# Bought the 300mm 2.8 ii and think its huge



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 19, 2014)

I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 19, 2014)

Are you a professional sports photographer? Otherwise, I think if you don't know what to do with the lens, you probably made a mistake spending that much money on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2014)

I tried out a 300/2.8L IS II the other day, it was in the rentals section of a 'going out of business' Calumet location. I was amazed at how small and light it felt. 

Of course, I've been using a 600/4L IS II for 1.5 years now. 

I pulled out my debit card when the guy told me it was $3600, but he needed to check with the liquidation manager if that was the MkI or MkII price, and the manager said rentals weren't for sale. Damn!


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 19, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> Are you a professional sports photographer? Otherwise, I think if you don't know what to do with the lens, you probably made a mistake spending that much money on it.



No but i have been doing indoor high school sports and getting into wildlife. Thought I would try is it aince my 70-200 makes me crop too much. I bought it for that purpose but just trying to justify if its worth it or if I should get the 300mm f4 which is cheaper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> No but i have been doing indoor high school sports and getting into wildlife. Thought I would try is it aince my 70-200 makes me crop too much. I bought it for that purpose but just trying to justify if its worth it or if I should get the 300mm f4 which is cheaper.



You have a 70-200/2.8 II. The 70-200/4L IS is cheaper, smaller and lighter. It's also f/4. Do you need the extra stop or not?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > No but i have been doing indoor high school sports and getting into wildlife. Thought I would try is it aince my 70-200 makes me crop too much. I bought it for that purpose but just trying to justify if its worth it or if I should get the 300mm f4 which is cheaper.
> ...



I would like it but not sure if its worth $5800 more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 20, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I would like it but not sure if its worth $5800 more.



If you are asking like that, it isn't worth it. I have a MkI IS and don't use it often now, but there is no way I'd sell it because I know that when I want it I really want it, if an expensive piece of gear like that is not screaming to you just liquidise it and put the money somewhere else.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 20, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



No doubt this is one of Canon fastest AF prime, sharp, and very friendly for handheld(wish I can say to my 400mm f2.8 IS II). I shoot indoor swimming twice a month, the 300mm still a bit short for close-up shots for my taste. I went with 400mm and pair it up with my 70-200 f2.8 IS II for longer distance shooting. LOVE IT


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 20, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.



It's not huge it is just more than you are used to. I started with a Canon 350D and an 18-200 lens - I thought that was bulky! I now normally carry an 800 F5.6, 300 F2.8 IS Mk1, extenders, tripod, head, 1DX, etc etc in a pack that is over 10lbs before I fill it - you just get used to it.
Just look at the images you get and it will feel lighter!


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.



Heh, I just got a Sigma 300-800 and it makes my 300 f2.8 look like a toy. Also, I'm trying to imagine what life is like for someone who can drop seven thousand united states dollars on something they can't even think of a use for.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.
> ...



I probably did not phrase the question correctly. I have intentions of indoor sports/events, wildlife with teleconverters. Just after it came its big and heavy. Just having second thoughts on tying up that much money on something I will use sometimes. I do want the 400 but the cost is too high. Its not money I want to throw around so after some shooting I was looking for opinions to see if anyone has been down this road and had suggestions. The IQ is awesome and the af is fast.


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2014)

Well, I use my 300 for my primary wildlife lens. With a 2x TC, its a hand holdable 600mm 5.6 with a very short minimum focus distance so its great for photos of small passerines, shorebirds or shooting from a hide. It's easy enough to hike with once you get used to it especially with a nice black rapid style strap. I've also used it for field sports with and without the 1.4x TC. Its good for tight portraiture, especially for indoor sports where you will definitely need the wide aperture. 

There's plenty of good uses for the lens if you shoot the style of photography it calls for. Mine is the ancient non-IS version and I would instantly trade up for the vII if I could afford it. I bought the sigmonster because I got a crazy good deal on it and it will come in very handy for when I'm distance limited like, say, shooting waterfowl or in a restricted habitat but I will almost certainly continue to use the 300 primarily. It is just too good and too useful for wildlife and sports. I'd say keep it around for a bit and see if you use it. You can't really lose too much money if you find yourself selling it on later and you'll never be hard pressed to find a buyer. I'd guess that if you have any interest in wildlife or sports photography, you won't ever want to get rid of it.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 20, 2014)

Yeah. It is big but:
-Even cropped it blows the 100-400 out of the water in most cases,
-With a TC it still exceeds the IQ of my 100-400,
-You really can hand-hold it.

