Canon 300mm 2.8 mk 1 or mk2 (1 Viewer)

[barnstormer]

I am after one of these lenses and was wondering how much difference there is between the two and could that justify the extra £2k+ or so between a good second hand mk1 and a new mk2. Does anyone have any experience of both lenses to compare.

 

[Roy C]

I am after one of these lenses and was wondering how much difference there is between the two and could that justify the extra £2k+ or so between a good second hand mk1 and a new mk2. Does anyone have any experience of both lenses to compare.

Justifing the extra cost is a subjective thing, for some folks it is worth the extra but for others it is not.

I had the 300/2.8 IS MkI and it is a cracking good lens, the bare 300 is still one of Canons finest lenses for sure and you lose very little with a 1.4x tc. With a 2x tc it is still good although I always felt you had to stop down one and also use a tripod to get the best out of the 600mm combo (I always hand held at 300mm and 420mm)

If I were to get another 300/2.8 it would undoubtedly be the MkII version. There are several reason including it being slightly lighter but the main reasons would be that IQ with a 2x tc MkIII is certainly better and the 4 stop IS makes hand holding at 600mm a heck of a lot easier/better. Although the MkIII converters will work on older lenses they were made specifically for the new generation of superteles and you need one of these lenses to get the best out of them.

For me the extra £2k would most certainly be worth it (and I am the MkI's biggest fan!!!!).

 

[GYRob]

What Roy say,s but if you do go for the new one you need to get the new TC's to get the best AF and IQ .

Rob.

 

[stevo]

Correct me if i`m wrong but isn`t the mk1 non is & only the mk2/3 are is?

Cheers.

Steve.

 

[GYRob]

Hi Steve

There is no 300f2.8 isL mk III it's the TC that is mkIII

Rob.

 

[Tony c]

On the verge of getting a mk2 myself, I do know a couple of guys who have the mk2 and the general feedback seems to be as Roy says that with a 2xtc mk111 converter it is sharper than the mk1 x2tc @ 600mm. add to that 4 stop IS makes it quite desirable, plus less weight, most birders will probably use it at 600mm most of the time that is why I am personally not interested in the mk1 version.
Tony.

 

[Dave Williams]

The cost of a Mk11's extra £2k is the equivalent of around 40% more expensive than a used Mk1..not exactly insignificant. Do you get a 40% gain in performance and characteristics, I don't know for sure but instinct says "no".
The reduction in minimum focus distance is 20%, the weight loss less than 10%. Claimed image stabilisation is a whopping 100% improvement but would you really notice it ? As for IQ, I can't comment on the 300mm but I can compare the Mk1 and Mk11 500mm's. On the bare lens I see no difference in iQ to my eye, although, despite my scepticism, I think the MK111 2.0x TC is an improvement on the Mk11 although I didn't test them against each other before I let the Mk11 go.
For me the gain on the 500mm Mk11 is about a significant weight loss, one that actually makes the lens very hand holdable. If it hadn't have been I probably wouldn't have bought it. It really is a game changer as it's no longer a 99% tripod lens for me.
The 300mm Mk11 doesn't reflect that kind of significant change in my opinion and consequently, value for money difference.

 

[Roy C]

Correct me if i`m wrong but isn`t the mk1 non is & only the mk2/3 are is?

Cheers.

Steve.

I think you may be getting confused with Converters and lenses Steve. The latest lens is MkII, The others were 300/2.8 IS MkI and the non IS was simply 300/2.8 (with no IS suffix).

 

[Dave Williams]

I think you may be getting confused with Converters and lenses Steve. The latest lens is MkII, The others were 300/2.8 IS MkI and the non IS was simple 300/2.8 (with no IS prefix).

Nikon's are even more confusing, their 500 and 600 mm VR lenses are actually the same system as the Nikon 300mm f2.8 MK11 but as they didn't make a MK 1 version of those two they are simply called VR .

 

[Roy C]

The cost of a Mk11's extra £2k is the equivalent of around 40% more expensive than a used Mk1..not exactly insignificant. Do you get a 40% gain in performance and characteristics, I don't know for sure but instinct says "no".

As I stated earlier Dave this is a subjective thing, to some folk it will be worth it but for others it will not. For me it will most certainly be worth it if only for the reasons I stated above, I have not got a clue about the % increase in performance nor do a care.
This falls into the law of diminishing returns, a £500 lens may be twice as good as a £250 lens but a £1000 lens will not necessarily be twice as good as the £500 one, the higher up the scale you go then the improvements will be less but that's what you pay for quality - no different to most things in life!
A lot of folk would say that the 300/2.8 IS MkI is not worth 3x more than a 300/4 Besides which how exactly do you measure gains in performance? I have just bought a new 5D3 but is the performance worth paying 400% more than a used 7D?? who knows - to some folk it is but to others it most certainly would not be.
All one can do is to point out the pro's and cons of the two different lenses and it will be up to the OP as to whether or not it is worth it to him, its not as if he does not know the price difference!

