Canon 300mm f/2.8 L USM vs Canon 300mm f/4 IS

Who wins?

Now that little sister has a Canon 7D Mark II with a 300mm f/4 IS, I can compare both. And we did, yesterday.

The 300mm f/4 is much, much smaller than the f/2.8 equivalent. The autofocus is very fast. It’s insanely fast. Faster than my 300mm f/2.8 non-IS? YES. You won’t miss a beat with this combo. We are now ready to head to Brazil’s great pantanal in the Matto Grosso State.

Some boring target shooting.

In real life usage, which one do I want? The 300mm f/2.8. There is no competition. The 300mm f/2.8 is much more fun haha! I was explaining to my sister that there’s a difference why there’s $4000 difference between the two. It isn’t just a high price tag for the sake of making a profit: no, it is the price to get optical perfection. The 300mm f/2.8 IS or VR (Canon and Nikon, I had both), are the best lenses ever made by their manufacturer.

It is their flagship. The 300mm f/2.8 is optically perfect and you will never be able to go back to a consumer grade lens like the f/4 IS USM L version. If you shot with the f/2.8 version before, a downgrade is impossible to bear.

The 300mm f/2.8 is sharper at f/2.8 than the f/4 version at f/4. But sharpness isn’t everything. Experience is. If you need a lightweight combo that can do a 500mm f/4 equivalent, than the 300mm f/4 is a no-brainer. It gives a nice 480mm reach on a crop sensor. It’s enough for most case, but one could always throw a 1.4x teleconverter to obtain a 672mm f/5.6 equivalent.

The 300mm f/2.8 allow the usage of a 2.0x TC, which turns it into a 600mm f/5.6 (no crop). That was a combo that I enjoyed more than my 600mm f/4 when I was on the Nikon side of things. A 300mm f/2.8 is probably the only lens you’d ever need: you get a 300mm f/2.8 on a 1Dx, a 390mm f/2.8 on a 1D Mark IV (1.3x crop sensor), 480mm f/2.8 on a 1.6x sensor. Then you can spice things up with a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter.

The 300mm f/4 has lens flare, high chromatic aberration, and not the sharpest lens ever made. It’s great for someone who wants to casually take wildlife photo. If you have a higher budget, I would go for a 70-200mm f/2.8 USM II with a 1.4x teleconverter over the 300mm f/4. My sister picked the 300mm f/4 for $500 USD: A bargain for a stabilized telephoto lens.

If money is no object, the 300mm f/2.8 is the only way out. It’s pure excellence, and one of the lens that I would carry with me to my grave. It’s bulletproof. It’s rugged. It’s beautiful. The 300mm f/2.8 on a 1D series body screams GUY THAT KNOWS WHAT’S UP. And sometimes, in life, it is necessary to make a statement.

300mm f/2.8 Pros and Cons

Pros:
Rugged
Insanely good bokeh (not just how much "blur” there is, but the quality of the transition)
Perfect optic.

Cons:
Heavy (but yo, gym memberships are cheap nowadays)
Price!? (Sell your kids, sell your house, sell a kidney, do whatever you need to get THIS lens. It’s so good)

300mm f/4 USM IS Pros and Cons

Pros:
Lightweight
Near instant autofocus
Stabilizer better than expected for an old lens
Price!

Cons:
Chromas
Better options exist out there (70-200mm f/2.8 USM II with 1.4x)

Thank you,
JP

ps: I will update this post with more photos, as I process mine and my sister’s.