topic Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus in EF & RF Lenses

Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:07:44 GMT

Hello,

While searching for a great deal on the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS mark I, I came across a few reviews suggesting soft focus issues with this lens. I was wondering if anyone experiences the same? Is this an inherent problem with this lens or luck of the draw? Below are some of the comments found on B&H site.

Unreliable and soft focus

Bymurphyslaw

After owing this lens for more than 3 years and struggling with the soft focus issues, I am now convinced that this lens has inherent quality issues and even after a tune up by Canon, i am still seeing soft focus issues inconsistently. I tried the several lens tests on a tripod, however, could not get a consistent result. Now looking at others who have similar issues, I am convinced that this is a faulty product, or atleast I have a lemon. Shame on Canon for producing such flawed products in the top of their product line.

------------------------------------

I was excited to have this lens, as a wedding photographer working in many low light situations --- my excitement was VERY quickly dashed. I used this lens at 1 wedding, and while I managed SOME photos that will be salvaged, the majority of the shots were MUCH softer focus than I want for my clients. Canon makes amazing equipment that I stand behind 100%.....THIS Canon lens is NOT something I can get behind.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

wq9nsc — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:57:31 GMT

The 300 f2.8 IS is an extremely sharp lens. I am certain Canon has produced some that needed work because any mass produced product will have some that need attention but I suspect that the problems with this lens are due to technique and possibly camera AF matching and NOT the lens.

And the only reason I would take a 300 f2.8 to a wedding was if it was one of those "southern shotgun weddings" where I would want to shoot from a safe location 🙂

Here are a few samples from a HS football playoff game I shot last Fall with the EF 300 f2.8 IS mounted on a 1DX II and all were shot wide open and ALL are cropped to at best 50% of the sensor size. Although it was a sunny day (too sunny really because it created far too much contrast) it was the coldest HS game I have ever shot with the wind gusting over 30 MPH at times and a temperature in the teens. Even with a freezing photographer managing that lens and a second body with a 70-200 f2.8, it produced a lot of great images. And these were shot while I was scrambling to keep in a good position while avoiding players and coaches, the lens does a great job under those trying conditions where you don't have time to do much more than just aim and shoot and will do even more under less trying conditions.

Rodger

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:06:18 GMT

Hi Rodger,

Thank you for sharing your experience with this lens. Based on your response, I assumed you would not hesitate getting this lens? Even when it's a mark i and not mark ii? Speaking of which, how much sharper is mark ii?

Cheers.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

wq9nsc — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:24:26 GMT

You are welcome! I have the Mark I and have never considered moving to the Mark II, I am extremely happy with the original. The only thing I changed with the Mark 1 was to replace the lens cap with the Mark II style which is better designed.

Of course, if you find an IS II in similar condition at a price not far different from the original then it would make sense to go that direction. I bought my 300 f2.8 IS used however virtually unused at a great price so it was a very easy decision.

Comparing the 300 f2.8 IS to the 200 f2 IS and 400 f2.8 IS II I think the results from all three are exceptional and the 800 is nearly as good but not quite to the same level as its three smaller siblings.

If you get close enough to fill the frame with a 300 f2.8 and you are shooting wide open then focus has to be spot on to get a sharp photo and perhaps either that or poor exposure triangle/shutter speed selection are the issues people have with it being soft. If you frame a subject where only head and shoulders are in frame, then the acceptable depth of field will be just over 2" total and for "pixel peeping" the depth of field is going to be a bit less. I have used the 300 f2.8 as part of the setup for some outdoor portraits but they were full body shots which put the subject far enough away that the entire subject was within a reasonable DoF. If you tried to use this lens for a headshot at a wedding with it wide open, the depth of field is under 3/4" and that isn't going to produce the desired look unless the bride is crying her eyes out and you only want her nose in focus 🙂

The 300 f2.8 IS is still one of the very best lenses available; after I get a chance to shoot a full football season with my recently acquired 400 f2.8 IS II it is possible that I will like it better but the 300 at worst will be my second favorite lens and I have a feeling it may stay in top place because it is a very versatile focal length.

Rodger

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

Peter — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:31:03 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
Hi Rodger,

Thank you for sharing your experience with this lens. Based on your response, I assumed you would not hesitate getting this lens? Even when it's a mark i and not mark ii? Speaking of which, how much sharper is mark ii?