 

[Dave Williams]

As I stated earlier Dave this is a subjective thing, to some folk it will be worth it but for others it will not. For me it will most certainly be worth it if only for the reasons I stated above, I have not got a clue about the % increase in performance nor do a care.
This falls into the law of diminishing returns, a £500 lens may be twice as good as a £250 lens but a £1000 lens will not necessarily be twice as good as the £500 one, the higher up the scale you go then the improvements will be less but that's what you pay for quality - no different to most things in life!
A lot of folk would say that the 300/2.8 IS MkI is not worth 3x more than a 300/4 Besides which how exactly do you measure gains in performance? I have just bought a new 5D3 but is the performance worth paying 400% more than a used 7D?? who knows - to some folk it is but to others it most certainly would not be.
All one can do is to point out the pro's and cons of the two different lenses and it will be up to the OP as to whether or not it is worth it to him, its not as if he does not know the price difference!

Agree with you 100% Roy !

but our opinions are food for thought !

 

[johnf3f]

I went for the Mk1 version as, to me , the price difference was not worth it - 2600 quid - at the time.
They are both stunning lenses - you will not go wrong with either, just enjoy whichever one you get.

 

[barnstormer]

At this moment in time I am more inclined to try and get a good 2nd hand model but trying to source one relatively local is very difficult. The only ones for sale all seem to be in the south of the country. If that fails I may have to look at a new one and the only advantage of that is better image quality with the mk iii converters.

 

[Roy C]

. If that fails I may have to look at a new one and the only advantage of that is better image quality with the mk iii converters.

I think you would find that the 4 stop IS would have huge benefits for hand holding, especially when shooting at 600mm. If you do not intend to hand hold then the MkI lens will be fine although you would still need to stop down one with a 2x tc even if shooting on a good tripod and head in my experience.
BTW I even found stacking tc's (1.4x + 2x) to work well on the MkI (with MkII tc's) this gives 840mm and will even AF on a Camera like the 7D although you do need good light and sturdy support.
Either version will be a big step-up from the 100-400 that's for sure.

 

[stevo]

Thanks for clearing the confusion up guys.

Cheers.

Steve.

 

[pimpelmees]

I even found stacking tc's (1.4x + 2x) to work well on the MkI (with MkII tc's) this gives 840mm and will even AF on a Camera like the 7D .

With stack 1,4 + 2x tc's , the 7D will not AF !!

 

[Dave Williams]

With stack 1,4 + 2x tc's , the 7D will not AF !!

Never tried it but if Roy say's it does, it will !
The camera body presumably only "sees" one TC.

 

[johnf3f]

Never tried it but if Roy say's it does, it will !
The camera body presumably only "sees" one TC.

That's correct Dave. A while ago Roy cleared up a similar query for me.

 

[Roy C]

With stack 1,4 + 2x tc's , the 7D will not AF !!

Yes it will as Dave and John have said, when you stack the Camera only sees the 2x tc so thinks it is f5.6 and will AF.
This trick is also used on f4 lenses (like the 300/4) when you want 2x tc - instead of using a 2x tc you just stack two 1.4x tc's and again the Camera only sees one of the tc's so thinks it is still f5.6.

 

[postcardcv]

With stack 1,4 + 2x tc's , the 7D will not AF !!

Never tried it but if Roy say's it does, it will !
The camera body presumably only "sees" one TC.

I think it would be safest to say that you might get AF in standard shooting but it will AF in liveview. I have tried stacking TCs on 300 f2.8 IS mkI and on one lens it AFed fine but on a different copy with the same camera body and TCs it just hunted wildly. I think that how TCs behave when used outside what they are designed for (a single TC fitted on a lens) can vary massively, it may work for some but not for all.

Personally I am very happy to shoot my mkI wide open with a 2x and find the results to be very good. I do think that performance with a 2x seems to vary quite a bit based on individual copies of the tc. I have always been satisfied with my 2x tc but have a friend who could never get on with his. For me the reduced weight and better IS of the mkII would be nice to have but are not worth the additional £2k. Basically both versions of the 300 f2.8 IS are superb lenses and only you can decide if the improvements of teh mkII are worth the extra cost. (Make sure you also account for the additional cost of mkIII TCs if you do go for a mkII lens as they will make a difference).