Can anyone that owns this lens attest to the sharpness of this lens? How is it wide open? Looking to shoot football with it. Any advice on this lens? I've heard mixed reviews on the sharpness of this lens although I've heard nothing but good on how fast it focuses. Any suggestions for a sharper alternative prime at this focal length?
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Sharpness
- Thread starter skybraun
- Start date
Rented one years ago and used it on an XTi on a trip to see polar bears. Worked pretty well on that body even at dawn and dusk. Focus was reasonable. Clearly (wow, a pun) the 2.8 variety is a stellar lens but the f/4 is pretty darn good for the price.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
It's a very good lens. I did sell mine in favor of a 100-400L, but the driver was needing the extra 100mm (and I really needed more, so I eventually bought the 600/4L IS II).
Be aware that you'll know the IS system is working - it starts up with a 'clunk' before settling down to a low growl.
Be aware that you'll know the IS system is working - it starts up with a 'clunk' before settling down to a low growl.
Upvote
0
Sharp - definitely.
Bearable - lighter then the 70-200/2.8.
Be aware: 300mm is tricky with moving blur. And the IS is quite old.
So use it for best results with a monopod.
Noisy: yes, bit more and different then the new ISs.
Bearable - lighter then the 70-200/2.8.
Be aware: 300mm is tricky with moving blur. And the IS is quite old.
So use it for best results with a monopod.
Noisy: yes, bit more and different then the new ISs.
Upvote
0
It's a great lens. I use it with a Canon 1.4x Extender III all the time for birding and other wildlife photography. I have admittedly been toying with the idea of trading it in for a Tamron 150-600mm but I doubt that I will. I would like the extra reach, but I'm having a hard time justifying the move on any other grounds. I guess I'll just have to find ways to get closer to my subjects. I've attached a couple of pictures taken with this lens and the extender.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I have used a 300mm f4 many times for birds in flight and find that this lens struggles to lock on. However it is very sharp when it eventually locks on. Even sharper at f8. Also, I find a few of the fps on the camera is dropped with this lens attached. I am using a 70d and can only achieve about 5/6 fps with this lens on. Ok lens but if you don't need the f4, I'd get the 70-300l
Upvote
0
skybraun said:
A slight "clunk" and then a gear/grinding kind of sound BUT I think only I heard it. Nobody around me noticed. Maybe in a quiet room it would be noticeable? The 300 f/2.8 ii is very quiet compared to the f/4 but it is 4 or 5x more expensive. I don't think the IS noise will be an issue unless you need absolute quiet, but then the mirror noise forom your DSLR is also apparent.
Go try one and decide for yourself.
Upvote
0
dpc said:
The Tamron is significantly sharper than the 300/4 + 1.4 xTC according to lenstip and TDP and has much better IS as well as being as sharp at 300mm and having a zoom from 150-600mm. It is also cheaper than a 300/4 plus TC new. The 100-400L is sharper than the 300+TC. The 300/4 was a fine lens for its time but is now another Canon dinosaur, still OK to use and still a favourite for some but it could be so much better still and is expensive for what it is. I suppose a really good 300/4 would dent the sales of the 300/2.8.
Upvote
0
Aaron77 said:
I have to agree that the 300mm f/4 does struggle locking on to birds in flight. I also agree that it is quite sharp when it does achieve focus in this situation. I have the 70-300mm L as well. I would choose the latter over the 300mm f/4 if I was interested in only going to 300mm. Not only is the 70-300L sharp enough but it is more versatile in that it is a zoom. I love the 300 but I use it with an extender for the extra reach. Otherwise I would likely sell it. I'm not prepared to put out the money for a 400, 500 or 600mm prime lens and I'm not convinced that the Tamron 150-600 will really suit my needs.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
It may not be the best when coupled with a TC, but calling it a dinosaur or even comparing it to the Tamron is a bit absurd. For one, It uses 77mm filters, whereas the Tamron uses 95mm. It actually can shoot at F/4, which the tamron just cannot. The IQ of the canon is far superior too (sharpness, color, contrast, etc)
Needless to say, the canon is a very good lens at what it does. So is the Tamron for that matter. They just do very different things.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
Unfortunately I had to sell my Canon 300 F4 IS as I also have the Canon 300 F2.8 IS and couldn't afford to keep both. Whilst my 300 F2.8 is better in all respects (except weight and price) the difference is surprisingly small.
I originally bought my 300 F4 as I was looking for more reach than I had with my Canon 100-400 (yes read that again). A cropped image from the 300 was better than I could get from my 100-400 at max focal length. A friend of mine (after trying my 300 F4 and a couple of others) made exactly the same switch for the same reason - reach.
I never bothered much with extenders on my 300 as I had the 600 F4 IS, though my friend, mentioned above, has had good results with both his Canon 1.4 Mks and his 2 x Mk3 (in very good light).
