An Evaluation of Canon's EF300mm f/2.8 L IS
I purchased this lens in March of 2000. My reasons for doing so were to have a hand-holdable lens of 300mm (and longer with a teleconverter) focal length to use on nature subjects. What follows is an attempt to assess the practicality of doing so. Images of test targets taken with the lens alone are compared to images taken with the Canon EF2X teleconverter. Slides taken with the EF1.4X converter will be added soon too. The slides were examined with a high quality 8X loupe during the procedure. Sometimes it was difficult to see any significant difference between test slides even with the loupe, meaning it can be tough to see a difference between a shot taken at 1/50 on a tripod vs one hand held at that shutter speed.. Many slides were taken but only a few are reproduced here for purposes of illustration. Of course jpegs and web resolution images are a poor tool for assessing optical excellence but several people have inquired about this lens and I feel, however limited the medium, the images presented here may be of interest and use to those curious about IS in general and this offering from Canon in particular. My preliminary concern was with the functioning of the IS system. In the future more tests will be carried out and comparisons posted to determine if there is a significant deterioration in performance of the lens when coupled to the teleconverters.
Effectiveness of Image Stabilization
These preliminary results compare frames taken of a static, printed subject at low shutter speeds shot with and without IS.
The subject was an equipment box located approximately 10 feet from the camera. All images were on Elitechrome 100. All were cropped in Photoshop v5.5 and saved as jpeg files with the same moderate compression factor. No sharpening was applied. These images are desaturated to remove subjective effects caused by minor differences in ambient light. Note that the images are all greatly enlarged from the full frame which is reproduced immediately below for reference.
Above: Hand held at 1/50 sec f/2.8. IS off.
Below: Hand held at 1/50 sec f/2.8. IS on.
Above: Hand held at 1/25 sec f/4. IS on.
Below: Tripod mounted. 1/25 sec f4. IS off
I'll leave these test frames to speak for themselves with the single observation that achieving a reasonably sharp slide hand holding a 300mm lens at 1/25th of a second is astonishing to me. There seems only slight difference in sharpness between the tripod mounted image and the one hand held with IS on at 1/25 sec.
Performance with Teleconverters
Directly below are two images shot at 600mm (the 300mm with EF2X converter).Compare the tripod mounted shot to the hand held shot. . . .a focal length of 600mm hand held at 1/160 second. The image is cropped on both sides but the full 24mm film expanse is depicted in the vertical. Again, the identical mimimal jpeg compression was applied to both images and no sharpening was used. Disregard the white letters at the top of the frames as they were applied with Photoshop as annotation and are not "photographic." Certainly the hand held image is softer than the tripod mounted one . . . look carefully at the "How to pat bumblebees" legend on the little wood painting.
Real World Results and Impressions
The picture of the little saw whet owl was taken hand holding the 300 without converters in good light and with IS on. Sorry . . . in the excitement I did not notice the shutter speed so the picture proves little. Critical examination with the 8X loupe clearly shows softness in the image (this particular image was sharpened in Photoshop). I have had sharper results with my 800/5.6 but that behemoth is always tripod mounted of course. Also the lens was shot wide open and, at only 12 feet or so, the depth of field limitation may have contributed to the softness. The lighting was good and the shutter speed should have been sufficiently high that camera shake would not have played much of a roll IS or no IS. The bird's right eye does appear tack sharp under the loupe by the way so I'm blaming an inappropriately large aperture rather than the lens for this.(For details about this particular bird, photographed at my home, see this link.)
My overall, although still prelimnary, impression leaves me no doubt at all that IS works and is a wonderful innovation to photography. The 300 with 2X converter allows me to hand hold an effective 600mm f5.6 . . . a heady thought! However, the softness in the owl image leaves me a bit concerned too. I wish I had the presence of mind to take a few shots with the lens tripod mounted and stopped down a bit to have something to compare to the hand held, wide open results. I retain the feeling that best results are still achieved using a tripod wherever possible but the potential of these IS lenses for high quality photography when a tripod is just not practical is very high. That is why I purchased this particular lens and expanded my equipment acquisitions to include Canon hardware. Until now, I have owned only Nikon system equipment for several decades.
Quibbles: One minor and one not so minor
It is very easy when handling this lens to inadvertently turn the IS and AF switches off. I have done this several times already and it can hurt when time and composition are critical. If AF does not work it is immediately evident of course although time can still be lost. Switching IS off by accident can be a bit more insidious although I am now more aware of it. I took about 4 shots of a pheasant with the IS off before I caught on. The first time I was unsure of what had happened . . . how the switch came to be in the off position. Now I know how easy it is to do this accidentally while using the lens.
For those who have not yet tried an IS lens, at this focal length at least, it becomes quite obvious when the system engages. The effect is plainly evident most of the time as the jitters of hand holding quite noticebly diminish. Still seconds are lost when you realize you have accidentally hit the switch again and have to re- engage it.
The second quibble was a little more irritating. Please note the past tense. This lens killed the batteries when left mounted to my EOS3 despite the camera main switch being in the lock position. A firmware update(from 6D to 6E) , carried out at no charge by Canon Canada, solved this problem.
Hand Holding?
A few remarks concerning hand holding this lens: It is HEAVY! I can not support it for more than 15 seconds or so without my arm and hand demanding relief. Also it does not hang about the neck or off the shoulder very gracefully either. I did not expect a featherweight but was a bit daunted at the mass in my smallish and aging hands. Use of a monopod is highly recommended. Even if you shoot hand held, the 'pod is a blessing for merely holding the weight between intense shooting sessions. Not a flimsy monopod either. This is just too expensive an item to trust to anything other than a sturdy and reliable support. I have found the Bogen #3249 'pod and #3229 swivel head/quick release to be perfectly adequate. My older monopod, a Tamron "Action" 'pod was not up to the job . . . the quick release mechanism was just not sufficiently reliable for the weight and size of this lens.
Monopod or no, there is no doubt this lens is a burdensome thing to lug about. Obviously the stronger and larger the hands and arms doing the holding the better. Still I have great hopes for it and have no regrets yet that I purchased it and it CAN be hand held! It is a thing of beauty and seems solidly built with an enviably high quality of fit and finish. I certainly will not be retiring my mighty 800mm f/5.6 IF-ED Nikkor but this lens seems to complement the reach of the 800mm rather well. Of course no human being can hand hold an 800/f5.6! This spring I hope to use the 300/2.8 on hummingbirds and, with the EF25 extension tube, on butterflies too. While far more massive, the IS feature may make it preferable to my EF180mm f3.5 L macro for butterflies. We'll see. I would be most interested in any feedback, especially from those who have experience with the new Canon "super" IS telephotos.
Send mail to: Terry Danks