Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

pwp

EOS 5D MK IV
Oct 25, 2010
2,517
7
This lens is one of the real sleepers in the Canon L range. I sold mine when I got my 300 f/2.8 but I'm seriously tempted to get another one primarily for it's incredible light weight, sharpness wide open, surprisingly close minimum focus distance, 77mm filters and the small space it takes up in the bag.

-PW
 

marekjoz

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 6, 2011
927
0
www.flickr.com
pwp said:
This lens is one of the real sleepers in the Canon L range. I sold mine when I got my 300 f/2.8 but I'm seriously tempted to get another one primarily for it's incredible light weight, sharpness wide open, surprisingly close minimum focus distance, 77mm filters and the small space it takes up in the bag.

-PW
I'm sure it's rather small and lightweight - no problems with handhold shooting for 3 hours or walking with it in a park. IS could be better and contrast - then it would be just perfect. Shooting against light makes some problems but in overall - the IQ/price factor is really good.


Legia - Jagiellonia. 1:2 by marekjoz, on Flickr
 

mrsfotografie

M.R.S. Fotografie www.mrsfotografie.nl
Jul 13, 2012
1,624
0
43
The Netherlands
www.mrsfotografie.nl
Is it just me or do the images from this lens seem to have more 'pop' than those of the 100-400? With the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 1.4TC II and 100-400L in my collection I wonder if there is any benefit in getting this 300 mm as well???
 

Mr Bean

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 15, 2012
555
0
Australia
And as a great macro lens. I was out attempting to photograph birds, when I saw this Wax Lip orchid. Without bothering to change to my macro, I used the 300mm + 1.4x TC (with a touch of fill flash). A great lens :)

 

Tyroop

EOS 80D
Jun 30, 2013
118
12
I had a nightmare with this lens. In theory the 300mm f/4.0L and 1.4x converter combination should have been better than a 400mm f/5.6L.

300/4.0 + 420/5.6 + IS vs 400/5.6 No IS

In practice it didn't work like that at all. I managed to get a few decent shots out of the 300 f/4.0L, but the vast majority were completely unusable. I took it to Canon's service facility in Singapore for checking and calibration, but it was still no better.

The first generation IS is clunky and not very effective. My other IS lenses feel as if a giant pair of hands has grabbed the lens and is holding it still. The 300 f/4L IS helps a little, but not very much.

I sold it and bought the 400 f/5.6L. This lens has been stellar with far superior image quality and consistency. I don't miss IS all that much, but an update with the latest IS would be very welcome.

I can't really understand all the written praise in this thread. Most of the sample images have been downsized so much that there is no detail visible, or horribly over-sharpened in PP. The squirrel shot wasn't bad.

Perhaps I had a particularly bad copy, but after my experience I could never recommend this lens. YMMV. This is just about my own personal experience.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_300F4LIS.html
 

jonathan7007

EOS RP
Jan 20, 2012
263
0
I noticed the "IS" in the thread title after clicking in. There seem to be examples from the "plain" 300L, too. I have the non-IS version and have never handled the heavier IS-equipped unit. I like my non-IS model a lot. Paid $700 used and it is very sharp wide open. Good to have something light like this. I don't have access to a sample from this computer.

I once tried rodeo with the 2x-v2 on my 5Dmk3. Of course the body said, "no." But the plain 300's AF is good enough for that action. The handling of this lens is great.

Canon tells me that last November (2013) the lens went "out of service" or reached "end of life" status, meaning no fixes or any service work. Too bad. I don't know if the IS version has been so designated. I don't have much need for this for client work right now but will keep it.

I loved several of the soccer pictures in this thread.