Cheers.

The Digital Picture has a great tool to compare 300/2.8 L IS with 300/2.8L IS II.

300/2.8L IS is the best lens I own. The drop in CPL was expensive but worth the price. I got my 300/2.8L IS for about $1600 including x1.4 II.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:37:07 GMT

Hi Rodger,

KEH has one in decent condition, asking for $2170 (I think). Adorama has the mark ii for $3299 with the following description "Appears to have been used heavily, showing multiple dings, scrapes/scratches, cracks and heavy brassing but functions correctly."

Unfortunately, there no photos of the actual lens available to confirm the condition, especially CRACKS being mentioned in the description, hence I am reluctant to go with mark ii version.

The main reason for getting this lens is for wild life photography. I'll be going to Yellowstone in a few weeks.

Thanks.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:38:32 GMT

WOW $1600 including 1.4x extender, that's a steal! Where did you get it from and how long ago? Thanks.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

RobertTheFat — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:41:44 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
Hi Rodger,

KEH has one in decent condition, asking for $2170 (I think). Adorama has the mark ii for $3299 with the following description "Appears to have been used heavily, showing multiple dings, scrapes/scratches, cracks and heavy brassing but functions correctly."

Unfortunately, there no photos of the actual lens available to confirm the condition, especially CRACKS being mentioned in the description, hence I am reluctant to go with mark ii version.

The main reason for getting this lens is for wild life photography. I'll be going to Yellowstone in a few weeks.

Thanks.

Adorama has a pretty good reputation. If the lens had a crack, they'd probably say so. But why don't you call them up and ask?

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

Peter — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:22:55 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
WOW $1600 including 1.4x extender, that's a steal! Where did you get it from and how long ago? Thanks.

Samples with Exif here:
Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3 x2 III

Picture 4 x1.4 II

Got it from a local guy 1 hour away for perhaps 4 years ago. He wanted $1700. The rear lens element was foggy and the paint was missing at some places. Bought "lens paint" at Ebay and cleand the lens elements a couple of times.

Lit by sunlight it is possible to see the difference between the Canon white paint and the Ebay white paint.

The x1.4 II had some loose screws and didn't really lock. The previous owner must have droped it. Cost me some bucks at Canon Japan in Sapporo to fix it. One year later I filled the scratches with Ebay paint.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

wq9nsc — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:05:37 GMT

The great white primes are tough but I would be very leery of one that has the kind of physical issues described by Adorama. I generally like Adorama and have bought a lot of my Hensel flash stuff from them but one caution on the used items because several times I have found they sometimes cut and paste the info from the current product version and use that for a used version that is a generation or two earlier. I think that they are a good and reliable source but they tend to be a little careless with their descriptions sometimes with used products.

KEH has long had a great reputation and I would much rather have a gen 1 in good shape than a gen 2 in somewhat distressed condition. Maybe the crack is just in the lens hood but if not that would be a deal breaker for me.

I think you would be very happy with the gen 1. And for additional input, these photos were shot using the 300 f2.8 IS with the 1.4X converter at a golf tournament including a dragon fly who amused me while I was waiting for the group I was shooting to make it to my photo spot on the course 🙂 Both heavily cropped.

Rodger

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

RobertTheFat — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:20:20 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
Hello,

While searching for a great deal on the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS mark I, I came across a few reviews suggesting soft focus issues with this lens. I was wondering if anyone experiences the same? Is this an inherent problem with this lens or luck of the draw? Below are some of the comments found on B&H site.

Unreliable and soft focus
Bymurphyslaw

After owing this lens for more than 3 years and struggling with the soft focus issues, I am now convinced that this lens has inherent quality issues and even after a tune up by Canon, i am still seeing soft focus issues inconsistently. I tried the several lens tests on a tripod, however, could not get a consistent result. Now looking at others who have similar issues, I am convinced that this is a faulty product, or atleast I have a lemon. Shame on Canon for producing such flawed products in the top of their product line.

