New Toy!

[Fast Glass]

While this lens is ancient news, it's still the nicest I've had and more big whites will definitely be added to the collection. Quite likely the 400mm f/4 DO IS.

But here is my new to me 300mm f/2.8 IS! I'm super pumped to have it and has been a lens I have wanted for a very long time. Definitely can be considered a staple lens for many.

Thus far I'm very pleased, I had to crank the AF micro adjustment all the way to 20 to correct for front focusing. But it seems to alleviate it. Needs more testing and pixel peeping to 100% sure.

But either way I'm just excited to have the lowly 300mm f/2.8!

[Joel Eade]

Congrats!

A great lens to be sure....it was also my first big white.

It does well with teleconverters too.

[HDNitehawk]

Back in its day, it was arguably Canon's sharpest lens.
I had a copy, used it to shoot kids graduation and other events.
I wouldn't consider it "lowly" by todays standards. It is an extremely good lens.

[Fast Glass]

Indeed. I'm just trying to be conservative. Reality is I'm super pleased to have it and so far the IS has performed really well for me and the AF is super fast and snappy. Also concure it was one of Canons sharpest, if not sharpest lens back in the day. And still very sharp today. Been doing some shooting with it and pixel peeping and thus far I think I got it all calibrated.

Next thing to get is the 1.4x and 2x extenders. But even with the bare lens and 1D III it's still more than capable of shorter range birding.

Definitely stoked to have it!

[HDNitehawk]

You just have to be closer. I have always thought my best bird shots came from when I was at or very close to the minimum focal distance and that distance is much closer with the 300mm than the 500mm.

If you ever get a chance to pick up a reasonably priced 500mm f/4L IS USM I would recommend it. Just like the 300mm and its successor the original 500mm was an exceptional lens. The upgrade was almost not worth it, the IQ was almost identical and the one thing you gained was weight. Several of those on ebay starting around $2,500.

[Kayaker72]

You just have to be closer. I have always thought my best bird shots came from when I was at or very close to the minimum focal distance and that distance is much closer with the 300mm than the 500mm.

Agreed.

I have not yet set this up myself, but I've been thinking about using shorter lenses, set them up so that they are manually focused on a perch with a deep DoF, and then using a remote trigger when a bird is approaching or at the perch. I've seen that technique used a couple times with great success but haven't yet done it myself.

[HDNitehawk]

Agreed.

I have not yet set this up myself, but I've been thinking about using shorter lenses, set them up so that they are manually focused on a perch with a deep DoF, and then using a remote trigger when a bird is approaching or at the perch. I've seen that technique used a couple times with great success but haven't yet done it myself.

If you are doing a back yard perch you could get enough cable to run from your camera to your computer at your desk inside. Once you get the camera set up you could shoot from your computer. I like that idea.

However the concept of a shorter lens vs the longer I am not sure you would gain much at minimum focal distance. The bokeh would change, but I ran the numbers on the 300mm vs the 35mm II and your subject would fill the frame equally at the minimum focal distance. The DOF at equal apertures is near identical. The only advantage I would see is if you own the shorter lens and not a longer lens. The perspective with the DOF and the shorter lens might give some creative opportunity.

[Kayaker72]

If you are doing a back yard perch you could get enough cable to run from your camera to your computer at your desk inside. Once you get the camera set up you could shoot from your computer. I like that idea......The perspective with the DOF and the shorter lens might give some creative opportunity.

Exactly. We used something similar in a blind at Laguna Seca for the landing pics. Bottom line is AF isn't fast enough, so shoot in a pre-determined MF mode. But I like the idea of being closer and having a wider angled perspective. While I hadn't been thinking 300 mm, this thread made me think of it as it is a way of getting closer to birds.

[Fast Glass]

I can absolutely see the reasoning for using a bit shorter lens like a 300mm for set up back yard birds.

Odly enough I was just refreshing myself on Bryan's review of the 500mm. What a trip down memory lane since it has been a very long time since I have read it.

But yes, they are quite affordable relatively speaking. Especially for the performance you get. And as you said exceptionally sharp. I can see myself getting away with without using an extender a lot of the time.

I have often thought, it be so cool to own the 200mm through 800mm 1st gen big whites. Just as a collection but very much a useful one.

I'm getting close to a place where my gear can pay for themselves. At least that is the goal. Then the cost would not bother me.

Either way, I'm still super pleased with what I have and just blown away with how sharp it is. I'm more sensor limited, distance/haze limited sometimes than sharpness limited
It's fantastic.

[Joel Eade]

Agree that the 300 f/2.8 was most likely Canon's sharpest lens when it arrived on the scene and I had a great experience with it but I ultimately traded it for a 500 f/4 ( to give to my son) due to focal length. I did not notice any significant loss of IQ and the 300 f/2.8 remains a popular choice for birds, especially flight shots. At the time, if I could have afforded to simply add the 500 and keep the 300 I would have for sure!