I know I won't use it every day, but then again, I did not pay the present MAP for it either : .

Thinking of selling a nice 100-400, BTW.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Well, I use my 300 for my primary wildlife lens. With a 2x TC, its a hand holdable 600mm 5.6 with a very short minimum focus distance so its great for photos of small passerines, shorebirds or shooting from a hide. It's easy enough to hike with once you get used to it especially with a nice black rapid style strap. I've also used it for field sports with and without the 1.4x TC. Its good for tight portraiture, especially for indoor sports where you will definitely need the wide aperture.
> 
> There's plenty of good uses for the lens if you shoot the style of photography it calls for. Mine is the ancient non-IS version and I would instantly trade up for the vII if I could afford it. I bought the sigmonster because I got a crazy good deal on it and it will come in very handy for when I'm distance limited like, say, shooting waterfowl or in a restricted habitat but I will almost certainly continue to use the 300 primarily. It is just too good and too useful for wildlife and sports. I'd say keep it around for a bit and see if you use it. You can't really lose too much money if you find yourself selling it on later and you'll never be hard pressed to find a buyer. I'd guess that if you have any interest in wildlife or sports photography, you won't ever want to get rid of it.



Thanks for the type of answer I was looking for. I PP a few BIF and was amazed at how sharp this lens is. I think I am going to use it for a few more weeks then make a decision from there.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I tried out a 300/2.8L IS II the other day, it was in the rentals section of a 'going out of business' Calumet location. I was amazed at how small and light it felt.
> 
> Of course, I've been using a 600/4L IS II for 1.5 years now.
> 
> I pulled out my debit card when the guy told me it was $3600, but he needed to check with the liquidation manager if that was the MkI or MkII price, and the manager said rentals weren't for sale. Damn!



Get one Neuro - you won't regret it for a minute. It's awesome at 300 and great at 600, and relatively speaking is as light as a feather. I crossed paths on a hike on Saturday with a fellow with a 600 and a monopod, fabulous lens but not a lightweight.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.



How much can you sell it for if you want to buy something else? I think of all of my gear as having money in escrow.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 21, 2014)

I had a old Canon 600mm f/4 non IS, and one of the original Nikon Autofocus 300mm f/2.8 lenses. The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 seems like a light toy compared to those. I have not used the 300mm f/2.8, but expect its a similar size.

For me, that's too big, I'm downsizing due to my hands getting weak, I sold my 1D MK IV and my bigger lenses. The 100-400mmL and 70-200 f/2.8 are as big as I can handle.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:
 

> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I use my 300 for my primary wildlife lens. With a 2x TC, its a hand holdable 600mm 5.6 with a very short minimum focus distance so its great for photos of small passerines, shorebirds or shooting from a hide. It's easy enough to hike with once you get used to it especially with a nice black rapid style strap. I've also used it for field sports with and without the 1.4x TC. Its good for tight portraiture, especially for indoor sports where you will definitely need the wide aperture.
> ...



What is your reason for shooting? Why do you own what you already own? Regardless of the answers, is this lens purchase in line with your previous purchases and will it make a difference in your performance, enjoyment and advance your skill?

I notice that you already own 2 5D3 bodies along with other expensive lenses so money obviously isn't an issue and you say as much. So I think your plan is sound, keep it for a few weeks and enjoy it, then decide.

Keep in mind that you can throw a 1.4 teleconverter on the 70-200/f2.8 and only lose a stop with a max of 280/f4 mm if you sell it. Not as good as the 300mm/f2.8 but you can easily get the stop back in post with the sensor on the 5D3. I shoot swimming that way all the time. Of course I shoot for fun, I'm not shooting for Getty Images.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 21, 2014)

Congrats on the new lens and just remember, always look professional when carrying it. 8)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 21, 2014)

As stated, I also thought it was huge and expensive when I bought mine and now both of those superlatives never cross my mind. I just pinch myself after every shot. It's good for all the usuall shots and also very nice with or without a 36mm extension tube for near macro, for things like butterflys, *without being that close*.

