The only negative of the 300 F4 L IS, IMHO, is the weak 1st gen IS system. I know photogs who have sold their 300 2.8's for 300 F4's, insisting on a combo of 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS or 500 F4 IS.
I have considered this idea before; with a DOF as thin as it is at 300 mm f/4 (and a lens that is sharp wide-open), who needs f/2.8?
I do. The 300mm f/2.8 II works brilliantly with the 2xTC III to give a 600mm at f/5.6. The 300mm f/4 with the 2xTC is poor and also is f/8. The bokeh at f/2.8 is superb, and the extra stop gives greater versatility.
Thanks, hadn't considered that. Aside from the benefits of TC versatility, and obviously the AF benefit of having f/2.8, how hit and miss is f/2.8 at this focal length?
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes