 |
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 33669
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very very sharp, Beautiful bokeh, Colour & Contrast is perfect, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive
|
|
|
The sharpness is fantastic. Colours & Contrast is also perfect. And the bokeh is incredible.
One of the best lenses that I have used.
|
|
 Mar 5, 2005
|
|
baharr
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well I like the color white already I think it's cute as a button.
|
|
Cons:
|
well technically speaking 300mm is not that long of a lens if you do sports like myself for a living, I would recommend the canon 400 2.8 L IS And for yoursake and the sake of all the photographers on this website don't waste your money on a third party 30mm lens. Thats all I have to say and oh yeah Hail Hail Canon for the 400 2.8 IS
|
|
|
I own the non IS version and it is as sharp as a tack. it is too heavy to hand hold it very long,it's good for college football,swimming indoors,football,soccer good with teleconverters.
I would recomend this lens to anybody wanting to step up to a supertelephoto.Also if you can find a non IS version in good shape,I've heard the original 300 is just as sharp as his IS version. And as far as IS goes,I currently own the 400 2.8 IS L version and it is "annoying" and slows the autofocus down.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2005
|
|
colincarter46
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 522
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, image quality, Image stabiliser, bokeh, Build quality, super smooth tripod mounting ring,
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, but you get what you pay for so not really a complaint.
|
|
|
What a lens, in everyway, this lens is one of the best that Canon produce, along with the 400F2.8, 500F4 and 600F4's they are professional tools.
I cannot understand the previous reviewers comments about the tripod collar, mine is super smooth like the one on my 500F4L IS.
The quality of this lens is in another league, and easily the equal, or better than the old non IS version.
If you can justify the purchase price, and need a lens of this range, buy it, you will not be disappointed.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2005
|
|
thegrinchd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 198
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Superfast AF, IS is a bonus for low light shooting
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod Collar is crap, badly designed. Lens cover is too big to fit Lowepro case easily. Cost
|
|
|
I have a 300 2.8L w/o IS that is my primary lens. I shoot mainly sports (primarily field sports)
I prefer the non-IS version for several reasons.
Cost (+~$800) for IS, which is useless for sports.
Weight and the badly designed tripod collar. You can remove it, but if you try to rotate the lens, it is sticky and feels like there is something impeding the motion. There isn't if you pull the front of the lens up, it will rotate smoothly.
This is a problem with most of Canon's long IS lenses, it is not isolated to the 300 2.8.
I think IS is a waste if you are shooting sports, it won't help for most things, except dragging pans, but I think the cost on it is prohibitive.
I have not noticed any difference in quality shooting with the Mk1 version vs the 300 IS.
I recommend the lens geometry, it is amazing used prime or with the 1.4x TC, I don't care for it with the 2x TC (Mk1 TC) I have to test with the MK2, but the picture was soft too many times for my tastes when shooting with the 2x (f5.6 600mm) The reach is impressive for the package, but the focus was a problem.
Get the non-IS unless you need the IS for something you do.
My favorite lens by far. (till that 400mm falls into my hands)
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2005
|
|
singlo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 98
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and fast AF.
IS is effective as low shutter speed as 1/20s.
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive
|
|
|
I have used my non-IS version of the 300mm f2.8L. The old version was famous for being sharp and was Canon's flagship for a long long time.
However, I have compared side-by-side images of both versions and noticed significant improvement in resolution and contrast in the IS version. It seems as sharp as the 200mm f1.8L wide open. Autofocus speed is also noticetably faster than the old model. Other improvements include: lighter and stronger carbon fibre hood, versatile IS functions (effective for tripod, monpod, panning in both vertical and horizontal directions),removable tripod mount, water droplets resistant, more convenient location of the focus pre-set ring and lighter weight. Unlike the old version, the protection front element is not flat but spherical so it minimise ghosting reflection from the digital sensor.
This lens is easily handheld and is light (if you have ever used a 400mm f2.8L, you will see what I mean.)
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
Trebor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick focusing, tack-Sharp pics.......traded in my 300mm 4.0 and there is no comparison as to the quality of the 300 2.8 vs the 4.0.....Along with my 200 1.8, I have the two best sports lenses available.Put it on a mono-pod with a Wimberly Side-Kick and the weight-problem (??) is gone.....
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
For all the "steal me" comments regarding the lens case. The Lowepro Toploader 70W accomodates this lens and hood quite nicely.
http://www.lowepro.com/pages/series/street/top70aw.htm
Nothing that has not been said before...........Its just awesome. Not the needed length for true-birding.
As for the always-mentioned weight issue mentioned (actually this can be hand-held) my question is " aren't all quality primes in this length and higher, heavier than zooms?" Of course!
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2004
|
|
Ben Lanterman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, IS, versatile settings, ease of use with the Canon 1Ds.
|
|
Cons:
|
weight and size (especially with the lens hood in place)
Big hard case, while nice, yells "steal me".
|
|
|
I have used this lens hand held only all day at the EAA flyin with and without a 1.4x with ease and I am not that big or strong. A tripod or monopod is too unhandy with airplanes doing low fast passes.
With the lens hood on it is a large package to maneuver however it is not ungainly when attached to my 1Ds. Regardless of size and weight the results are worth it.
Statement without comment - An interesting (and totally unexpected) thing was that several young ladies at the EAA flyin noted how large the lens was and wanted to feel it.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2004
|
|
Peter Kelly
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 17, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 379
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,560.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, relatively small size and weght, features
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey and mickey mouse lens case
|
|
|
Recent purchase, cost considerably more than my first car but I am blown away by the image quality. Incredibly sharp. good contrast. silky bokeh wide open and relatively easy to handle ( I still would not like to handhold for extended periods.) IS works like a dream Focus is quick on a 10D at hopefully even quicker on my Mark II (whenever it arrives!)
Focus preset feature is very handy.
Lens case is a joke. Perhaps of some use if you have a 12 year old daughter who is doing a lot of sleepovers. Get Lowepro case as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2004
|
|
G-MAN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 443
|
|
Review Date: May 11, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp with excellent bokeh and color rendition.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. Well, maybe price, but hey, you really get what you pay for.
|
|
|
I just purchased this lens and I'm honestly blown away by the quality of the pictures that I have taken so far. All of my pics have been handheld and with IS mode 2 as I shoot mainly action/motorsports photography. I used to think that my 70-200mm IS f/2.8 was sharp...but this 300mm prime will be my money-making workhorse from now on.
If you're into wildlife or sports photography, this is a must-have lens. I have yet to try the 1.4x converter, but just from reading the reviews on the Internet, I will not be dissapointed.
|
|
|
May 11, 2004
|
|
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything, What a lens!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost... but then again it is Canon "L" glass.....
|
|
|
I am at a loss for words.... This lens is just incredible. Perfect size, perfect weight and perfect pictures. A blast to use on a monopod.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2004
|
|
Jack Flesher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3489
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredibly sharp, fast focusing, great OOF rendering (Bokeh)
|
|
Cons:
|
Larger, heavier, more expensive and does not focus as close as it's little brother, the 300/4 IS.
|
|
|
This may be the sharpest Canon lens I own. The lens is easy to hand-hold yet works very well on a monopod or tripod too. AF is fast and accurate. In short, there is little to dislike about this piece of glass. The use of converters definitely degrades the image somewhat, but the images remain usable, with decent detail.
I am often asked my thoughts on this lens compared to its little brother, the 300/4 IS. Let me get one thing out of the way first... While I believe the 300/4 IS is a superb optic, this lens is even sharper. When I ordered this lens I assumed I'd sell my 300/4 IS if the 2.8 outperformed it -- after all, why keep both since they are the same focal? Well, even though it may not be quite as sharp teh 300/4 is still excellent and it has some distinct advantages over the 2.8 version... Along with lower price, smaller size and lighter weight, the 300/4 also focuses to about half the distance of the 300/2.8. I could use the EF12 tube on the 2.8 and achieve similar close focus distances, but that is not always practical in the field. Also, I do enjoy travel and travel photography. The 300/2.8 is not an ideal travel companion for the obvious size/weight reasons, while the 300/4 tucks away inconspicuously in carry-on or checked luggage for those times a long lens may be needed.