Not the greatest sample but it makes my point, 300 X2.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 21, 2014)

Here's a butterfly 300 X2, again 100%crop. If you love nature like I do you can't help but love this lens.

Jack


----------



## eml58 (Apr 21, 2014)

Nice Jack, and a perfect example of what this Lens can do outside the ordinary, which I think is what the Op was looking for.

This Lens is just about perfect, it's in the Bag on almost any trip I do, it's sharp as a razor, works beautifully on it's own, with a 1.4x III and even a 2x III, the weight in Version II is completely hand holdable, I rarely use this Lens on a monopod or a Tripod.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 21, 2014)

I shoot indoor sports frequently, mostly using my 70/200 and 24-70 with a 1dx...My 300 2.8 is rarely used for indoor stuff.

With that said, If I didn't own a 1dx or a 300 2.8, (your previous situation) and I was looking to upgrade my gear, I would definitely choose to spend the $7000 on the 1dx versus a 3002.8ii. 

If you had said I'm going to be shooting field sports, then yes, the 300 with your 5d3 would probably get you more bang for your buck.

Return the 300, buy a 1dx, sell a 5d3 and use the money saved for another lens.


----------



## Canon1 (Apr 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course, I've been using a 600/4L IS II for 1.5 years now.



I used to shoot with a 600mm NON IS. I practically needed a Sherpa to get it to location...


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 21, 2014)

That is an option, and if you can go without is, the 400 5.6L is an excellent lens that is very light and small, and gives an extra 100mm of reach. I love mine. Way cheaper too.

sek



KKCFamilyman said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a professional sports photographer? Otherwise, I think if you don't know what to do with the lens, you probably made a mistake spending that much money on it.
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 21, 2014)

Another thing that is very very nice about this lens when shooting wide is the bokeh. Very special.

sek



KKCFamilyman said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I use my 300 for my primary wildlife lens. With a 2x TC, its a hand holdable 600mm 5.6 with a very short minimum focus distance so its great for photos of small passerines, shorebirds or shooting from a hide. It's easy enough to hike with once you get used to it especially with a nice black rapid style strap. I've also used it for field sports with and without the 1.4x TC. Its good for tight portraiture, especially for indoor sports where you will definitely need the wide aperture.
> ...


----------



## applecider (Apr 21, 2014)

Steve don't want to get off topic but if you have the sigmonster would you please start a thread and post some images taken with it and with the teleconverter.

With regards the Op...
The 300 will grow on you and it is really a 420 f4.0 with a 1.4 tele, and way smaller and easier to control than the 400mm f2.8 i or ii.


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 21, 2014)

I'm dreaming of the day I might one day obtain this lens. To tide me over, I picked up a 30 yr old Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AIS lens. It's about the same size and weight of the Canon, and I thought it was massive and heavy at first too. Now I can't imagine going somewhere without it. Many of my favorite shots are now taken with this, and I find myself looking for excuses to take it out. I expect that once you get used to the lens, take it out, kick the tires for a bit, and test it in various scenarios, you'll discover the same thing.

For my lens, it's harder to get the focusing just right, real tough to get shots of action (this was the olden day's sports lens!) but when I land the shot, I'm happier with the results of this lens than my others. In your case, the AF and IS will make it much easier to get good results using the lens handheld. 

For the focal length, it's great fun to just sit back on the far side of my yard and unobtrusively get shots of my kids playing around. Sometimes I'll throw on the 1.4x converter, and the kids will hardly notice I'm there. Here's a few of my favorites:



Hard Labor by yorgasor, on Flickr



Abby Rope 2 by yorgasor, on Flickr



Skating Fiend by yorgasor, on Flickr


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 21, 2014)

Right on yorgasor.

This morning, 300 X2. Who says blonds have more fun!

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Apr 21, 2014)

I used to own the 300 f2.8, and found that it wasn't the weight and size, but the FL that made it stay at home most of the time. I switched to the 200 f2.0 which weighs about the same as a 300 mk1, and I use it very often, absolutely love it. 

I tried the usual neck straps for carrying and found them to be completely hopeless, my neck was gone in 15 minutes. Bought a Black rapid and now it's just a joy to bring, it could have been lighter, but when you see the images it's just so worth it..


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 21, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.



