# Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 15, 2013)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II here.


----------



## sanj (May 15, 2013)

Love the weather sealing photo. Wow.


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 15, 2013)

sanj said:


> Love the weather sealing photo. Wow.



+1

sigh, yet another lens to lust over and I can't afford! :


----------



## Plainsman (May 15, 2013)

The review states.... "4 stops (IS) brings 1/300th rating down to 1/50 th sec...."

.......1 stop would be 1/150th
.......2 stops would be 1/75th
.......3 stops would be 1/38th
and 4 stops would be 1/20th approx surely!


----------



## acoll123 (May 15, 2013)

I already have the version I of this lens and have been thinking about selling it and upgrading. Is it worth it? I also have a 1.4x III and use it to get close enough to 400 that I don't think I can justify getting the 400 as a second lens. I would also love to have the new 200-400 but the cost is just ridiculous although it would be perfect for me - I shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse . . . ). So again anybody that has upgraded for the version I of this lens, was it worth it?

Thanks,

Andy


----------



## Kerry B (May 15, 2013)

I recently upgraded from mk1 and am absolutely delighted I did. Performance is stunning even with 1.4 mk111, extender. 2 x extender mk111 is still very good with a slight loss of IQ. Is there much difference between the lenses, I would say yes, using the lens at f2.8 is out of this world. I for one will never own a better lens. Use on a full frame body for best results, I have the 5dmk111 as well as the 7d.

My main use of the lens is wildlife, especially animal photography, the lens is really to short for birds but with extenders does the job. And yes I am fussy about image quality.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 15, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> The review states.... "4 stops (IS) brings 1/300th rating down to 1/50 th sec...."
> 
> .......1 stop would be 1/150th
> .......2 stops would be 1/75th
> ...



AH, totally right: 320th - 160th, 1/80th, 1/40th...


----------



## kennephoto (May 15, 2013)

I love the cons section he states this lens is a gateway lens pretty funny stuff!


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 15, 2013)

Pfffffft...Ottawa Senators. Great owl photo!!


----------



## JVLphoto (May 15, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Pfffffft...Ottawa Senators. Great owl photo!!



Pretty girl and all you see is the Jersey, tsk tsk


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 15, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Pfffffft...Ottawa Senators. Great owl photo!!
> ...



Yeah, well, it's a nasty sweater and it got all my attention.


----------



## Mick (May 15, 2013)

I have Canons top zoom, new 500 and the 300. Im no pixel peeper and if it needs to be said Ill say it. If its good, ill say its good, if its bad ill say its bad. I rate Canons top primes at 9.9/10. The new ones are damm near perfect. I have Canons top zooms which I rate at 9.9/10 (for a zoom and damm close to a prime). I rate the new 300 10/10. Lazer fast autofocus, less weight, 4 stop IS that works, etc etc all good. But for some reason and I dont know why, every time I take the 300 out, the pics I get back have an x factor I have never seen in another lens. I love Canons new lens's but the 300 is king.


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2013)

This review is very much a waste of time. It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.


----------



## eml58 (May 16, 2013)

acoll123 said:


> I already have the version I of this lens and have been thinking about selling it and upgrading. Is it worth it? I also have a 1.4x III and use it to get close enough to 400 that I don't think I can justify getting the 400 as a second lens. I would also love to have the new 200-400 but the cost is just ridiculous although it would be perfect for me - I shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse . . . ). So again anybody that has upgraded for the version I of this lens, was it worth it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andy



Hi Andy, if you can afford it, absolutely do it.

I was always impressed with the Version 1 300f/2.8, but the advantages of the Version 2 are immediate weight gain, this Lens is about as Hand Holdable (is that a word??) as the 70-200f/2.8 L II, it's amazing how they got this (and the 400V2/600v2) Lens so light. You will see an immediate gain in Focus snap on, this V2 focuses faster, I get a lot more In Focus shots now than I did with the V1 Lens, agreed, I'm now using the 5DMK III & 1Dx so some o0f the faster response etc perhaps go to the new Cameras, I used the Version 1 Lens with the 5DMK II & 1DMK IV.

I have the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 v2, 400f/2.8 v2 & 600f/4 v2, the 200-400f/4 I'll have hopefully by the end June this year, and the only Lens I intend then selling will be the 400f/2.8 v2, the 300 I'll likely die with, this without any doubt is the sharpest Lens I own. The 200f/2 is no slouch either, but it's not as fast as the 300 v2.

The 3 Lenses i have that I use the most & just love the Images that come from them, in order of Love, 300f/2.8 v2, 200f/2, 85 f/1.2 L II.


----------



## risc32 (May 16, 2013)

i agree with alan. 
Also, i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the unflattering nature headshots taken with this lens. either i didn't read it correctly, and i might not of as i started to space out and skip over the boring stuff, or he is saying it's not good for head shots. if that's what he's saying, i really have to call BS. either he doesn't get that perspective isn't based on what lens, but on distances, or ....? or i don't know..... he likes big noses, and little ears. 
but maybe i'm silly, if you've got some examples of how a 300mm lens makes for crappy headshots i'd like to take a look.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

AlanF said:


> This review is very much a waste of time. It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.



