300mm F4L IS

[wickidwombat]

Hi, I was wondering if i could get some feedback from other owners of this lens
I picked one up vey cheap a while back and while its obviously older its in very good condition no scratches came withcase and manual and everything functions fine and takes nice sharp images.

just a couple of things i was wondering others experience with this lens
1 its noisey makes alot of clunking when focusing, this is probably the older style IS i guess but its alot louder than my 28-300 used to be

2 the focus ring is not firm like all my other L Lenses its turns smoothly and works perfectly there is just a bit of slop in the tolerance and it has some play in the direction along the barrel

any feedback would be great.

still IQ is fantastic and having that extra stop at 300 is great over a5.6

 

[Loswr]

That was my experience when I had a 300/4 IS - the IS engaged with a 'clunk' and was pretty audible when operating.

 

[Viggo]

Yup, same noise with the one I had, and that wasn't used at all.. Maybe the weatherseal in a few other L's make them tighter when focusing or zooming (?). My guess is that it's perfectly alright.

 

[Harv]

That's standard for the 300/4L IS. I've had 3 copies of that lens over the years and all had very noisy IS systems.

If you were to read all the reviews on that lens on Fred Miranda, the vast majority of users had the same noise. Still a great lens though.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I recently bought a used one, and noted a clunk about the time it reached focus, so I thought it was the AF. I tried it again just now, and it does seem to be the IS making a clunk as it actuates. I just bought a new hearing aid and now can hear all the focusing and IS noises that I could not hear before. It definitely makes a lot of noise.

 

[AprilForever]

It's a kicking lens! It is the second best lens ever (in some ways...)! Especially with a 7D, this is a amazing lens I have used mightily, and love it!

 

[pwp]

I bought a 300mm f/4is in 1996 or 1997 which I used solidly for years. It was pin-sharp wide open. It's the size of a 70-200 and weighs a lot less.

When threads like this pop up I still get pangs of sellers-regret. I traded this incredibly useful piece of glass when I bought my 300 f/2.8is. While I completely love using the f/2.8 300, I don't tend to just leave it in the bag like I did with the f/4. Among other things I used to shoot food with it for a client who loved the look...minimum focus distance is WAY closer than the f/2.8. There is room in any photographers kit for both these 300's. I'm on the lookout for another f/4.

With the improved AF and radically improved high iso performance that is available to us now, an f/4 lens doesn't cramp your style in the same way as it did in the days of sleepy AF and a reluctance to shoot beyond 100 iso.

For the past 15 or so years the 300 f/4is has been a genuine "sleeper" bargain in the Canon L range. You'll barely hear a negative comment about them.

Paul Wright

 

[wickidwombat]

I love the balance of the lens and i leave the tripod foot off so its handled more easily
and I love that build in lens hood, dunno why this concept didn't pop up on more lenses

 

[briansquibb]

Unfortunately for the 300 f4 the newer 70-300L has got better IQ, IS and bokeh. Add in the fact that that the 70-300L is smaller and of course the bonus of being a zoom means that it is going to take sales away from the 300 f4.

The improved iso performance of todays bodies means that unless you really need F4 instead of f5.6, the 70-300L looks a better buy. I know, I had both and the 300f4 lost out.

Brian

 

[alek35]

My 300 F/4 only becomes noisy when I use extension tubes and the focusing seems to reach its limits.
The IS seems very quiet.

I am however very disappointed with the sharpness of my unit wide open. On top of that it is front focusing pretty heavy, so much I find it useless on my 20D. On my new body (5D) I had to set MFA to +16 to get proper AF.

Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.

BTW does anybody know if it is possible to do MFA on the lens by dissambling it ? My unit is past warranty anyway...

Best regards,
Thomas

 

[pwp]

Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.
Thomas

That's rare...go to the Fred Miranda reviews and most of the bazillions of reviews for this lens report stellar sharpness wide open, as do most of the posts in this thread.

