharper than both lens at 600mm.


----------