But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though ;D

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though. Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

risc32 said:


> i agree with alan.
> Also, i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the unflattering nature headshots taken with this lens. either i didn't read it correctly, and i might not of as i started to space out and skip over the boring stuff, or he is saying it's not good for head shots. if that's what he's saying, i really have to call BS. either he doesn't get that perspective isn't based on what lens, but on distances, or ....? or i don't know..... he likes big noses, and little ears.
> but maybe i'm silly, if you've got some examples of how a 300mm lens makes for crappy headshots i'd like to take a look.



Maybe I wrote it wrong, so I present a headshot taken (of me). See how the compression just flattens my head SO MUCH that it looks wide and distended? I'd be hard pressed to find someone going for *that* look. While shooting super telephoto may not be my strong suit, I do like to think I know a thing or two about portraits, what my clients like, and what gets published, by now.

And no, I don't like big noses and little ears, but there's a flattering "sweet spot" for head-shots that I hope we can agree is somewhere above 24mm and below 300mm.

Now pulled back a bit the photos make more sense. Maybe a 1/4 profile or "bust" shot works, but at that 2m minimum focusing distance I'll pass.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

I also have this photo of my son, which is from a bit farther back than 2 meters, it's not as bad as my face (after all, it was *my* face), but his ears now have become bigger than they need to be since they're completely flattened to the frame. Of course it's a bit exaggerated by his head being turned sideways, but my point is that this is NOT a portrait lens, not for the price, not for the weight, with the exception of full-body environmental portraits like I did of the young lady in the Sens jersey.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

It also made my bunny look extra fat at close range.


----------



## AprilForever (May 16, 2013)

"Cons

Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"

Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> "Cons
> 
> Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"
> 
> Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...



At least for my needs I've written anything over 200mm off... but that doesn't exclude the 200mm f/2.0 L IS MMMMMMMMMMMM


----------



## acoll123 (May 16, 2013)

eml58 said:


> acoll123 said:
> 
> 
> > I already have the version I of this lens and have been thinking about selling it and upgrading. Is it worth it? I also have a 1.4x III and use it to get close enough to 400 that I don't think I can justify getting the 400 as a second lens. I would also love to have the new 200-400 but the cost is just ridiculous although it would be perfect for me - I shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse . . . ). So again anybody that has upgraded for the version I of this lens, was it worth it?
> ...



Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts - I thought about waiting and selling my 300 (and a kidney) to help finance the 200-400. I have no doubt that would be a perfect lens for me. Maybe they will come out with a 100-400 ver 2 - that along with a 300 ver 2 would be a great combo as well.


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > This review is very much a waste of time. It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.
> ...



If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title. As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 16, 2013)

300mm 2.8 is beyond my pocket but am seriously thinking about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 S. Would love to see a IQ comparison between the two. No doubt the 300 would be superior but for less than half the price of the 300 the zoom with my 2x III is probably the closest I would ever get to a fastish super tele.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

AlanF said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Talk to the boss, it's his shop.

Though, my understanding of the term "review" is that it can vary based on that of the reviewer. While standards are met by individuals, are they not all of varying degrees of of both objectivity and subjectivity by both the reviewer and the discerning reader? I'm assuming not every review you read previously that you considered a review was identical to one another, words copied verbatim. Perhaps the findings were the same, it's hard to argue math if it's there, which is why I don't even bother including test charts samples, cup size and SAT scores - that's all out there for everyone to see. I'm not saying my take on the 300 was a particularly good one, just the best that I could produce. I even differ to this point in my closing sentence "And while my curiosity was piqued, I think for the more specialized super-telephoto focal lengths, I should step aside and let someone else handle those reviews."

Indeed, I won't be writing-opinions-that-pretend-to-be-your-definition-of-a-review because I'm not qualified to. I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations or standards, it's like my relationship with my father all over again.

To make it up to you, here's a photo of a duck I took:


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> 300mm 2.8 is beyond my pocket but am seriously thinking about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 S. Would love to see a IQ comparison between the two. No doubt the 300 would be superior but for less than half the price of the 300 the zoom with my 2x III is probably the closest I would ever get to a fastish super tele.



I'd love to get my hands on the Sigma too. It presents an exciting value proposition to many of us who don't always need the 300mm length, but would like to have it when possible.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 16, 2013)

AlanF said:


> If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title. As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there.



Ah Alan, I can't stay mad at you, I'm only arguing because you're right and I'm completely self conscious when I know something isn't great.

I have an extra level of respect for you after reading this: "That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing."

On that too, we see eye-to-eye.

So, can you help out people who come to the forum here? Add your own thoughts and experiences with the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II - as someone who has truly put it through it's paces and have a level of expertise that many don't. Tell us what *you* think!


