Well I haven't had much time with this lens yet, but I figured I'd start a thread to share what I've noticed so far, and update this as I go...

Here's what she looks like:


So far I've been very impressed with the sharpness of this lens. Not so much the sharpness due to design/IQ, but more so how sharp it is because of the IS. I'm very (pleasantly) surprised at how well it works. The only other IS lens I've owned was the 28~135mm IS almost 10 years ago now on film. I wasn't to thrilled with that lens though, as it wasn't fast enough on it's own....

Well the newer IS in this 300 is pretty impressive. I will say it's pretty noisy. I knew that it would make noise, and I've often chuckled at all the PotN threads about "broken" new lenses when people get them, but it is an ugly sound when you first hear it. It's a clunk and a whir when you press the shutter and activate the IS...

these shots were taken in my office yesterday, and then around my house last night. They aren't meant to be anything more than tests of the lenses hand hold ability in low light. Exifs are intact, check them out:

1/90th, f/4:


1/20th, f/4:


1/45th, f/4:


1/30th, f/4:


I guess that is what the IS is rated too (2 stops, 1/300th rounds to 1/250th, 1 stop is 1/125th, the next is 1/60th) but it's impressive to see it IRL. I'm also not the most stable tele shooter (I usually shoot at 1/2xFL)...

So far I'm very happy with the lens. I can't wait to get it outside to shoot something worthwhile. I also played around with it with the 1.4 TC last night. I didn't PP any of those shots (I thought the chart was at 420, I shot it at 3 FLs) but it's still sharp at 420mm with low shutter speeds in low light. The IQ holds up as expected.

nice writeup Ben, Cant wait to see it in person. ^ Scott looks cozy.

Yeah, she's sleeping/resting on Nikki's belly...

I'm impressed with the bokeh at f4. I'm more sure than ever that I want this lens (again).

Yeah, I agree Ted. I'm very happy with this over the 100-400 because the 1-4 is f/5.6 at 300 and up (might be earlier too?)... My only fear with the 300mm is that I don't leave it at f/4 all the time, but it's certainly sharp enough to take it. I've been wanting this lens for about 3 years now (and on the fence versus the 100-400 and other options). I'm pretty sure this was the right choice. The real first test will be at the air show this spring/summer.

Originally Posted by BobbyT

This is on my to get list. I am going to sell my Sigma 100-300 f4 and replace it with this and the 200mm 2.8L. Nice write up.

First, Welcome to the forums!!!

Buying this has me thinking about selling my 70-200mm f/2.8 for a 135L now. I had also though about the 200 f/2.8, but the 135L is a f/2 which would be nice, and it takes the 1.4 TC very well making it a 200 f2.8 at the same time. I'm just thinking I might wait until I can also get the 135L as well, then sell the 70-200 only if I prove myself right.

You guys must have big bags.

Yeah, Jay, it's not a good thing to get into primes for sure...
Went to the baby shower today and had to pick between the 70-200mm and 300mm... (Went with the 300mm for IS and because it's new). I also had to pick between the 70-200mm and the 3 primes I have that can take it's place (28, 50, 85). I went with the zoom there. My thing is I love primes. I love working with one FL and making it work by moving. I also love how much faster they are. I just hate changing lenses, especially around people who ask a lot of questions. One lens seems less expensive to them, and a few of them blend in...

Anyway, went with 2 zooms and the 300. I LOVED the 300 even though I thought it wouldn't work. IS and being able to "snipe" people was a lot of fun. I'll be posting a ton of shots tomorrow.

actually I do!

I wear it on hikes/beach walks. I love it, but it gets looks/comments, especially from the wifes family (but they love to ask for photos )....

I realized 2 things today though

• I need/want a 135L
• If I keep a 70-200, I should upgrade to IS. It's awesome for portraits.

