Canon 300mm f/4.0 IS USM L

squizza

squizza

Eeyore
Messages
2,855
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

I am looking to get the Canon 300mm f/4.0 IS USM L lens

I would be grateful for reviews particularly if you have used it with the 1.4x converter and I would also appreciated photos taken with the lens.

Kind regards and thanks in advance

Sarah
 
I've got the exact combo and it is a super lens. IQ is great even with 1.4TC see gallery for some examples.

I shoot mainly birds and wildlife but it does a half decent flower and butterfly lens too. I have thought often about upgrading to 2.8 version but can't imagine IQ being much better.

Hope this helps

Rob
 
It's a good lens, takes the 1.4x extender very well too. AF can slow down a little with the extender on but IQ doesn't suffer much at all. And as mentioned above the close focus is excellent. I don't think I'd class it as macro but nevertheless it's quite useful.

OK it's only f/4 but it's an awful lot lighter than the f/2.8 version (and cheaper) !
 
Bill Roberts said:
It's a good lens, takes the 1.4x extender very well too. AF can slow down a little with the extender on but IQ doesn't suffer much at all. And as mentioned above the close focus is excellent. I don't think I'd class it as macro but nevertheless it's quite useful.

OK it's only f/4 but it's an awful lot lighter than the f/2.8 version (and cheaper) !
Click to expand...

Well I'm a bit of a fairy when it comes to weights, and regarding the f/4.0 - I use a 70-200 f/4.0 IS with the converter so am really used to using my camera and this set up with the minimum aperture of 5.6 anyway :)(y)
 
Bill Roberts said:
It's a good lens, takes the 1.4x extender very well too. AF can slow down a little with the extender on but IQ doesn't suffer much at all. And as mentioned above the close focus is excellent. I don't think I'd class it as macro but nevertheless it's quite useful.

OK it's only f/4 but it's an awful lot lighter than the f/2.8 version (and cheaper) !
Click to expand...

Well I'm a bit of a fairy when it comes to weights, and regarding the f/4.0 - I use a 70-200 f/4.0 IS with the converter so am really used to using my camera and this set up with the minimum aperture of 5.6 anyway :)(y)
 
Check out this thread....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=121406

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=158963

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=158989

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=158991

and if your bored for planes these were taken with it as well.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130889

Fantastic lens, works well on it's own and well with the 1.4x TC (light conditions dependant), just up graded to 300mm f2.8, but will still keep f4.

Peter
 
I find the integrated lens hood is a nice feature, great for hand held shots:)
 
I hired this lens for our recent trip to Botswana. It really is a stunning lens. Its lightweight, super fast focusing and very sharp. It worked great with my 1.4 extender too. It stayed on my camera most of the time despite having my 70-200 2.8 with me.

A few examples...

AR150709466.jpg


AR100709129.jpg


With 1.4 extender:
AR150709437.jpg


Andy.
 
I also have the 300mm f4L IS. It really is an excellent lens. Things to bear in mind though... it was one of the first (if not THE first) Canon lens with IS so it is the first generation of image stabilisation. It is not as good as the IS on the 70-200 f4L but it is still a valuable feature that I would not be without. Also, it is not weather sealed. Other than that I can't fault it. The AF is quick and it really does team up with the 1.4x very well. I also love the built in lens hood which saves you dragging around one of those flimsy black plastic things. It's also surprisingly light for a pro 300mm lens.
 
buckas said:
get the 400mm f/5.6 if you're into birds/wildlife, cracking lens :)
Click to expand...

Limited for handheld shooting though I would imagine, due to a lack of IS.
 
I have a 300 f4 IS, use it when I need a carry about lens. Have often used it with the 1.4 as well and it has given me some cracking results.

Arron
 
jnO said:
Limited for handheld shooting though I would imagine, due to a lack of IS.
Click to expand...

Forget about IS, it's a wildlife lens, moving subjects in the main, so you don't need IS. IS is for static subjects not moving. The lens is fast focusing, very light, but it's limitation will be the f5.6, although miles better than 100-400mm and on par with the 300mm f4.
 
Yeah the IS is not as good as other, later, versions but its ok and does help sometimes.

The lens itself is really nice though, I used mine a lot on my Canon setup (and now I use the Nikon equivalent). Sharp, fast, light (compared to other alternatives anyway) and takes the 1.4x TC without too much trouble but AF does slow down a bit.

My only comment is that when you slap on the TC, because it moves the weight of the lens further away from the body, it does seem like twice as heavy to hold. I always used a monopod at 420mm so not a problem really, except when carrying it around or worst still, having it slung round my neck (back pain or what!). None of thats the lens' fault though, just a word of warning :D
 
Thankyou everyone for getting back to me. sorry I haven't replied sooner, have had trouble with the site logging me in :wacky:

All of your advice is greatly appreciated and has pretty much confirmed that it is the lens for me. (YAY!! :D)
 
There are rumours that many of the big white Ls will be updated soon, so we may see one with an up-to-date IS. Probably at a restrictive price though, knowing Canon!
 
Brachytron said:
There are rumours that many of the big white Ls will be updated soon, so we may see one with an up-to-date IS. Probably at a restrictive price though, knowing Canon!
Click to expand...

Yeah, those rumours were circulating two years ago when I bought my 300mm. At the end of the day, the 300mm f4 as it is now is a superb lens. Great lenses always remain great, even when they've been surpassed. My advice is to buy one now if that's what you want.
 
squizza said:
All of your advice is greatly appreciated and has pretty much confirmed that it is the lens for me. (YAY!! :D)
Click to expand...

Hi Sarah

I took the plunge and bought this lens a month or 2 back, very very pleased with it - getting some cracking shots, would definately recommend. (y)
 
pete.rush said:
Forget about IS, it's a wildlife lens, moving subjects in the main, so you don't need IS. IS is for static subjects not moving. The lens is fast focusing, very light, but it's limitation will be the f5.6, although miles better than 100-400mm and on par with the 300mm f4.
Click to expand...

In the 'wild' I can imagine that to be the case, so yes point taken.
It's me who keeps generalising wildlife shots as more zoo based photography where I find the majority of my subjects seem to be static, slow or asleep :D
 
pete.rush said:
Forget about IS, it's a wildlife lens, moving subjects in the main, so you don't need IS. IS is for static subjects not moving. The lens is fast focusing, very light, but it's limitation will be the f5.6, although miles better than 100-400mm and on par with the 300mm f4.
Click to expand...


If you're shooting on a crop camera handheld with the 400mm f5.6 you should be shooting at a minimum of 1/500sec, preferably 1/1000sec to avoid camera shake. Not all wildlife gallops around like lightning all the time. I have the 300mm f4L IS and have taken some fabulous shots of red squirrels at 1/30sec handheld on my 5D2. This would have been next to impossible without IS. I remember photographing wild bears @ 300mm handheld in Finland in the midnight sun. 1/30 or 1/60sec was the best you could hope for. Those of us without IS couldn't shoot, those who had IS got all the killer shots.

I disagree that IS should be disregarded for wildlife. For small flighty birds, IS is a waste of time as you need fast shutter speeds to freeze the action but for many aspects of wildlife photography IS is a massive bonus that should never be overlooked.
 
TheOracle said:
I disagree that IS should be disregarded for wildlife. For small flighty birds, IS is a waste of time as you need fast shutter speeds to freeze the action but for many aspects of wildlife photography IS is a massive bonus that should never be overlooked.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this, I have shots that I would never have got with a non-IS lens.

I don't agree with the need to push the shutter speed so high with a 400 f5.6, it is a very well balanced lens and is easy to handhold. When I had one I would regularly shoot at 1/200th and got sharp shots down to 1/60th. That said I do think the 400 f5.6 vs 100-400 vs 300 f4 for wildlife debate does get a bit silly. I've used all three lenses in the field and have been happy with the results for all of them. The 400 f5.6 probably has the edge for AF speed, the 300 f4 is better for close focus and low light and the 100-400 is an extremely versatile lens. All three are very good and any will work well, it's just a matter of deciding how to compromise... or just buy all three :D
 
postcardcv said:
I totally agree with this, I have shots that I would never have got with a non-IS lens.

I don't agree with the need to push the shutter speed so high with a 400 f5.6, it is a very well balanced lens and is easy to handhold. When I had one I would regularly shoot at 1/200th and got sharp shots down to 1/60th. That said I do think the 400 f5.6 vs 100-400 vs 300 f4 for wildlife debate does get a bit silly. I've used all three lenses in the field and have been happy with the results for all of them. The 400 f5.6 probably has the edge for AF speed, the 300 f4 is better for close focus and low light and the 100-400 is an extremely versatile lens. All three are very good and any will work well, it's just a matter of deciding how to compromise... or just buy all three :D
Click to expand...


Buy all three?! If only :D:LOL:
 
postcardcv said:
I totally agree with this, I have shots that I would never have got with a non-IS lens.

I don't agree with the need to push the shutter speed so high with a 400 f5.6, it is a very well balanced lens and is easy to handhold. When I had one I would regularly shoot at 1/200th and got sharp shots down to 1/60th. That said I do think the 400 f5.6 vs 100-400 vs 300 f4 for wildlife debate does get a bit silly. I've used all three lenses in the field and have been happy with the results for all of them. The 400 f5.6 probably has the edge for AF speed, the 300 f4 is better for close focus and low light and the 100-400 is an extremely versatile lens. All three are very good and any will work well, it's just a matter of deciding how to compromise... or just buy all three :D
Click to expand...


I agree the 400 is an well balanced lens hand held(y)

I have the 300 as well and there have been a few good examples of the 100-400 in the classifieds lately.

I confess to nearly giving in to temptation on a few occasions:D
 
:banana::woot::ty:

Thankyou all for your advice. 2nd hand mint one bought - now just waiting for it to arrive! :D
 
You'll be right pleased with that, its a real gem.
 
I wish my other half was a photography enthusiast. Perhaps then she wouldn't ask "Why do you need to spend £2100 on a camera? I've seen them in Currys for £200."
 
:D

My parents were like that at one point! Now they just let me get on with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top