Consider taking your 300 to Canon for a health check.

Paul Wright

 

[Steve Campbell]

I recently picked one of these up and so far so good. The minimum focal distance of 1.5 meters is a plus, and I like the retracable hood. As for comparisons to the newer 70-300L, I can't say as I have never used one. No doubt it's nice, but it is more expensive. You don't see many used ones and when you do they won't be in the sub $1000 range, which can happen with the 300L. Constant apperture is nice too and it works well with the 1.4 TC's from reports I've read. That gives you the option to go to 420mm at 5.6. I don't believe the 70-300L takes a TC.

 

[wickidwombat]

Yeah after having used the 28-300 max aperture of 5.6 compared to 4 is a BIG difference and one that just bumping up the iso isnt a good fix in my eyes also i can stick on a TC and get 420mm at 5.6 stop it down to 8 with the TC and it IQ is back to awesome. They dont show up alot even on ebay so i consider myself lucky to get it at a bargain

 

[alek35]

Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.
Thomas

That's rare...go to the Fred Miranda reviews and most of the bazillions of reviews for this lens report stellar sharpness wide open, as do most of the posts in this thread.

Consider taking your 300 to Canon for a health check.

Paul Wright

Paul,

The reason I got the 300mmF/4 IS over the 100-400mm was that extra stop of light @300mm and because I had seen got opinions about it (also on FM site) and had expected it to be sharp.

Would love to give it a health check - but Canon service is pretty expensive here in Denmark (150Eur/hour).

Do you think that a lens can be calibrated for sharpness at all ?

The only calibration I've heard about is AF adjustment - which I have done myselft on my 5DmkII

Best regards,
Thomas

 

[TexPhoto]

As with the comments above, love it. Macro ability of the lens is a serious plus.

 

[Caps18]

I have the 300mm f/4, and I like it. I would have purchased a bigger lens if money way no object...
The 70-300mm looks like a great tourist lens, and it would have made the decision much harder had it been available.

I do have a 2x & 1.4x on my copy right now (it could use another if you want to do Moon or Sun Photograpgy (with correct 99.99% silver filter).

I do like the macro ability. You can even use the extenders with the extension tubes...

 

[docsavage123]

Just bought one 2 weeks ago, best £730 I ever spent (2nd hand) off ebay. Just went on a shoot at Donna Nook and used it on the 1d mark II, I ended up leaving my 7D and 400mm F5.6 in the bag. Its a cracking piece of kit. I was a bit alarmed by the clunk of the image stabilisation, so turned it off. The focusing is very quick and it is not very heavy.

 

[briansquibb]

Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best

 

[pwp]

Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.
Thomas

Consider taking your 300 to Canon for a health check.

Would love to give it a health check - but Canon service is pretty expensive here in Denmark (150Eur/hour).

Thomas, regarding Danish servicing costs that's your call. You could do what plenty of photographers do with less than stellar lens purchases...send them back to eBay and try another copy. I'm sure there are lenses around that have been bought and sold a dozen times....

There is always an element of risk with a pre-owned lens, or even new for that matter. Lenses do vary. I had three new 24-70 f/2.8L lenses in a row. They were all shockers. On a whim I bought a cheap, knocked around 24-105 f/4is on eBay to see me through until the new 24-70 f/2.8 ships, and it is a knockout lens. Go figure.

If you've got a piece of equipment that isn't performing as expected, my advice is to fix it or shift it. Irritations like you describe will impinge negatively on your creative process.

Paul Wright

 

[pwp]

Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best

You know the saying...YMMV. My f/4 was an IQ & sharpness match for my stellar f/2.8, provided you were shooting a static or almost static subject. While the f/4 is a clear bargain buy and totally worthy of it's L designation, the f/2.8 300is is worth every penny of it's relatively high asking price. It's all about extreme high performance on a variety of levels, the very real 2.8 advantage & the incomparable "look" of the files.

They are different lenses for different purposes.

Paul Wright