p.1 #1 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
I recently purchased an RF 100-300mm 2.8 lens that will be arriving this week after having used an EF 300mm 2.8 IS II with adapter for several years. The latter has been one of my favorite lenses in my arsenal however I was keen to get the flexibility of the zoom.
Historically I know that primes are often sharper and more well-regarded than zoom lenses but most reviews seem to have the 100-300 on par with the 300 prime, if not better.
Has anyone had real-world experience with both and is there rationale for hanging onto the prime as opposed to selling it?
p.1 #3 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
Not sure why are you asking this, just use your new RF 100-300 for a couple of weeks, maybe do some comparisons with your common subjects, and then sell the fix 300
I cannot find a good reason why someone with a RF 100-300 would still use/own an EF 300 II. Maybe is a tad sharper with the 2x but not so sure and it has a drop in filter, everything else the 100-300 is better. I doubt that you will notice the 200g weight difference.
p.1 #4 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
I am getting a 100-300 loaner today and plan to compare it with 400 f2.8 RF + 1.4x vs 2x and be happy to report back. I also started a thread on this topic that you may want to review: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1834490/0
p.1 #5 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
action99 wrote:
Not sure why are you asking this, just use your new RF 100-300 for a couple of weeks, maybe do some comparisons with your common subjects, and then sell the fix 300
I cannot find a good reason why someone with a RF 100-300 would still use/own an EF 300 II. Maybe is a tad sharper with the 2x but not so sure and it has a drop in filter, everything else the 100-300 is better. I doubt that you will notice the 200g weight difference.
I don't disagree haha. Candidly this is my biggest lens purchase as all of my other Big Whites were acquired second hand. I have a feeling I'll ultimately end up selling the prime but your suggestion about doing the side by side comparison makes sense!
p.1 #6 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
thedutt wrote:
I am getting a 100-300 loaner today and plan to compare it with 400 f2.8 RF + 1.4x vs 2x and be happy to report back. I also started a thread on this topic that you may want to review: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1834490/0
Thanks, that would be extremely helpful and I'll be sure to follow along. I'm very curious how the two bare lenses (i.e. no teleconverter) stack up against each other.
p.1 #7 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
aguilafan wrote:
Thanks, that would be extremely helpful and I'll be sure to follow along. I'm very curious how the two bare lenses (i.e. no teleconverter) stack up against each other.
You bet. I will share my initial impressions in a couple of days.
TBH, I am almost 95% set on buying the lens and expect the 600mm f5.6 on this lens to not be on part with 560 F4 on the 400, but the versatility of this lens is hard to beat. Plus my kiddo is doing track run this year and the wife is strongly suggesting I purchase it ;p
p.1 #8 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
I have both and do not believe the 100-300 is better than the 300 prime at 300. In my opinion the 300 IS II is one of the best lenses that Canon makes. I believe that the 100-300 is close enough to the same that one could sell their 300 but I don't believe the claims that the 100-300 is better at 300. I just do not see that and I have a very good copy of the 300. The only advantage of the 100-300 is the zoom and that is a help of course. For those without the money laying around the Sigma 120-300 is really not as far from the 100-300 in quality as I thought it would be. The average sports photographer would have a hard time noticing the difference between the 100-300 and the 300 at 300 and I have the Sigma too. There is a lot of confirmation bias in lenses in my opinion since it's hard to concede that a $9500 lens isn't markedly better than what it replaces. Don't get me wrong the 100-300 is a very nice lens. It's still just a little heavy to replace the 70-200 in a three body setup. I have run it with a wide and my 400 on a monopod in a three body set up but it's not the same carry as a 70-200.
p.1 #9 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
I bought the 100-300 and can't get myself to sell my 300II yet. The 100-300 does not make the 300II any less perfect, it's just less versatile. Although there are not may reasons to keep my 300II, it's hard to get rid of one of my favorite lenses of all time. I'm trying to convince myself to sell it, but I haven't posted it for sale yet. Sometimes I just like shooting with primes as it forces more tight shots and wide shots that you might not normally take when you have the ability to zoom.
