Tests and reviews for the lens Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Measurements and specifications
| Announced | 1999-07-01 |
| Indicative price (USD) | 6000 |
| Aperture | f/2.8 |
| Focal range (mm) | 300 |
| Filter diameter (mm) | 52 |
| Max diameter (mm) | 128 |
| Mount type | Canon EF |
| Stabilization | Yes |
| AF Motor | USM |
| Zoom type | / |
| Rotating front element | No |
| Tripod mount | Yes |
| Color | Grey |
| Full-Time manual focus | Yes |
| Number of lenses | 17 |
| Number of groups | 13 |
| Diaphragm blades | 8 |
| Circular aperture | No |
| Length (mm) | 252 |
| Weight (gr) | 2550 |
Certain fields may be left blank. They will be updated as soon as possible.
in P-Mpix
in EV
in EV
in micrometer
Further readings for the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
|
Launched in July 1999, the Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens has been one of the most popular super telephoto lenses in the Canon range for wildlife and sports photographers alike. As expected for a super telephoto lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture and an Image Stabilizer, it is right at the top of the tree in terms of cost. But does the performance match the price? DxOMark presents the results, including a comparison of the Canon with the Pentax smc DA Star 300mm f/ 4 ED (IF) SDM, a lens also recently tested in our laboratories. |
|
16 years on from its launch the Canon EF 135mm f/2L prime is still going strong and available to buy brand new today. With a wide maximum aperture, useful telephoto focal length and good build quality it offers some attractive features. Costing $1,000 however it’s at the expensive end of the range for a standard telephoto prime. So with newer, fresher and cheaper competition coming on to the market all the time is this old-timer still relevant? |
Comments
|
Added by Toshik |
January 16
incorrections
There are several incorrections in the review. For example sharpness (P-Mpix) score is confused with overall DXomark Score.
For example: Attached to the APS-C sensored EOS 7D, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM once again puts in a strong performance, scoring 16.7P-Mpix, relative to the EOS 7D’s resolution of 18megapixels. Equally, the Pentax lens scores very well, managing 15.0P-Mpix compared to the 16.3megapixels available on the K-5. Overall, this shows the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is as good as it’s made out to be, but in this comparison, the Pentax on a K-5 is not that far behind. EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM + 7D =11P-Mpix not 16.7P-Mpix as mentioned. DA Star 300mm f/4 ED (IF) SDM + Pentax K-5=only 7P-Mpix not 15. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Nicolas |
January 18
Re: incorrections
Hello,
There was indeed a mistake. This part was only talking about DxOMark score. Thanks a lot for letting us know, it should now be corrected. Best regards, Reply |
|
|
Added by Toshik |
January 19
Re: incorrections
Furthermore in the [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/With-new-STM-technology-does-Canon-s-updated-18-135mm-still-deliver/Comparisons]review[/url] of Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-f5.6 IS STM lens
In comparison section: Quote: Tested on the flagship APS-C DSLRs from Canon and Nikon, the 7D and D7000, these two Super Zooms achieve remarkably similar results. Overall we can say they’re the same optically although the Nikon version hits a DxOMark Score of 13 just nudging out the Canon with 12. The screenshot shows us not D7000 but D300 with the score 10 not 13 as mentioned. [img]http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review/lens/canon-18-135mm/12.jpg[/img] Reply |
|
|
Added by Toshik |
February 15
Re: incorrections
Error in screenshot
What does it mean "Not available"? [img]http://cdn.dxomark.com/itext/review/camera/nikkon-1-j3/06.jpg[/img] Reply |