My First (Kinda) Incompatible EF Lens.

Dale.

Dale.

Bo Derek
Messages
14,155
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
I may have found one, an EF lens that doesn't behave well on an R body and it's a Canon lens too.

The lens in question is the 300f4L IS USM. 90's tech admittedly but I didn't expect it to be clunky as heck on my R7. It's a lens I've owned from new but it's lived most of its life in its case in my gear cupboard, it's like new cosmetically. A bit of a shame the lack of use it's had but that's another story.

I wanted to try it on the R7 as it's a decent aperture and would give me 480mm equivalent on that body, which would be an improvement over the 400 5.6 I currently have.

It wasn't great at all on the R7, I was worried but I tried it today on my 5Div and it's like butter, so it's not the lens. My theory is, the in lens stabilisation is clashing with the IBIS on the body.

This is the first issue I've experienced when adapting EF glass to an RF body, my other lenses are seamless.

Has anybody else had problems with Canon EF glass adapted to an R body?
 
Just tried my 300f4 on the R5mkii (which hasn't been on one of my cameras in a decade) and it's OK - I've been used to faster lenses these days so it wasn't impressive but I could use it in an emergency if my 400 f2.8 was in for repair.
 
Dale. said:
I may have found one, an EF lens that doesn't behave well on an R body and it's a Canon lens too.

The lens in question is the 300f4L IS USM. 90's tech admittedly but I didn't expect it to be clunky as heck on my R7. It's a lens I've owned from new but it's lived most of its life in its case in my gear cupboard, it's like new cosmetically. A bit of a shame the lack of use it's had but that's another story.

I wanted to try it on the R7 as it's a decent aperture and would give me 480mm equivalent on that body, which would be an improvement over the 400 5.6 I currently have.

It wasn't great at all on the R7, I was worried but I tried it today on my 5Div and it's like butter, so it's not the lens. My theory is, the in lens stabilisation is clashing with the IBIS on the body.

This is the first issue I've experienced when adapting EF glass to an RF body, my other lenses are seamless.

Has anybody else had problems with Canon EF glass adapted to an R body?
Click to expand...
Thanks for flagging this Dale. I do have quite a range of Canon EF lenses and have not had any problems. Out of curiosity, did the problem go away when you switched IBIS off?
 
TimHughes said:
Thanks for flagging this Dale. I do have quite a range of Canon EF lenses and have not had any problems. Out of curiosity, did the problem go away when you switched IBIS off?
Click to expand...


I didn't try that at the time with the R7, I put the lens away until the next day and then did the test on the 5D. I will try a few different scenarios this evening, on my R5ii as well.
 
I used to use this lens as my main lens when I first got my R5, replaced in 2022 with the 100-500 around the time of the commonwealth games and of course I did notice light years of difference in focus speed, IS lock on (and lack of wobble and click in to place) and autofocus performance.... but I had been using the 300 F4L as a main lens since I bought it in 2006 and my "other" Telephoto was the 70-200 F4L (non IS, again bought in 2005).... So that performance jump to be expected.

Prior to that not-unexpected performance jump I had no real issues using the 300 F4L with the R5. IS was always slow to lock on with this lens even with a DSLR really... so for me it always performed as expected on my R5....
 
Similar posts on another forum. I’ll try mine this weekend although it will need a clean as it hasn’t been used for a very long time which is a shame as it is a good lens but dated.
 
hmm interesting as I was thinking about getting one since they cost very little these days and 400/5.6 works as well as you could expect from the headline spec. It works by far the best wide open, without having to touch aperture at any point. Do you notice any difference in speed at f/4, and is f/4 still just as sharp? I can't imagine wanting to stop it down, ever.

I saw a page or comment somewhere some time ago that rated an even earlier 300/4 non-IS as better, but I saw comments stating otherwise too.

It is not a high priority item, and is only needed if dogs work pick up so I don't have to deal with the loss of light at 5.6 or be limited to 135mm, which to be fair is probably the best pick for the job. A 100-300 f/2.8L would be nice but really not in this life or at least this and next decade.
 
For action and dogs, honestly I think it might be a little slow and you'd get a lot of missed frames. The IS does take a second or so to kick in (unless you turn it off).
 
So do you reckon best to stick with 135mm f/1.8 or 70-200 f4 where light allows? I absolutely do not want to be working at 5.6 or narrower doing this work as that sets ISO through the roof.
 
The 300 F4 is still one of my favorite ever lenses, it produces great images, even with a little purple fringing when combined with the EF 1.4x (V2).

To expand a little: Certainly for motorsport I noticed light years difference between that and the 100-500 in terms of Autofocus performance (keepers), speed and IS lock on (also the 300 F4 always had a noticable wobble as it locked in - but it is first Gen IS...). I'd also say Dogs are a lot harder to shoot than cars....

My experience with Dogs specifically is limited although I do a lot of lens testing on my Cat. When I have shot dogs on the beach, just holiday stuff etc - with the 100-500, If i compare that experience with the 100-500 to how i expect the 300 F4 to perform, I'd say it would be much more difficult by comparison, less keepers but by no means unworkable... If you know what your doing you'll get what you want, but consistancy wouldn't be as good, and of course if shooting mechanical shutter you'll be limited to something like 7 FPS (I generally still shoot electronic first curtain on my R5 as I can't limit the FPS otherwise...).

I'd say the focal length is possibly(?) too long for dogs given its a prime (again depends if we are talking action or static). So yes in terms of focal length I'd say the 135 or 70-200 give you better flexability and better IS performance (not sure on 135 - presume you mean RF or Sigma?, or which 70-200 F4 we are talking).

I'd say if you are concidering it, try and rent it for a day and judge for yourself as my use case is slightly different.
 
I've not been able to follow this up since I last posted due to the joys of a migraine.

I tested the lens again today, on the 5Div first, just so I had a reference of how it should perform on a DSLR. I then switched to my R5ii and whilst not as buttery smooth as on my 5D, it was very good and very usable. I tried it on the R7 again too and it was a little more clunky than on the R5 but still very good, better than when I tried it on the R7 last week. :thinking:

The difference? The light ........... it's a bright sunny day here at the moment and the lens performed more than acceptably on both R bodies I own, with IS on or off, it made little difference. It's still a bit of a let down though, as the light I work in at the owls is dropping very quickly at the moment. I'd hoped the 300 f4 lens would perform better in lower light than my 100-400mkii at f5.6 but in the owl light, I don't think the 300 would AF better than the 100-400.

That said, I have had to manually focus at times even with the 100-400, when the light starts to drop. I will still try the 300 but manually focusing with peaking. I should also get a faster shutter speed with the 300, which is the real goal here, even if I do have to manually focus.

I may have been a little hasty initially about this lens on my R7. There is a tangible difference in AF and also, stabilisation with the 300 on an R body compared to a DSLR, (the IS even sounds different than it does on my 5D) but that said, the 300 works more than acceptably on my R bodies in the decent light we have today. It does fall off quicker in lower light though, IMO.

I will test this in the field tomorrow, I'll be checking in on my owls in the late afternoon.

I wouldn't consider using my 1.4xTC on it though.
 
Last edited:
Dale. said:
I've not been able to follow this up since I last posted due to the joys of a migraine.

I tested the lens again today, on the 5Div first, just so I had a reference of how it should perform on a DSLR. I then switched to my R5ii and whilst not as buttery smooth as on my 5D, it was very good and very usable. I tried it on the R7 again too and it was a little more clunky than on the R5 but still very good, better than when I tried it on the R7 last week. :thinking:

The difference? The light ........... it's a bright sunny day here at the moment and the lens performed more than acceptably on both R bodies I own, with IS on or off, it made little difference. It's still a bit of a let down though, as the light I work in at the owls is dropping very quickly at the moment. I'd hoped the 300 f4 lens would perform better in lower light than my 100-400mkii at f5.6 but in the owl light, I don't think the 300 would AF better than the 100-400.

That said, I have had to manually focus at times even with the 100-400, when the light starts to drop. I will still try the 300 but manually focusing with peaking. I should also get a faster shutter speed with the 300, which is the real goal here, even if I do have to manually focus.

I may have been a little hasty initially about this lens on my R7. There is a tangible difference in AF and also, stabilisation with the 300 on an R body compared to a DSLR, the IS even sounds different than it does on my 5d but that said, the 300 works more than acceptably on my R bodies in the decent light we have today. It does fall off quicker in lower light though, IMO.

I will test this in the field tomorrow, I'll be checking in on my owls in the late afternoon.

I wouldn't consider using my 1.4xTC on it though.
Click to expand...
If we are talking light this low there is a point after sunset where 400/5.6 would fail to focus on r6 accurately, then entirely on a building, then f4 lens will do that, then even 2.8. But 1.4 seems to be immune though!
 
A_S said:
The 300 F4 is still one of my favorite ever lenses, it produces great images, even with a little purple fringing when combined with the EF 1.4x (V2).

To expand a little: Certainly for motorsport I noticed light years difference between that and the 100-500 in terms of Autofocus performance (keepers), speed and IS lock on (also the 300 F4 always had a noticable wobble as it locked in - but it is first Gen IS...). I'd also say Dogs are a lot harder to shoot than cars....

My experience with Dogs specifically is limited although I do a lot of lens testing on my Cat. When I have shot dogs on the beach, just holiday stuff etc - with the 100-500, If i compare that experience with the 100-500 to how i expect the 300 F4 to perform, I'd say it would be much more difficult by comparison, less keepers but by no means unworkable... If you know what your doing you'll get what you want, but consistancy wouldn't be as good, and of course if shooting mechanical shutter you'll be limited to something like 7 FPS (I generally still shoot electronic first curtain on my R5 as I can't limit the FPS otherwise...).

I'd say the focal length is possibly(?) too long for dogs given its a prime (again depends if we are talking action or static). So yes in terms of focal length I'd say the 135 or 70-200 give you better flexability and better IS performance (not sure on 135 - presume you mean RF or Sigma?, or which 70-200 F4 we are talking).

I'd say if you are concidering it, try and rent it for a day and judge for yourself as my use case is slightly different.
Click to expand...
Electronic all the way for dogs and alike. You do need that 20fps. They move very fast into the frame and you probably want legs a certain way.

135mm (sigma obviously, would never pay rf prices for worse lens) is the lower limit. If it works reliably, or in effect if I can time with it reliably then great. 400-200mm range is the sweetspot for action though and there are some pretty small and fast dogs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top