----------



## AlanF (May 16, 2013)

I spend too much time editing scientific articles, and it can spill over. OK, I'll write a "Perspective" some time on how the 300 mm f/2.8 II transformed my photography.


----------



## Sporgon (May 16, 2013)

I think maybe you should own one of these lenses Justin. The pictures produced were the best from one of your review to date !


----------



## EchoLocation (May 16, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> To make it up to you, here's a photo of a duck I took:


this made my day! you didn't have to make anything up to me(i really liked your review,) but i still appreciate your free duck picture!


----------



## barton springs (May 16, 2013)

acoll123 said:


> I already have the version I of this lens and have been thinking about selling it and upgrading. Is it worth it? I also have a 1.4x III and use it to get close enough to 400 that I don't think I can justify getting the 400 as a second lens. I would also love to have the new 200-400 but the cost is just ridiculous although it would be perfect for me - I shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse . . . ). So again anybody that has upgraded for the version I of this lens, was it worth it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andy



Andy,

Since you have a 300 already and know how good it is I can't imagine dropping all that
coin for what would be a slight improvement. I have a 300 too and know it's incredible.

I consider guys like us lucky to have gotten in on this lens while the cost was still at a
manageable level. I paid for $4k, standard price. Now it's almost double that.

My advice is spend your money on some other addition to your kit. The kind of money
you're considering to spend could get you a 1DX... if you don't already have one. Lot's
of new toys out there 

Rick
Austin, TX


----------



## lukemike (May 17, 2013)

> A strange phenomenon I ran into was when the lens blurs out more detailed backgrounds, like shrubs without leaves. The pattern and lines left, while still very much out of focus, were still a bit distracting, though not as distracting as in-focus twigs.



@JVLphoto
Thanks a lot for the review, I really enjoyed it.
Could you please post some photos of that phenomenon. I noticed it with 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and would like to know if it's at the same level or better. Thank you very much.


----------



## expatinasia (May 17, 2013)

AlanF said:


> It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.



I have to say I somewhat agree with this. I was quite excited to see that a new review of this lens had been posted (though let's be honest we all know what the conclusion is going to be), and wow those pictures of the owls - amazing! But it was written (as he readily admits) by someone that does not really need, or use that focal length on a regular basis. This is a very expensive lens, though still much cheaper than 400 f/2.8 II, so really the amount of people who are "wondering" whether a 300 f/2.8 is what they need are going to be few and far between, as it is so specialised.

I think the reviewer would have been much better off writing about the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS, because they are focal lengths where he seems to spend more of his time, and as it is much more affordable and versatile it has a much broader potential market base.

When I read it, I found this last part of the conclusion very interesting:



> And while my curiosity was piqued, I think for the more specialized super-telephoto focal lengths, I should step aside and let someone else handle those reviews.



I agree wholeheartedly. 

Reviews are tricky things and my favourites are tdp when it comes to lenses. I do think a lens review should only be written by someone that uses the focal length in question frequently rather than someone who is wondering about the extra reach.

I, for example, am saving for the 400 f/2.8 ii but of course have my eyes open for new reviews on the 300 (hey it's a lot cheaper) and the new 200-400 1.4x (but that is not f/2.8 so I doubt it is a realistic option).

Did I say I love the pictures of the owls! Awesome shots.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jun 12, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.
> ...



Yup, you'll find anything in that focal range covered by someone other than me... it took *that* lens to realize it, though, since I had been pretty good with everything up until then (including the Canon 200 f/2.0 L IS). I'd love to have a look at Sigma's new 120-300 f/2.8 though, since, like I said, having the reach when necessary sure is handy.

Also, putting my money where my mouth is, I ended up buying a 1.4 teleconverter to have with me and stick onto my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II.

Sorry the article didn't live up to your expectations, I struggled with it as it is, and you'll be in for a treat when the other telephoto reviews come in.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 3, 2013)

With all honesty, being a person who could not justify or really afford the 300 II, I am just thrilled to death with this lens and the two new converters. Thanks to my dear parents for some inheritance. It's hand holdability is a very big plus and I'm enjoying it at close range with 2X as a close-up lens. My only worry is how to deal with it in countries that are prone to thefts. I'd hate to leave it at home but ....!

I'll live with the extenders slight loss of IQ over going for the longer heavier lenses. With the 6D, dropping to F5.6 for 600 reach is no problem at all.

If you love shooting nature you won't regret this lens!

Here's an example of what gives me a thrill when I get back to my computer, 

Bee 300 X2.
Teal pair 300 X1.4
Dragonflies 300 

Jack


----------



## stein (Dec 16, 2014)

Hi
if you can afford it -buy it!! I only have the first version and is very pleased, the new is even better!
I use it handheld a lot, even for a whole day shooting whales from small boats - no problem.
Attach a Common tern with old version 1.4x extender (since then bought the III ) on 7D
http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com/BirdsoftheNorth/Seabirds/i-G5F3PJH/5/X2/_MG_5351%20%282%29-X2.jpg


----------