A good reason to sell my 300II would be if Canon came out with a lightweight/compact RF 300 like Sony's new 300.
p.1 #10 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
Llewtwo wrote:
I have both and do not believe the 100-300 is better than the 300 prime at 300. In my opinion the 300 IS II is one of the best lenses that Canon makes. I believe that the 100-300 is close enough to the same that one could sell their 300 but I don't believe the claims that the 100-300 is better at 300. I just do not see that and I have a very good copy of the 300. The only advantage of the 100-300 is the zoom and that is a help of course. For those without the money laying around the Sigma 120-300 is really not as far from the 100-300 in quality as I thought it would be. The average sports photographer would have a hard time noticing the difference between the 100-300 and the 300 at 300 and I have the Sigma too. There is a lot of confirmation bias in lenses in my opinion since it's hard to concede that a $9500 lens isn't markedly better than what it replaces. Don't get me wrong the 100-300 is a very nice lens. It's still just a little heavy to replace the 70-200 in a three body setup. I have run it with a wide and my 400 on a monopod in a three body set up but it's not the same carry as a 70-200. ...Show more →
Having had the sigma 120-300 imo is not even close to the 100-300. It is a 280mm 3.2 at max lens that does not take TCs well but I sold it long time ago so I don't own it anymore, maybe you could do a test from the same position to fill a full body and then half body person with the same exposure settings and post the non-touched pictures.
I think nobody is saying that the 100-300 is sharper than the 300, it is about the same so why use a fix lens if you have both?
The question here why keep the 300 if somebody has also the 100-300? Not which one is the better value for the money, as a used EF 300 I think is much better value. I take the 100-300 everyday vs fix lens, I take the 100-300 over a 400 fix everyday but this is my situation that is probably different than others.
p.1 #11 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
aguilafan wrote:
I have a feeling I'll ultimately end up selling the prime but your suggestion about doing the side by side comparison makes sense!
Please remember to post your findings/conclusion about your comparison of the two lenses here for the benefit of the rest of us.
thedutt wrote:
TBH, I am almost 95% set on buying the lens and expect the 600mm f5.6 on this lens to not be on part with 560 F4 on the 400, but the versatility of this lens is hard to beat. Plus my kiddo is doing track run this year and the wife is strongly suggesting I purchase it ;p
Happy wife, happy life. Buy it!! What are you waiting for??
p.1 #12 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
rscheffler wrote:
Please remember to post your findings/conclusion about your comparison of the two lenses here for the benefit of the rest of us.
Happy wife, happy life. Buy it!! What are you waiting for??
Ha - I have spent way too much money on canon gear this year, but TBH the wait has been to try it out since CPS was kind enough to send it. Its here, already took a couple of shots with the 2x on it.
p.1 #14 · Replacing EF 300mm f/2.8 IS II with RF 100-300mm 2.8 IS
Imagemaster wrote:
Since most people probably can’t tell the difference between the two at 300mm, I have no idea why one would keep both unless they have money to burn.
Otherwise unless one is concerned about more weight, I have no idea why someone would want the less versatile prime.
Other than being a little smaller and lighter, as I mentioned above primes often force more creativity for me. I've carried around all primes for the last 25 years and the only zooms that have been part of my primary kit are the 70-200's and now sold 200-400. I own all the other zooms like 16-35, 24-70, 100-400, 100-500, etc but they don't get used much. I just prefer primes for most everything.
if I was shooting field sports for money, I would use my 100-300 over the 300II. If I'm on an expensive surf trip or safari I will now take my 100-300 over the 300II. Other than that, I'll still never hesitate to bust out my 300II for anything else. The 300II is an amazing value around 4k considering it does great with the 1.4x and 2x.
I prefer to use my brain for creativity, not any lens or camera.