First - if you do not have one already - get a shoulder strap like the black rapid or equivalent which will make you feel much more mobile. Second, consider getting a monopod. Just to save you some weight compared to hand-holding it. I normally do not use any support, but after a skiing accident this Winter, I sometimes bring a tripod just to avoid over-exerting my still-healing arm.

For uses let me suggest: 

- Wildlife - which surely is a reason people get this lens. Its far easier to lug around than the 400mm f/2.8 and takes a 1.4x really well. Go to the zoo and check it out one day!
- Its a sure hit for outdoor sports. Especially for action shots where people are moving towards/away from you. And your lens even has a special IS setting for these kinds of shots that works very well. I have taken lots of middle- and high school sports shots with a 300mm f/2.8.
- I use this lens primarily for street pictures. Not a lot of people do because its large, but to me the blur effect when shooting 300mm @ f/2.8 is just great to take away the often confusion and colourful city backdrops. Maybe a niche for you too?
- Shots covering different heights (hills, waves, rolling streets, stairs etc.) often benefit from the added compression effect of a semi-long lens.
- Water sports (at sea/ocean) is another perfect use; sailing, surfing etc. Reach is king here.
- If you are into details and abstracts you can use the ultra slim DOF and fairly long reach to take shots that others simply cannot- at least not with their iphones(!) 
- Finally, take it to events such as music, open air shows etc. many people will actually give way to you and your lens as they ascertain you are shooting for a living and need the space (I don't misuse this myself, but the effect is clearly there). On the downside I understand that some events may not let you in with a big white because its a "pro" lens.

Hope you end up using it. The one thing you do not want is to have it lying around - in stead make someone else very happy with a (slightly) discounted private sale. 

Happy shooting!


----------



## Steve (Apr 21, 2014)

applecider said:


> Steve don't want to get off topic but if you have the sigmonster would you please start a thread and post some images taken with it and with the teleconverter.



I actually did! I started it hoping to get some opinions before I bought it but ended up getting it before anyone replied. I haven't had a chance to really do anything with it (I haven't even properly MFA'd it yet) because of work, school and weather but I'm hoping to get at it later this week. I'll post samples in that thread when I can.



Maiaibing said:


> - Finally, take it to events such as music, open air shows etc. many people will actually give way to you and your lens as they ascertain you are shooting for a living and need the space (I don't misuse this myself, but the effect is clearly there).



This is a pretty cool effect. I've had people hand me press releases and ask me if I want to shoot from the stage at rallies and events that I just showed up at as a spectator. Its also really really really awesome when literally every single person you see when you are hiking wants to tell you about the great blue heron they saw or makes some joke about taking pictures of hummingbirds in orbit or whatever. I can't even imagine how it is for you guys with the 600's. I guess I'll find out with that Siggy!


----------



## curtisnull (Apr 22, 2014)

scottkinfw said:


> Another thing that is very very nice about this lens when shooting wide is the bokeh. Very special.
> 
> +1 ...... Love the bokeh on this lens. It seems strange, but I often use this lens for a portrait lens for close up work.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 22, 2014)

+1...the 300mm f2.8 IS II & 400mm IS II are more likely be used for sport, however, I agree with Scott. Both lenses are quite amazing to shoot portrait - even a simple flower shot below  



curtisnull said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing that is very very nice about this lens when shooting wide is the bokeh. Very special.
> ...


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 22, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I felt uncomfortable for the first time ever with this lens. Its awesome fast and sharp but wonder if the limited use will be worth tying up $7300. Any uses that would be helpful to try.
> ...



I _love_ this effect! I'm still trying to sneak over to a golf course to get a shot of the smooth, green rolling mounds on the course with my 300mm. In the meantime, I got this shot of the spring blossoms on trees around the corner from my house:



Blossoms By The Road 2 by yorgasor, on Flickr


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 22, 2014)

curtisnull said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > It seems strange, but I often use this lens for a portrait lens for close up work.
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 22, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> curtisnull said:
> 
> 
> > scottkinfw said:
> ...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 27, 2014)

I would love this lens!!!! Though it is a big investment, and from what i hear, a gateway lens for it's bigger brothers!


----------



## kaihp (Apr 28, 2014)

It was a wee bit too long for the distance (the guy next to me shot with a 200/2L), but I think the focal length turned out very well: full body at the start of the catwalk, turning to half-profile size at the end of the catwalk.