More samples from the shower:
My Mother In Law (she'll hate these, but I really like them):




Nikki's hot friend Kristen(who was the bait):




I can has macro with a 300mm telephoto (yes I realized it's not true macro, but it's still impressive IMHO):


My favorite subject of the day was Katies Baby Hayden, he's with his Grandma, and he was the only other "boy" in the room with me:






now these last 2 are here to show why IS isn't a miracle cure... Everything was shot at f4 and ISO800 to get reasonable shutter speeds (I was seeing anywhere from 1/30th to 1/125th depending on who was sitting where). In these last 2 there is movement AND slow shutter speed resulting in motion blur. In this shot it's fine:


but in this shot Hayden is moving fast enough it ruins the shot:


all in all though, I'm VERY impressed with this lens. I didn't get any worse comments with it than I did with the 24-70mm (which is pretty large w/hood). I loved being able to be across the room and get spontaneous shots of people w/o them knowing it. Also the f4 bokeh is incredible. You do have to be careful with your focusing to be sure what you want is in focus as the DOF can be narrow enough to not get the eyes and ears from a profile. But if you get it right, with the IS, even slow shutter shots are amazingly sharp. Just shooting with this lens made my day worthwhile as almost all of the shots I liked were with it. Also when people got in the way of a shot, provided they were just in the frame and not blocking a subject the limited DOF makes them less of a distraction.

In order to fully appreciate the capabilities of this lens I'm going to need to see more pics of Kristin.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I loved being able to be across the room and get spontaneous shots of people w/o them knowing it. Also the f4 bokeh is incredible.

I think I'm more sure than ever that this is going to be my next lens.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

In order to fully appreciate the capabilities of this lens I'm going to need to see more pics of Kristin.

yeah, I had to be careful how much I shot her because I didn't want to get any comments from the wife when she went over the images when we got home...

"There sure are a lot of Kristen in there...."

She's ****ing beautiful. Like drop dead gorgeous. She also has the personality to go with it as she's very outgoing, fun loving and hilarious... She's waaaaaayyy to high maintenance for me, but she's a knockout. Add to that she was Nikki's college roommate and I've heard countless stories of her ending up topless/naked at parties, and yeah....

[/leghumping]

What, I'm allowed to window shop.

Katie, the Mom of the little redhead is also great on the eyes.

<-- me wearing sunglasses so Nikki doesn't know where I'm looking....

Yes, I realize this is really only a equipment test, but I figured I'd put this in sharing for now, then merge it with my 300mm lens thread later.

The moon is pretty close to full right now. It's actually full tomorrow night, so these are 2 days early. But it was super cold/clear out last night, and I had the camera out for the packers game/my PAD shot anyway, so I went out on the deck during half time to test out the 300mm with my TCs. I have both the 1.4 and the 2.0, so I tested it with each one, then both together.

These first 3 images are cropped to make them somewhat interesting:
300*1.4=420mm:


300*2.0=600mm (manually focused):


300*1.4*2.0=840mm (manually focused):


all 3 images put into the same frame w/o any cropping:


same labeled:


As for the setup? Well the 300mm with the 1.4 TC works out to be a 420mm f/5.6. That's fast enough that it will AF on the 5D. So that first shot is autofocused and it's spot on IMHO. I shot 12 shots that way, standing in the middle of my deck (zero support and looking almost straight up) and fired away. 7 of the 12 shots were what I consider sharp, and they are all shot at 1/125th, so any lack of sharpness could have been movement on my part. Pretty impressive IMHO.

The next shots are with the 300mm and 2.0 TC giving me an effective 600mm lens that's f/8. Now I still shot these at 1/125 but stopped down to f/13. The original series (with just the 1.4 TC) were shot at 1/125th and f/11, but looked a bit blown out on the LCD, in reality, they were spot on when looking at them in PS. Regardless, when you get to f/8, the 5D can't focus the lens on it's own (my 1D "can", didn't have it to test it). So these are sitting in a chair on the deck, but still limited support. I suck at manual focus, but I still managed to get 3 out of 6 shots sharp enough. And that's combining my movement with getting the focus right. Not too shabby.

The third set of shots was with both TCs stacked. This was more out of a curiosity factor... This gives me a 840mm f/11 lens effectively. The one thing I didn't realize (because I didn't do the TC math before I shot) is that I actually shot these shots WIDE OPEN... Again, these had to be manually focused. I sat in a chair to give me some support, but I was still not all that stable. I shot 9 frames here, and 4 were what I consider acceptable. I wish I had stopped down a bit because that would technically make these sharper... (both due to focusing errors and the loss of sharpness due to TCs usually gets better as you stop down).