What the above boils down to is that our two 300 F4 L IS lenses are very sharp by any standards and the images could stand far more cropping than we expected. For reference the cameras used were a 1D3 and two 1D4's.
It is an old design and not perfect (the IS is clunky so just turn it off!) but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics.
I originally bought my 300 F4 as I was looking for more reach than I had with my Canon 100-400 (yes read that again). A cropped image from the 300 was better than I could get from my 100-400 at max focal length. A friend of mine (after trying my 300 F4 and a couple of others) made exactly the same switch for the same reason - reach.
I never bothered much with extenders on my 300 as I had the 600 F4 IS, though my friend, mentioned above, has had good results with both his Canon 1.4 Mks and his 2 x Mk3 (in very good light).
What the above boils down to is that our two 300 F4 L IS lenses are very sharp by any standards and the images could stand far more cropping than we expected. For reference the cameras used were a 1D3 and two 1D4's.
It is an old design and not perfect (the IS is clunky so just turn it off!) but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics.
Upvote
0
Like Dr Neuro, I sold mine in favor of another lens, in my case a 300 f/2.8isII. And I miss the 300 f/4is! Honestly, there is room in my kit for both 300's. The f/4 is as tall and wide as a 70-200 f/2.8 and MUCH lighter. Therefore, I'd be far more likely to take a 300 with me as a matter of routine. With the bigger, heavier 300 f/2.8 I only take on location it when I know I need it.
My 300 f/4is dated from the 1990's but it's qualities have not diminished over time. Like most owners of this lens will report, it's pin sharp wide open and responds okay to a x1.4 TC. Another rarely mentioned benefit of the 300 f/4 is its ability to focus incredibly close, way closer than the 300 f/2.8. It's almost a semi macro. I used to shoot a lot of food with the f/4, plus interesting portraits.
I did shoot sports with the f/4 and it did OK in strong light. The central reason I dropped $6.5k on a 300 f/2.8 was for action shooting, the blindingly fast AF and the extra stop are compelling. With the x1.4 TC it's still f/4.
The 300 f/4is is probably one of the great sleepers in the EF range. OP, if you're at all uncertain, get a second hand one, and if it's not for you you'll re-sell in a heartbeat and not lose a penny. Damn! I'm getting another one!
-pw
My 300 f/4is dated from the 1990's but it's qualities have not diminished over time. Like most owners of this lens will report, it's pin sharp wide open and responds okay to a x1.4 TC. Another rarely mentioned benefit of the 300 f/4 is its ability to focus incredibly close, way closer than the 300 f/2.8. It's almost a semi macro. I used to shoot a lot of food with the f/4, plus interesting portraits.
I did shoot sports with the f/4 and it did OK in strong light. The central reason I dropped $6.5k on a 300 f/2.8 was for action shooting, the blindingly fast AF and the extra stop are compelling. With the x1.4 TC it's still f/4.
The 300 f/4is is probably one of the great sleepers in the EF range. OP, if you're at all uncertain, get a second hand one, and if it's not for you you'll re-sell in a heartbeat and not lose a penny. Damn! I'm getting another one!
-pw
Upvote
0
This lens is constantly underrated because it's always compared to its $4000 big brother. But for approximately 1/4th the price, I think it's superb. I'm not sure how well this will show online, but the below shot of a moving boat was taken handheld from approximately 60 yards in harsh midday light on a 5D Mark II with a Kenko DGX 1.4 teleconverter. Is this lens sharp? In a word: Yes. Is it lighter? Much. Is it cheaper? Definitely. Is the IS clunky and loud? Yes. Does that affect its image-making capability? No. In the original file you can clearly read all the text on the bullhorn.
I will NEVER sell mine.
—chas
I will NEVER sell mine.
—chas
Attachments
Upvote
0
It's a fantastic. Lens for the money if you need the faster aperture and as a bare lens af is quick and accurate.
A 70-200 mk2 with mk3 1.4 tc will give pretty similar results but is much more expensive and heavier
I got my 300 f4 off eBay for $700 so for that money it's an amazing lens
I don't use it often anymore and since getting the tamron I think ill use it even less however i won't sell it
A 70-200 mk2 with mk3 1.4 tc will give pretty similar results but is much more expensive and heavier
I got my 300 f4 off eBay for $700 so for that money it's an amazing lens
I don't use it often anymore and since getting the tamron I think ill use it even less however i won't sell it
Upvote
0
I had a 300 F4L IS in my bag for a couple of years before upgrading to the 300 F2.8L IS II in 2012. The 300F/4L IS is a fine lens which is sharp wide open. its comparably compact size and light weight make it easy to bring it along wherever you go. It takes teleconverters quite well, adding the 1.4x does not affect the image quality too much, you still get usable shots. Of course the IS and AF cannot put up with today's modern lenses but keep in mind that we are talking about a 1997 design.
The 300 F4L IS is very good value for money, can definitely recommend it.
The 300 F4L IS is very good value for money, can definitely recommend it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
