p.1 #1 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
Im sure a few people have tried/owned both by now and I've searched the older threads for comparisons. Here's my scenario... I have a 300 2.8 IS which I bought used and will probally make a few bucks when I sell it as I picked it up for a great price. It's an amazing lens but I've been tempted to get the new II. I've read the reviews as well as TDP review of it being a better lens optically along with better handing and IS. I want to use it for Motorsport/action so the part that concerns me is TDP claim that the AI Servo is worse then the Original. It's such an amazing lens that if the new one is better, I am really tempted to replace my already stellar 300. The price is not a factor, I'm really interested in real world opinions on the so called focus issues on the new 300 and 400 which TDP mentions in his review. Thanks in advance!
p.1 #2 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
I have the Mk II, but never used the original. Still, I have to say that the servo AF is so fast, secure, and consistent (on 1D4) that I can't see how anyone would find any "issue" with my particular copy. Of course other shooters may make different demands on the equipment. This is just my experience, and a way to give a bump to your thread.
p.1 #3 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
Wow, I can't understand wanting to sell what is already about Canon's finest lens for the absurdly priced replacement. Heck keep your 300 and get a 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II say. is your 300 lacking in any way?
p.1 #4 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
Used both and I like Version 2 better. Read my review on FM for more details.
TDP wrote the review a few months back and has yet updated it to reflect a comment from Canon or from owners so it could be attributed to operator's unfamiliarity with the lens or specific to the copy he has.
p.1 #5 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
Photon wrote:
I have the Mk II, but never used the original. Still, I have to say that the servo AF is so fast, secure, and consistent (on 1D4) that I can't see how anyone would find any "issue" with my particular copy. Of course other shooters may make different demands on the equipment. This is just my experience, and a way to give a bump to your thread.
+1
Sounds just like me. Have the Mk II + 1D4, never used the original.
p.1 #7 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
Having just picked up a series II 400 the biggest difference from series I supers I can see other than weight is speed and accuracy of AF with a TC attached.
The new 400 is brilliant when combined with the 1.4 and the AF is way faster than the older supers when using a TC.
If you regularly use a TC then the upgrade may be worthwhile..
Oh and I have had no issues with it at all other than almost falling over when I saw how quick the AF was with a converter attached..!
p.1 #8 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
Thanks for the replies. It seems that it is without question a stellar lens. Albeit with a price that would mean a larger investment for me to have the latest greatest. I will give it some more thought! I do like the thought of better Af and performance with TCs. I have a 500 F4 and find the 300 with a TC gets more use, although most of my gear is better at collecting dust since I have to finance the habit and that involves working for a living.
p.1 #10 · Canon 300 2.8 IS II vrs 300 2.8 IS Question
The MkII is probably a better lens, primarily handling-wise.
So if you've got an ample gear budget, then go for it.
It is not likely at all that AF on MkII is somehow inferior to MkI. If anything, Canon might have accelerated the AF drive response of the bare lens.
I have a copy of 300 f/2.8 IS MkI now that I like a lot, therefore, I am really not interested in the MkII, however, setting the price considerations aside, the MkII should be one wonderful lens.
Thanks for the replies