p.1 #1 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I am curious how the three versions of Canon's 300mm f/2.8 lenses stack up in terms of sharpness. I am especially interested in IQ with Canon's 2x III teleconverter. I realize the latest version has superior autofocus, but what about sharpness?
I've kicked around the idea of selling off or trading some equipment to pick up a 300/2.8, and it would be used bare and with teleconverters. I've leaned away from the non-IS due to servicing issues, but even still I am curious. I hear those older non-IS lenses are crazy sharp, and how the three models stack up (bare and with TC's) definitely interests me.
p.1 #2 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I've not used the non-IS but the others are two of the sharpest lenses Canon have made. Comparing them wide open doesn't reveal much resolution difference, may be at the edges on the 5Ds/r. Bear in mind I'm talking side by side comparison in use not imatest etc.
Add a 1.4XIII and they both still look great to my eye but the MkII still looks prime sharp, virtually perfect. With the 2xIII is where the MkII lens really distinguishes itself. It still looks very sharp indeed, not just 'accectable, get the job done' sharp but with all the resolution, contrast and rich colour you expect of a top grade lens. Here the Mk I IS can still produce nice images but it's more hit 'n' miss, needs better light and top technique. I think the 300 f 2.8IS II is my fvourite Canon lens.
Dont forget to consider the importance of AF/tracking performance when getting a sharp image with these lenses. Even slower moiving subjects close to MFD can really test the lens/cameras tracking ability due to very shallow dof.
p.1 #3 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I can't answer your precise question, but I'll chime in. I bought my 300 f/2.8 non-IS new back in 1993 and it is still one of the sharpest lenses I own. I've only got the original 2X teleconverter and a 1.4X version II, but the focusing and sharpness seems to take a bit of a hit with the old 2X, but it focuses fast and sharp with the 1.4X II.
By all accounts, the newer 2X extenders work better, I just don't know if it is worth the upgrade.
Also, one additional observation. If you use CS6 and want to use the old 300 f/2.8 lens profiles WITH the extenders, there doesn't seem to be a listing.
p.1 #4 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I was in the 300 mm boat for awhile. I wanted if for field sports. I determined I'd get the f/2.8is version one. The reason behind that was that while the mkii is better in just about every respect, it's not a few thousand dollars better for MY uses. I never plan on using a 2x tc with it. I'd say that's where is shines the most, and then The 4 stop is vs the 2 stop is.
p.1 #5 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I owned the 300mm 2.8 Non Is version for quite a long time. I actually bought one off the shelf that I found at a dealer that was brand new and never sold back in the early 2000's. I have to say it was one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned. I owned the 200 1.8 at the same time. The combination of the two was something really special. In my opinion between the 300mm 2.8 non IS version and IS version I would personally pic the 300mm non IS version every time but that is me. I do regret selling that lens along with the 200mm 1.8. The reason I sold them is because Canon advised me that they would no longer be carrying parts or servicing them. Since I am not wealthy, I could not afford to have glass that expensive to become inoperative. I do think the new lenses are more than the glass themselves. I think there are coatings inside the housing of the lenses that are important. I think Canon did this in response to what Nikon did with the Fx lenses.
p.1 #6 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I own a non-IS version (bought here many years ago) and that thing is razor sharp. It still works flawlessly on newer bodies too such as the 5D III. I stacked the 1.4x and 2x (version IIs) together once and shot batters from over the outfield fence during the golden sunlight using my 1D MK II N and was mightily impressed with the results.
I do admit to not using it as much anymore for day to day use since it is not serviceable. I use the 70-200mm f2.8L II and the 7D II and crop as needed since I shoot mostly for the newspaper. It still does come out for special occasions.
I do have a small temptation to sell it now that I recently added a 400mm f4 DO II to my line up but every time I use it I remain amazed how sweet it is. If you can afford the risk of it failing and becoming a doorstop, I'd get one in a heartbeat.
p.1 #7 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I've owned three copies of the EF 300/2.8L IS, and all were equally super-sharp. Until the Mk II version appeared, the 300/2.8L IS was often mentioned as the sharpest lens available. The Mk II might be a bit sharper (or not), but I don't think any difference either way would be detectable in practice.
For extenders, I would recommend either the 1.4x II or III, and 2x III. If you get the 300/2.8L IS II, then get Mk III versions of both extenders.
p.1 #8 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I would comment on this thread, also. I, too, owned several copies of this glass(non-IS). Only sold for reach of 400. sharp or sharper than 400 2.8. I used my copies w/ 1.4 tc regularly w/(for my money-making needs)no hesitation. Even in less well lit DIII schools under the "lights". My understanding is the current gen tc's are superb. I would not, personally, hesitate to ultilize that combo, if that was what I had. Since I do not shoot much badly lit sports anymore, it is a combo that I have considered purchasing again.
For what it is worth
B
p.1 #9 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
The biggest improvement from IS v1 to IS v2 is the IQ and AF performance when using TC's and the IQ at the periphery. Centre sharpness is high on all of them, but the V2 will smoke the non-IS with a TC and AF with 2x will be noticeably better than either.
So if you want a poor man's 600 f/5.6 then get the v2 and 2x TC III. The v1 does fine IQ wise, but AF I would rate as decent, not great. The v1 is superb with a 1.4x TC however and AF feels snappy on 1 series and 5D3/4/DsR.
p.1 #10 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
The 300 is ii is a pretty amazing lens and I had used this as well as the i version for years. It was super sharp, even wide open and the af was spot on. The ii was a tad sharper and had better is than the i and it was optimized for the new tc’s. I used it extensively for sports, namely swimming/diving and indoor soccer. Additionally, I liked the 300 for certain wildlife and it was great with the 1.4x and produced some top notch images with the 2x. As my sports work subsided and I was shooting more wildlife, the 300 was simply too short and I sold it to fund the purchase of longer glass.
In comparison, it was sharper with the 1.4x than the 100-400 is ii and had better af with the tc attached. I liked the balance better than the 400 do is ii though for wildlife, the 400 do is ii is a better choice with tc’s b/c of the reach and nearly similar performance characteristics.
p.1 #11 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I've used four copies of the 300mm f2.8L IS v1s, three rented over multiple years, one I purchased off FM. All were incredibly sharp with good focus lock. My examples would be counting facial hair of cyclists from 20-30 feet away. The only lens of similar sharpness I own is the 70-200mm f2.8L IS v2.
p.1 #12 · Canon 300/2.8 non-IS, IS, and IS II sharpness??
I own the 300/4L and 300/2.8L, both non-IS. If you want to go that far back, and you care only about ultimate sharpness, go with the 300/4L. It is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used on any camera, and is, in side-by-side comparisons, a little bit sharper than the f/2.8L.
The only image stabilized Canon 300 mm prime lens I've ever tried was the 300/4L IS, and it couldn't compare to the sharpness of the non-IS 300/4L.
That said, the MTF charts strongly suggest the 300 f/2.8L IS Mark II is the best of the entire bunch. I just haven't tried one myself, and probably never will. I have a lot of other things I could spend $6K on.
