Archive 2014 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

pjbuehner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

I have a 300 2.8 IS that I have been using for several years without complaints. A couple of years ago I purchased a 200mm F2.0 IS....
I find the 200 markedly better than the 300. In fact, I am blown away by the 200 every time I use it and I have had it for 2 or 3 years I think.
Would I be as impressed by the 300 2.8 II or is the 200 F2 just that magical?

Anyone able to give me a real world opinion of the newer 300 2.8 IS in comparison to the older IS version?

Thanks for any help.

Peter

Oct 14, 2014 at 03:45 PM

Kenneth Farver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

The 200mm F2.0 is almost as magical as the 200mm F1.8, but the 300mm F2.8 IS is extremely sharp also.
Guess we need to see why your 300 isn't almost as magical as the 200.
Do you like that the backgrounds drop out faster with the 200?
May depend on what you are shooting (distance wise).
Hopefully other FM members will have a better answer for you.

Oct 14, 2014 at 04:02 PM

jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

I've had both. I would only upgrade if you use teleconverters extensively. The IQ with the 2x III and ver. 2 lens is better (slightly) and that combo also has noticeably faster autofocus. The IS was upgraded and there is a slight weight difference in the ver 2, but the ver. 1 is already an amazing lens.

Oct 14, 2014 at 04:11 PM

Konablue
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

I've been using the 300mm 2.8L V1 for a couple of years now and love this lens. I've shot mostly car and boat racing with it. It's also a nice outdoor portrait lens if you don't mind being far from your subject. It is heavy though, especially when mounted to a 1DX. Of course, you're well aware of that.

I've been wanting to upgrade to the version 2 since it came out and the stars finally aligned for me. I just received it last night so I haven't had a chance to compare the two just yet. A couple of things I can tell you are that the weight difference is noticeable. I will appreciate every ounce I don't have to hold for long periods. I'm looking forward to trying out the IS and AF performance. Additionally, I plan to upgrade my teleconverters from V2 to the V3 models which are supposed to work "better" with this lens and the 1DX. Although, it's not so easy to quantify "better" but it makes sense since the 300mm VII lens, teleconverter and 1Dx were all designed to optimally work with each other. I'll let you know my observations as soon as I get a chance to use it at the next racing event.

Edited on Oct 14, 2014 at 05:05 PM · View previous versions

Oct 14, 2014 at 04:44 PM

Konablue
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

Here's a sample from the 300mm 2.8L VI. This was from the Superboat race, Sep 2014 at Clearwater FL. Taken at 1/40 sec,/ f18 / iso 50 / 300mm of course.


	https://www.dropbox.com/s/36utervz842pyzr/Superboats%202014_Clearwater%20FL_Geico-Web-1.jpg?dl=0

Oct 14, 2014 at 05:01 PM

Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

Konablue wrote:
I've been using the 300mm 2.8L V1 for a couple of years now and love this lens. I've shot mostly car and boat racing with it. It's also a nice outdoor portrait lens if you don't mind being far from your subject. It is heavy though, especially when mounted to a 1DX. Of course, you're well aware of that.

I've been wanting to upgrade to the version 2 since it came out and the stars finally aligned for me. I just received it last night so I haven't had a chance to compare the two just yet. A couple of...Show more →
The weight difference if both have their tripod collars on is noticeable, but you can take that off the 300 v1 but not the v2, and that reduces the difference noticeably. Stupid stupid move from Canon to fix the collars on the mk II lenses.

Also 300 f/2.8 goes of focus faster than a 200 f/2, only the 200 f/1.8 is better - blur circles are larger with a 300 f/2.8 than a 200 f/2 as they are proportional to the aperture size and we have 108mm vs 100mm.

Oct 14, 2014 at 09:21 PM

pjbuehner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

Thanks for all of the replies. I look forward to your thoughts Konablue.
I guess I should better express my love for the 200 f2 vs the 300 2.8

The 200 f2 seems to nail focus more accurately and consistently (amazing even at 2.0)
The separation from the 200 is amazing...but an extra stop explains that.
The 200 produces a sharper image.

I hate the images from my 300 2.8 with a teleconverter. I use a 1.4x in good light and it holds up okay. In poor light, the IQ really degrades. I never use the 2.0x because I find the results unacceptable.

Perhaps it is attributable to copy variance. I may have a brilliant 200 F2 and an average 300 2.8?

Oct 15, 2014 at 04:44 AM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 300 2.8 IS II versus 300 2.8 IS- worth the upgrade?

pjbuehner wrote:
Anyone able to give me a real world opinion of the newer 300 2.8 IS in comparison to the older IS version?

My view is that the MkII upgrade may be best justified by those folks who'd use the lens with the 2xTC MkIII converter a lot. If not, then IMO, looking at it in a cold way of operational effectiveness, you should keep your MkI of 300 f/2.8 IS.

The MkI is a superb lens even by today's MkII standards, however, I believe there has been some minor copy-to-copy variation in the IQ of the older lens.

Oct 15, 2014 at 06:00 AM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.