Hey FMers,
Ive been thinking about getting some big glass soon, but Id really like to know the sizes and weight of these lenses.
I know that the old 400mm 2.8l NON IS mk2 is quite a large lens, and is somewhere around 15lbs?
What I dont know is how big the 300mm 2.8l non is, is compared to the 400.
I cant find any side by side pictures of these two lenses, or specs on them.
If anyone has a side to side picture of them,
or any specs/info on the sizes of these two compared, please let me know!
Thanks!

I think canon has a museum section on their site that might have the specs of the older lenses. Don't have the link, but don't think it's too hard to find.

JohnBrose wrote:
I think canon has a museum section on their site that might have the specs of the older lenses. Don't have the link, but don't think it's too hard to find.

Thanks!
Gave me all the info.

I had the chance to try the first version of the 300mm 2.8L and it was a delight! Opticaly it trumps my 70-200mm 2.8L is II. Autofocus is probably on par but it is a really heavy piece of equipement compare to the 300mm 2.8L is II. I would says it is easely twice the weight.
I cant help you with the 400mm 2.8 I never tried one
Here is a shot I took with the 300mm 2.8L

andbott723 wrote:
Hey FMers,
Ive been thinking about getting some big glass soon, but Id really like to know the sizes and weight of these lenses.
I know that the old 400mm 2.8l NON IS mk2 is quite a large lens, and is somewhere around 15lbs?
What I dont know is how big the 300mm 2.8l non is, is compared to the 400.
I cant find any side by side pictures of these two lenses, or specs on them.
If anyone has a side to side picture of them,
or any specs/info on the sizes of these two compared, please let me know!
Thanks!

400 f/2.8 mk II is 5.9kg which is a tad over 13lbs, so it is a beast. The 300 f/2.8 is 2.86kg or 6.35lb, so less than half the weight. The 300 f/2.8 is 500g heavier than the 300 f/2.8 IS mk II or about 1.1lb and is 300g heavier than the 300 f/2.8 IS

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_300_28l_usm.html

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_400_28lii_usm.html

i own a 300 2.8 non-IS mk2 and cannot part with it... i considered selling it at one point, to "upgrade" to an IS version, but couldnt pull the trigger on the price difference. hands down the sharpest lens i own wide open. it performs just as well with a 1.4x on it (f4). no noticeable difference in performance, and its just as sharp. its horrible with a 2x though.

ill upgrade my 70-200 before the 300.

it is heavy, and i dont hand hold it. monopod for me.

I had both the 300 F2.8 mark 1 and the 400 F2.8 mark 1. I have no size comparison photos today. The 3oo is smaller and much easier to handle howeve. The 400 is really nove heavy. I had them in 2000, as a 67 year old, so my thoughts might be much different than those of a younger person. I sold the 400 first as it was really tough for me to handle. I bought them for hobby use, as i found a buy i couldnt pass up. I really didnt have a real use for a 400 2.8. I think you really have to have a specific use for that lens to merit its cost. I later added a 500 F4.5 , which is a much easier lens to handle and use. Try Peter at Petkal, he should have comparison photos.
Cheers
Harry Palmer

The original EF 400 2.8 is a MONSTER lens, I owned one a few years ago. Just too heavy for what I needed it for (motorsports) because I was on the move a lot. It's nice if you can park it on at least a mono pod or something, but it gets really tiresome to throw it over your shoulder and walk around with it a lot.

Jkovack wrote:
i own a 300 2.8 non-IS mk2 and cannot part with it... i considered selling it at one point, to "upgrade" to an IS version, but couldnt pull the trigger on the price difference. hands down the sharpest lens i own wide open. it performs just as well with a 1.4x on it (f4). no noticeable difference in performance, and its just as sharp. its horrible with a 2x though.

ill upgrade my 70-200 before the 300.

it is heavy, and i dont hand hold it. monopod for me.

Which 1.4x version do you use?

CSStevens wrote:
Jkovack wrote:
i own a 300 2.8 non-IS mk2 and cannot part with it... i considered selling it at one point, to "upgrade" to an IS version, but couldnt pull the trigger on the price difference. hands down the sharpest lens i own wide open. it performs just as well with a 1.4x on it (f4). no noticeable difference in performance, and its just as sharp. its horrible with a 2x though.

ill upgrade my 70-200 before the 300.

it is heavy, and i dont hand hold it. monopod for me.

Which 1.4x version do you use?

I use a MkI 1.4x Extender on my 300/2.8L (non-IS) and it works perfectly fine, only the MkIII might be better as an upgrade. (the MkII was unchanged optically from the MkI)

Jkovack wrote:
i own a 300 2.8 non-IS mk2 and cannot part with it... i considered selling it at one point, to "upgrade" to an IS version, but couldnt pull the trigger on the price difference. hands down the sharpest lens i own wide open. it performs just as well with a 1.4x on it (f4). no noticeable difference in performance, and its just as sharp. its horrible with a 2x though.

ill upgrade my 70-200 before the 300.

it is heavy, and i dont hand hold it. monopod for me.

+1 I've had and sold a 300 2.8L non-IS twice, and both times bought another one, and have no plans to sell my current one. Great performance/price ratio, built like a tank, and very useful if you have a pair of TC's, I have the Canon vII's. I hear the V3's, especially the 2x is better, but to really see the difference you need a full frame camera, as I have a 7D, I plan to hold onto the vII version for now.

Good to hear. Getting a 300 2.8L non-IS and interested in at least getting the 1.4x TC and a 2x TC if it's good enough quality (sure would help getting reach on spot news assignments when the police lines are way far away).

Is the AF just as good between mk i and mk ii versions of the 1.4x?