# Talk about your ef 300mm f/2.8



## YuengLinger (Dec 8, 2014)

I'd love to hear user's/owner's thoughts about their 300mm f/2.8 prime lenses, version I or II. I would be buying version II, but I'm most interested in learning more about this particular FL. Note I currently shoot with a 5DIII, and my go-to portrait lens is the ef 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II.

I'm a sucker for fast primes, but I'm mainly a portrait photographer who occasionally shoots weddings. For passionate fun, I do as much landscape as I can find time for. 

I know only what I've read on the web and heard in Arthur Morris workshops about the 300mm's.

To me, the focal length seems too short for nature and most sports, while being too long for portraits. I could see it useful at weddings where natural light is all that is allowed, but don't see any examples of such use...

I've read Justin's very helpful review, and I see his examples of portraits as reasons to be wary. Note that I'm not intending to get into bird photography, but would be doing some "citizen journalism" from time to time.

Also, I've read a couple of good threads here about using TC's and the options of going longer, so please don't talk much about those tangent topics.

I'd really like to read your thoughts about the ef 300mm 2.8 lenses--and see some samples. Thanks!


----------



## kaihp (Dec 8, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I'd really like to read your thoughts about the ef 300mm 2.8 lenses--and see some samples. Thanks!



I hope you've taken a look at the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM samples thread which shows that the 300mm can be quite versatile.
Of course, there is an element of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" with those kinds of threads ;D

I went for the 300mm because I found that the 70-200mm was a wee bit short from time to time, and the 400mm f/2.8L was just ... too big and heavy, and too long for me on a crop camera (I since moved to FF). Full disclosure: I did have the 400mm f/2.8L MkI 

I think the biggest lure is the sheer versatility of the 300mm: stunning bokeh, not too long, and if it's a bit too short, just slab on a MkII/III extender. And you can handhold this thing.
So while it is a "sports and fashion shows" lens, it can also be used on large and not too skittich wildlife.

For portraits, the 200mm f/2L is likely to be more useful, but for me, gaining a single stop is not worth it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 8, 2014)

Quite possibly one of the finest lenses canon has ever made. My mk1 was fantastic but upgraded to the mk2 to get the extra 2 stops of image stabilization and save a little weight in my backpack.

With the extenders you get images that lose only a little IQ which makes it a quite versatile lens. My 600 f4 is sharper but not by much. The 300,s offer the fastest AF speed or so it was for quite some time.


If you are looking to get a 300 you can consider a used mk1 version to save some $$$. They are a great alternative to the mk2.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 8, 2014)

Ver II should be considered as a "perfect" prime. From AF speed, IQ and weight, there is nothing much to say except BUY IT NOW

I had the oppertunity owning ver II for couple weeks, I feel 300mm is a bit short for my need. I shoot indoor swimming. Getting a close up shots with 300mm is not enough. I returned the lens and got 400mm f2.8 IS II.

I now own 200mm f2 IS II + 400mm f2.8 IS II. I feel I made a right decision for myself. 200mm f2 IS + 1.4x TC III is not bad . Having that extra stop for indoor is well worth it, not to mention, the 200mm f2 is one of those lenses you want to shoot wide open(just like 85L II) 

Here are some test shots with 200mm f2 IS + 1.4x TC, SOOC:
http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Lens-Test/200MM-F2-IS-14X-tc-iii/n-93P6B#!/


----------



## dancook (Dec 8, 2014)

I've used 200mm f2 at a Wedding, I wouldn't want to go 300mm though - 200mm is long enough.



FQ2A2038 by dancook1982, on Flickr



FQ2A2144 by dancook1982, on Flickr



Kat and James by dancook1982, on Flickr


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 8, 2014)

YuengLinger, if you love fast primes, you will love this lens! It is Canon's sharpest lens (according to DxOMark and others) and the color and contrast are phenomenal. I use it hand-held 90% of the time because it's light enough and the IS is fantastically good, even with the 2x extender. It's not too long for portraits if you have the space (as dancook's post clearly show), and with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, it is very versatile for sports and wildlife as well. Sometimes it would be nice to have 800mm+, but for the money, you really can't beat this lens and it's versatility with extenders. Also, I find 400mm too long for many sports shots. I just updated the lens sample thread with some recent wildlife shots.


----------



## westr70 (Dec 8, 2014)

This is a very timely thread since I'm in the market for VI or II. I'd be using it for wildlife shots with 1.4 or 2. I like the versatility of it. I'm leaning towards the VI since there's almost a $2000 difference in prices and if I dropped the sucker, I don't think I'd feel good for quite a while.


----------



## dancook (Dec 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger, if you love fast primes, you will love this lens! It is Canon's sharpest lens (according to DxOMark and others) and the color and contrast are phenomenal. I use it hand-held 90% of the time because it's light enough and the IS is fantastically good, even with the 2x extender. It's not too long for portraits if you have the space (as dancook's post clearly show), and with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, it is very versatile for sports and wildlife as well. Sometimes it would be nice to have 800mm+, but for the money, you really can't beat this lens and it's versatility with extenders. Also, I find 400mm too long for many sports shots. I just updated the lens sample thread with some recent wildlife shots.



My post was the 200mm f2, i'm not sure you understood that.

The op was interested in portrait and wedding, I think the 300mm is too long - particularly if you want to give direction and you forgot your walkie talkie


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 8, 2014)

kaihp said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'd really like to read your thoughts about the ef 300mm 2.8 lenses--and see some samples. Thanks!
> ...



Thank you, kaihp, even after several searches I overlooked this best of the threads.

mackguyver, dancook, I think, is showing us splendidly what his 200mm f/2 can do. I'm familiar with 200mm, which I did say in my OP. I'm VERY happy with the 70-200mm at f.2.8 for various portraits, so I have no desire (when does NEED factor in?) for that legendary prime at this time. The 300mm in a larger, no-flash church or other such setting is something intriguing, as it could add a little justification to my purchase. (My wife, btw, has given the green light to the 300mm or the 400mm, but I'm hesitant to spend and carry that next level up.)

Renting is the next rational step!

I do see in the thread of 300mm samples that runway model shots are great, and that makes sense--now that I've seen them. Airshows and birding are just not on my radar, so to speak.

What I do see from scouring the web for people shots taken with the 300mm is that full body portraits do work well, while upper body and head shots get too compressed, as discussed by Justin.

Any indoor event/wedding shots out there???

dancook, you did use that 200mm f/2 beautifully!


----------



## dolina (Dec 8, 2014)

I have used both lenses and they're both great. The Series II lens takes the extenders better than the previous lens.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 27, 2014)

I normally shoot sports with the lens but occasionally get side tracked. Here, just right for the subject distance. Can't beat the 300 for fast and accurate focusing.



Infineon Girl © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------