------------------------------------
I was excited to have this lens, as a wedding photographer working in many low light situations --- my excitement was VERY quickly dashed. I used this lens at 1 wedding, and while I managed SOME photos that will be salvaged, the majority of the shots were MUCH softer focus than I want for my clients. Canon makes amazing equipment that I stand behind 100%.....THIS Canon lens is NOT something I can get behind.

Did you check the autofocus microadjustment before using the lens at the wedding? I made that mistake once at an event with a (new) lens I had just bought; and if I hadn't been also using a second camera, if would have been a BIG embarrassment.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:35:19 GMT

Bob,

The comment provided was from a reviewer I got on B&H website. I am looking to buy the lens still.

Thanks.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

wq9nsc — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:47:05 GMT

And for some true soft focus images, these were shot with Canon's discontinued EF 135 f2.8 "soft focus" lens that a friend from Japan gave me. It has a separate variable soft focus control calibrated from 0 to 2 with it behaving like a normal very decent 135 f2.8 with the control set to 0. The shots in order are shot at soft focus 0, 1, and 2 respectively.

And setting it to soft focus 2 doesn't seem to hinder the camera AF system (or maybe I just can't tell since it really is soft) 🙂

Rodger

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 22:07:37 GMT

Not only it allowed for controlled soft focusing. It also deleted the fly as well 🙂

Nice photos.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

wq9nsc — Wed, 10 Jun 2020 22:16:54 GMT

Thanks 🙂 Don't worry, the fly didn't delete itself; it just went after the photographer. It is an interesting lens that probably was useful for portraits although at maximum soft focus the results are pretty bizarre instead of "dreamy". At a less soft setting, it does what Canon stated in producing a soft image that doesn't look terribly blurred.

But I much prefer the sharpness of the 300 f2.8 (or this lens in its 0 setting) to the soft focus look.

Rodger

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

RobertTheFat — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 02:32:35 GMT

@wq9nsc wrote:
Thanks 🙂 Don't worry, the fly didn't delete itself; it just went after the photographer. It is an interesting lens that probably was useful for portraits although at maximum soft focus the results are pretty bizarre instead of "dreamy". At a less soft setting, it does what Canon stated in producing a soft image that doesn't look terribly blurred.

But I much prefer the sharpness of the 300 f2.8 (or this lens in its 0 setting) to the soft focus look.

Rodger

I think the real reason for soft-focus lenses in portrait photography was to make warts, pimples, and other skin blemishes less conspicuous. It was a lot easier to blur them a little than to do the intricate, time-consuming dodging, burning, and re-touching that were the only practical alternatives in the film era. Digital photography has changed all that, of course. Any decent photo editor allows you to whisk the blemishes away with a couple of mouse clicks, effectively rendering the soft-focus lens obsolete.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

ebiggs1 — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:19:18 GMT

If I were you, I would consider and more likely buy the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens. Why do you think you need the f2.8 version? One stop! Brand new the f4 is around $1300 and has IS. It is as sharp or sharper than the f2.8 model.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

ebiggs1 — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:26:22 GMT

"And the only reason I would take a 300 f2.8 to a wedding was if it was one of those "southern shotgun weddings" where I would want to shoot from a safe location"

Before I got the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens, I regularly use my ef 100-400mm zoom for weddings. I like 300mm for weddings. I didn't use them a lot but there is always that shot!

For instance, some priests are finicky and don't want to see or hear the photographer. A 300mm lens helps with that. Over the years I have met and run into all kinds and all kinds of either total freedom or very tight controls. As a photographer you have to be ready.

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:43:58 GMT

Are you saying the 300 F4 IS lens is sharper than the 300m F2.8 IS lens? One reason for liking the F2.8 over the F4 is the ability to connect with the 2x converter. I know a lot of folks here would disagree with such combination, that said, I've seen and read reviews of such combo many have stated that there is no degradation as made out by others. I guessed it's really up to individual taste and judgment?

Re: Canon 300mm F2.8 USM IS Soft focus

limvo05 — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:56:45 GMT

Found a mint mark ii for $3300. I can't decide if I should get this 300mm F2.8 IS Mark ii or 500mm F4 IS mark i? The 500 is $2700, I was thinking of getting the 500mm and look for a 1.4x extender, this would give me a good reach for Yellowstone.

With the 300mm, I already have the 2x extender, so don't have to spend the extra $$$.

What do you think?