The exposures were all based on sunny 16 guesstimates and then adjusting to what I saw on the LCD (ie I started at f/16, 1/125, ISO 100 and opened up 2 stops to get the moon a bit brighter). The moon is a PITA to get an automatic reading on, so I always shoot it in manual and start with the sunny 16 rule of thumb....

All in all, I'm quite impressed with how well this lens takes the TCs, especially stacked, and at how well the IS works. Seriously, 1/125th at 840mm?

Wow, that's some damn nice results, Ben. I'm impressed too. Nice write-up as well.

I'm curious, when you focussed manually was the lens' focus mark not on infinity?

yeah, it was VERY close to it if it wasn't ted....

but the slightest nudge either side made a big difference. The one thing I will say about this lens versus my sigma 70-200 and bigma (that I owned ages ago) is that the canon's focus seemed more sensitive... ie less travel meant a bigger adjustment. You'd think this would make it harder to manually focus, but in fact the drag is just enough tighter it was actually pretty easy to MF.

But the difference between in focus and out of focus was so small on the scale Ted, I couldn't really set it inside and then shoot. The mark was "lined" up in focus, and slightly out either way... Maybe if I had stopped down to f/22 it would have been enough, but then I would have had to use my tripod or a higher ISO.

Maybe if I had stopped down to f/22 it would have been enough, but then I would have had to use my tripod or a higher ISO.

These were shot without a tripod, Ben?

If that's the case, damn.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

standing in the middle of my deck (zero support and looking almost straight up)

So these are sitting in a chair on the deck, but still limited support.

I sat in a chair to give me some support, but I was still not all that stable.

Originally Posted by Stime187

These were shot without a tripod, Ben?

see above

All in all, I'm quite impressed with how well this lens takes the TCs, especially stacked, and at how well the IS works. Seriously, 1/125th at 840mm?

If that's the case, damn.

yep.

I must've not read the whole thing... but DAMN. Wow.

Yeah, at those focal lengths focus is incredibly difficult, that's why I have an 8:1 reduction for my telescope focuser and then I double check everything on the laptop with a FFT program. It just now dawned on me how much the teleconverters and increased focal length narrow the focal plane, if I had actually stopped and thought about it before I wouldn't have posted my question.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

It just now dawned on me how much the teleconverters and increased focal length narrow the focal plane.

yeah, except at that distance, I'd bet it's still pretty big.

<--- runs off to calculate that with a DOF calculator....

well at 100', the DOF at f/11 (what the 840 shot was taken at) is 3.15'!
but yeah, multiply that out to the moon's distance (basically infinity right?) and it's 6148'~infinity.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

yeah, except at that distance, I'd bet it's still pretty big.

<--- runs off to calculate that with a DOF calculator....

Well, at 300mm (or 420, 600 and 840) what's the minimum distance that everything essentially become infinity?

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Well, at 300mm (or 420, 600 and 840) what's the minimum distance that everything essentially become infinity?

@ 300mm 802' gets you to infinity
@ 420mm 1458' gets you to infinity
@ 600mm 2583' gets you to infinity
@ 800mm 3824' gets you to infinity

all @ f/11...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

well at 100', the DOF at f/11 (what the 840 shot was taken at) is 3.15'!
but yeah, multiply that out to the moon's distance (basically infinity right?) and it's 6148'~infinity.

Well sure, the focal plane is mathematically huge, but I was trying to wrap my head around what the increase in focal length did to it for practical purposes.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

@ 300mm 802' gets you to infinity
@ 420mm 1458' gets you to infinity
@ 600mm 2583' gets you to infinity
@ 800mm 3824' gets you to infinity

all @ f/11...

Looks like the focus at 800mm is about 4.7 times more sensitive than at 300mm.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Looks like the focus at 800mm is about 4.7 times more sensitive than at 300mm.

that's a good way of looking at it... and that's when it's hardest to focus simply because the slightest movement shoots the moon out of the frame.

From the tripod tonight for my PAD.

Wow, I really need to get my work monitor calibrated...

those shots with 3 moons, you can see I used the rectangular selection tool to make them and the black background is slightly off on the 2 larger moond...

OK, fixed the issue with the moons not being blended. I also started a layers tutorial as I did it.

ouch this is sharp!