Now, the only problem left is the idiot operating the buttons and setting cannot seem to find good AF settings that give consistent focus every shot (this must be the photographers version of "a classic case of PEBKAC").

5D3, 300mm f/2.8L II, ISO 400, 1/400sec, f/2.8 (un-cropped).


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2014)

For the first shot, full length with the model walking, I'd use a pre chosen single point in Servo, just select the top middle point (or the next one around the edge if possible) and crop slightly to give better framing in post, often you can batch process the crop too. For the turn and half-profile shot the same AF setting will work, but I might be tempted, because I am a One Shot AF fan, to toggle to One Shot, you can program the four black buttons on the lens to do this.

Just don't get mixed up with trying to move focus points, the models move fast and if you lose one you won't have time for the AF to regain them and get your shot, choose one and stick with it. If you look at almost any runway series from any shooter they will all be shot with the same framing and point of focus. This not only makes it easier for the photographer but it gives viewers a much clearer comparison of the look the designers have created. If the publisher wants something more dynamic then the designers can crop and rotate etc to give that look.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> For the first shot, full length with the model walking, I'd use a pre chosen single point in Servo, just select the top middle point (or the next one around the edge if possible) and crop slightly to give better framing in post, often you can batch process the crop too. For the turn and half-profile shot the same AF setting will work, but I might be tempted, because I am a One Shot AF fan, to toggle to One Shot, you can program the four black buttons on the lens to do this.
> 
> Just don't get mixed up with trying to move focus points, the models move fast and if you lose one you won't have time for the AF to regain them and get your shot, choose one and stick with it. If you look at almost any runway series from any shooter they will all be shot with the same framing and point of focus. This not only makes it easier for the photographer but it gives viewers a much clearer comparison of the look the designers have created. If the publisher wants something more dynamic then the designers can crop and rotate etc to give that look.



Aye, this is very close to what I did. I used a (semi)fixed focus point (played around with the top/2nd-top row points), and then panned/changed composition as they walked the runway. I used the AI servo mode, though, attached to the shutter button. I previously tried some of cervantes recommended settings, so I may have been fouling up the AF settings.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2014)

kaihp said:


> Aye, this is very close to what I did. I used a (semi)fixed focus point (played around with the top/2nd-top row points), and then panned/changed composition as they walked the runway. I used the AI servo mode, though, attached to the shutter button. I previously tried some of cervantes recommended settings, so I may have been fouling up the AF settings.



That could well be your problem, BIF in good light, as per cervantes settings, are about as far away from a tuned AF set up as you can get for a model runway shoot in poorer light.

The beauty and problem with modern AF is it is so customisable that settings for one subject and situation will be very bad for another. The "twitchiness" he is inducing in his custom settings do not make so much sense for runway shooting. The Accel/Deccel setting isn't appropriate for runways, the model's speed is comparatively uniform, and the Tracking Sensitivity is the opposite of what makes sense for runways.

I'd reset to factory and work methodically from there, indeed I'd expect factory to give you a much higher keeper rate than the 30% you are getting.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That could well be your problem, BIF in good light, as per cervantes settings, are about as far away from a tuned AF set up as you can get for a model runway shoot in poorer light.
> 
> The beauty and problem with modern AF is it is so customisable that settings for one subject and situation will be very bad for another. The "twitchiness" he is inducing in his custom settings do not make so much sense for runway shooting. The Accel/Deccel setting isn't appropriate for runways, the model's speed is comparatively uniform, and the Tracking Sensitivity is the opposite of what makes sense for runways.
> 
> I'd reset to factory and work methodically from there, indeed I'd expect factory to give you a much higher keeper rate than the 30% you are getting.



Good points and I totally agree on the customizability can be a trapdoor to problems. I've given the body a Factory Reset + Custom Functions Reset, and will go out tomorrow evening to give it a new try.

I think the automatic selection AF vs Zone AF mode setting (p 74 in the manual) have been messing with me, as it seemed to auto-select the AF points, despite I had selected a single AF point.

Thanks to PBD as well as mackguyver and Menace over in the 300mm thread for suggestions. I'll keep you posted on my findings.

I'll try the 61-point "full auto" selection and the manual 1/5/9-point AF modes for comparison.


----------