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004
|
|
MikeBinOKlahom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 653
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome image quality. Lightweight and inexpensive for a supertelephoto. Awesome image quality. Close focus for a supertelephoto. Awesome image quality. A good travel telephoto lens. And oh yes, the pictures from it, especially with no teleconverters really pop. It has awesome image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Being light and inexpensive for a supertelephoto is sort of like being the fastest bulldozer around. It's still heavy, and still more expensive than some good cars! I sometimes ask myself: "Why am I carrying this turkey around to gain one extra stop over a 300/4?!?!?! You need both teleconverters to get full value from this lens. You can handhold it briefly, but don't--Except for the occasional flight shot. You'll lose a bit of that wonderful image quality, and your composition will suffer. The provided case and lens cover are shameful, and of no practical use.
|
|
|
Amazing lens for high-powered wildlife photography. Many sports shooters like it as well. Still has outstanding image quality with a 1.4x teleconverter, and good image quality with a 2x teleconverter.
Please resist the temptation to shoot this handheld in any except dire emergencies. It'd be a shame to throw away the great image quality. Choose the IS version over non-IS, and hang the expense!
As mentioned in "negatives" above, immediately upon receipt, you should throw away the manufacturer-provided lens case and canvas cover, and buy a lowepro or kinesis long lens case to keep this baby safe. Only thing I can figure is that a saboteur from Nikon designed the case and cover used for all of Canon's supertelephotos.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2004
|
|
Geert Soenens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 25, 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Razer sharp! Build for life.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Together with 135mm f2 'the' lens! Even with extender 2X. As good as some of my Leica lenses! And believe me... that means something! By the way, i always use monopod with this one. It is rather heavy, so 'IS' is not that important for me.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2004
|
|
Andy Biggs
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1645
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpest lens in my arsenal
|
|
Cons:
|
none.
|
|
|
I absolutely love this lens. I will never ever sell it. Even with the 1.4xII and 2xII teleconverters, images are freaking sharp. I love it. Wonderful bokeh. You will have to take this lens away from me after I die, because it is going with me to my grave.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2003
|
|
Geoff Ross
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, speed of focus, ability to have repeatable pre-set focus area
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, and ease of switches being accidently altered when picking up the lens
|
|
|
I formerly owned a Canon 400 f4.0 DO lens, which was very disappointing in terms of sharpness. By comparison, the 300 f2.8 is simply a fantastic lens, which I have absolutely no hessitation in recommending. Although weighty, it can still be hand-held, and the speed and accuracy of focussing is amazing.
I have done several lens tests comparing this lens with all the other lenses I have, and it is the sharpest lens in the central area, and very close behind the 100mm macro and 50mm 1.8 in edge sharpness, which is incredible for such a relatively long lens.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2003
|
|
danks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 292
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image stabilization and hand-hold-ability.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
I have owned this lens for several years now. I tested it out with teleconverters shortly after buying it. Those findings are still available at
http://danks.netfirms.com/istest.htm
Noting has happened in the interim to change my mind about the lens. It is excellent in every respect. I offer a caveat about hand-holding it. It is tough . . . very tiring. But it CAN be done for short periods and the results are worth it. A recent shot of a captive eagle taken, wide open and hand held is at http://danks.netfirms.com/eagle4137.htm
I also have great success using it as a macro lens! It is a butterfly killer! Shots of butterflies taken with it are at http://danks.netfirms.com/butterflies.htm
To use it for small critters, close up, I mount both the EF25 and EF12 extension tubes to get the lens to focus more closely.
This lens is superb and, best of all perhaps, the price has fallen quite a bit since I bought mine shortly after it was introduced . . . the first of the then-new IS "super teles."
Recommended without reservation.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
117
|
280858
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
97% of reviewers
|
$3,740.57
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.93
|
9.16
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