On the 30D w/ 1.4 tc no PP, straight camera.

Sharp, yes, flattering that close, not so much....

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Sharp, yes, flattering that close, not so much....

Your mostly blocked by the 5D so its tolerable... I didnt post the other one for a reason

more samples from the weekend, I'm still in love with this lens:

regarding AF with the 1.4TC... Matt and I both played with this lens and my 1.4 TC Sunday... On my 5D and his 30D as those are our respective workhorses... We didn't have anything moving super fast to test it with, and it wasn't a scientific test by any means, but it seems to do VERY well with the 1.4TC in terms of AF speed an accuracy.

The issues I had was when on Matt's 30D it was VERY hard to keep the center point on the target (bird fling)... But it's a 672mm lens at that point, so it's ridiculously long. But the AF on the 30D could keep up w/o any issues provided the active point was on the target. Also just pointing it quickly at something ~10' away, then ~500'+ away (the seals) it would hop into focus very quickly. No hesitation or anything. It might be a tad slower than w/o the TC, but I wasn't thinking it was slow or that there were any issues.

The only other issue we had is if you put the focus limiter switch on 3m~infinity (the other option is 1.x~infinity) and the focus is inside of that 3m mark it won't AF out of that range... IE if it's at 1.xm and you have the switch on 3m, it can't get the focus out of the 1.x~3m mark on it's own... You have to move it yourself. But this is in the manual and it's expected. Once you get it outside the 3m mark it works fine and doesn't seem to hunt. We just didn't realize it was within that mark and tried to AF it and got nothing.... Then we MFed it and figured it out, but it's worth mentioning.

I'm sure Matt can chime in with his impressions too. Yes it's slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS w/o a TC on it, but what do you expect. I'd bet it's fast enough for bikes at the range you'd need this lens, and airshows. I'll let you know after ALMS and the RI Airshow this summer.

^ As Ben said, I got to play a little bit with the 300mm yesterday. Its a great lens. Its much lighter that the 70-200 by far, its tick tack sharp as expected from a prime of this quality. I LOVE the Hood, its super convenient for use and storage as its built into the lens.

I found the AF to be quick once we figured out the ~3m problem. Tracking wise it worked well and def. had some reach to it. It did leave me wanting more out of the zoom, but on a 1.6 with a 1.4 tc and 300mm FL, I guess thats getting greedy. With the tc Aperture can only go 5.6 which is fine for daylight shooting, I found it to be great and easily handholdable especially with IS. I was mostly impressed with the IQ right out of the lens with the tc. I only used it with the tc attached, so I can only imagine it would be better without.

taken@ 5.6 with the 30D, 300mm w/ 1.4 tc.

Thanks for the comments on the 300 + tele guys, because that's what I'm considering for the upcoming race season. Best guess Matt, how far away is that amorphous blob (seal?) in your shot? I need to guesstimate my bokeh @f/5.6.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Thanks for the comments on the 300 + tele guys, because that's what I'm considering for the upcoming race season. Best guess Matt, how far away is that amorphous blob (seal?) in your shot? I need to guesstimate my bokeh @f/5.6.

hmm... Hes the one to the far right.



That was on Bens 5D at 420mm. my shot with the 30D made it 672mm. So Id say to get him completely in frame we was another 300-400mm away. I could be way off as well. Mr. SEAL was also cropped slightly for better comp. not much but slightly.

Not sure if ben got a WA of the beach we were shooting from.

my shot is full frame (ie not cropping) on the 5D with the 1.4 (so 420 as Matt said).
Here's the location:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...wloc=addr&om=0
so I'd say we were easily 750' from the seals, and probably closer to 1000'... We were on the point on the left, there were where the pointer is.

and WTF happened to my signature on that shot?
too bad I formatted that card already... the original's back at home.

Cool, I doubt I'll ever be shooting at bikes more than 100-150m away, so that's something for me to think about.

I took the ruler to my screen and I would say we were 1.75 inches away from the seals.

Originally Posted by DotGrl03

I took the ruler to my screen and I would say we were 1.75 inches away from the seals.

not only was that the answer I was looking for, that's exactly the kind of answer I deserve.

I might as well whore this out here as well: