I am looking for a 300mm (close to 2.8 as possible) but I don't have 4200 for what I need right now. I was wondering if anyone is using a cool non-Canon alternative for less. For instance, I was looking at the Olympus Zuiko for the OM series. The 50/1.8 is killer so maybe the 300/4.5 is too? I'm curious to see the replies.

-Ari

You can get the Leica 280/2.8 APO from Bergen County Cameras for $2499? I've spoken with Paul there and it was recently CLA'd by Leica and has perfect glass.

The Oly 300/4.5 is OK, nothing special. The non-IF Nikon 300mm f/4.5 ED is scarce but exceptionally good. Its drawback is a long minimum focus distance of 13'.

For the price the OM 300/4.5 is hard to beat. Optically quite good, it's not a 2.8L but then again it's like 1/20th the price or less. I have a mint one I could part with for $275 that includes case, caps, filter, and tripod ring. Feel free to PM if interested.

-Ed

Keep in mind that if you are comparing lens at 300mm the cost difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is huge. For example the Canon f/2.8 IS is $4,200 as you say, but the f/4 IS is $1,200, and the f/4 (non-IS) goes for about $600 used. So I guess the first question is do you need f/2.8 or would f/4 be good enough. If f/4 is good enough there are a lot of relatively cheap options, but if you need f/2.8 there are few that are cheap. If you give us a sense of what you need and what you are willing to spend I think people could help more.

I'd second Steve regarding that. In a lens as "long" as 300mm, few cost-cutting alternatives would really suffice compared to the 300F/4IS. Unless you're a "never-leave-home-without-my-6lbs-tripod" kind of person...

My answer to this was to convert the Canon FD 300mm f4 L to EF mount. Cost me $182 and it is spectacular.

The Tamron Adaptall 300mm f2.8 is pretty nice. It's around $600-800.

Thanks for the replies. I wanted to use this for sports. I wanted to check out if there were some lenses that I had no idea about, and I think you guys gave me some good ideas. However, I agree that at this length and at f2.8 there probably is no substitute for the Canon.

cogitech wrote:
My answer to this was to convert the Canon FD 300mm f4 L to EF mount. Cost me $182 and it is spectacular.

Just curious, here, Paul. Did you figure out how to be able to stop the FD down? I recall from your original shots that you could initially only shoot at f4.

bearcamera wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I wanted to use this for sports. I wanted to check out if there were some lenses that I had no idea about, and I think you guys gave me some good ideas. However, I agree that at this length and at f2.8 there probably is no substitute for the Canon.

When I was shooting professionally I used the 300/4.5 MF Nikkor (preED) for years to shoot sports....I still think it's a great lens...and and especially good deal for under $100 (with adapter)....

davidearls wrote:
cogitech wrote:
My answer to this was to convert the Canon FD 300mm f4 L to EF mount. Cost me $182 and it is spectacular.

Just curious, here, Paul. Did you figure out how to be able to stop the FD down? I recall from your original shots that you could initially only shoot at f4.

Still only f4. I left it that way because I have never found a need for any other aperture with this lens.

cogitech wrote:
davidearls wrote:
cogitech wrote:
My answer to this was to convert the Canon FD 300mm f4 L to EF mount. Cost me $182 and it is spectacular.

Just curious, here, Paul. Did you figure out how to be able to stop the FD down? I recall from your original shots that you could initially only shoot at f4.

Still only f4. I left it that way because I have never found a need for any other aperture with this lens.


Thx, Paul.

Just curious because I've frequently used the EF 300 f4 (non-IS) on an extension tube for butterflies, spiders, flowers, etc. When I'm looking for fine detail in these shots, I need to stop down - but that's just me and what I've used the FL for -

davidearls wrote:

Thx, Paul.

Just curious because I've frequently used the EF 300 f4 (non-IS) on an extension tube for butterflies, spiders, flowers, etc. When I'm looking for fine detail in these shots, I need to stop down - but that's just me and what I've used the FL for -

Yeah, I don't use tubes at all, but I can see that stopping down for more DoF would be essential when used this way.

I do shoot some flowers and stuff with mine at or near min. focus distance and it does the job:

S-M-C Takumar 300/4

bearcamera wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I wanted to use this for sports. I wanted to check out if there were some lenses that I had no idea about, and I think you guys gave me some good ideas. However, I agree that at this length and at f2.8 there probably is no substitute for the Canon.

Hi Ari,

For sports, I would want autofocus (but maybe that is just me) and if I couldn't afford the EF 300 f/2.8 I would get the EF 300 f/4, for sports you can get by quite well without IS. As I said earlier you should be able to pick up a used EF 300 f/4L (non-IS for about $600 used (I got one from Adorama a month ago for $535). If you shoot a lot with really low light and need f/2.8 and can't afford the Canon you might want to look at the Nikon ED AiS 300mm f/2.8, it is about the same price as the Canon 300 f/4L (non-IS) or maybe $100 or $200 more. I hope this helps.

The Mamiya M645 A 300/2.8 APO is absolutely fantastic on EOS bodies.

cogitech wrote:
My answer to this was to convert the Canon FD 300mm f4 L to EF mount. Cost me $182 and it is spectacular.


That's another great pic Paul! Nice job on the conversion!
What kind of problem is it that prevents stopping down on your converted FD 300mm f4 L?

The later non-ED Nikon 300/4.5's AIS lenses are excellent from wide open and cheap. They also work great with the Canon 1.4x TC. Here's a full frame, wide open, test with the Canon TC:

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the following lenses:

Sigma 300mm/2.8 EX DG for EOS

Sigma 300mm/2.8 EX DG HSM for EOS

Sigma 120-300mm/2.8 EX DG HSM for EOS

Tokina 300mm AF AT-X Pro for EOS

Tamron 300mm/2.8 AF SP LD IF for EOS

It seems like all of these lenses are more comparable to the Canon EF 300mm/2.8 L than any of the lenses that anyone here has recommended. I say this because they are all 300mm/2.8 autofocus lenses in native EOS mount.

I don't have any personal experience with any of these lenses, but it seems to me that the 120-300mm Sigma would be particularly well suited for shooting many types of sports.

What type of sports will you be shooting with your 300mm lens? I agree with Steve that the 300mm f4L non-IS might be a great alternative. If you happen to be shooting only outdoor sports in daylight then f4 should be wide enough for your purposes. When I'm shooting sports (which is not very often) I always prefer to grab an autofocus lens, and Canon lenses with USM focus very fast and accurately. That being said, there have been a lot of amazing sports photos taken before autofocus cameras were invented.