graham catley
Well-known member
this lens is relatively cheap for a prime tele--does anyone have any experience of how it performs? useful refs etc?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
EF 300 f4 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter graham catley
- Start date
Hi Graham, do you mean the I.S. or the non I.S. version?
Detailed review of the I.S. version here
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm
The same site has user reviews as well, covering many lenses.
cheers,
Andy
Detailed review of the I.S. version here
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm
The same site has user reviews as well, covering many lenses.
cheers,
Andy
robski
Well-known member
Hi Graham
I have just bought a second hand non IS version and yes I am very impressed. I have also splashed out on a new Canon 1.4 II TC as I could not find any second hand ones around. Again the results are pretty good. I can't find anybody who has a bad word about them. Toyed with the idea of a x2 but the reviews are more of a mixed bag.
Concided the Ef 400 F5.6, then thought a 300 and an option to goto 420 with the TC was more flexible, plus the 300 F4 has a shorter minimum focus distance. The 100-400 was very tempting but again a mixed bag of reviews and for a grand it would have to be my perfect lens.
My last few postings have been with this lens.
Robert
I have just bought a second hand non IS version and yes I am very impressed. I have also splashed out on a new Canon 1.4 II TC as I could not find any second hand ones around. Again the results are pretty good. I can't find anybody who has a bad word about them. Toyed with the idea of a x2 but the reviews are more of a mixed bag.
Concided the Ef 400 F5.6, then thought a 300 and an option to goto 420 with the TC was more flexible, plus the 300 F4 has a shorter minimum focus distance. The 100-400 was very tempting but again a mixed bag of reviews and for a grand it would have to be my perfect lens.
My last few postings have been with this lens.
Robert
Last edited:
graham catley
Well-known member
thanks Andy and Robski---having read the reviews on the site recommended by Andy it looks as if the 1.4 converter looses too much of the quality of the 300 and the comparative reviews of the 100-400 v the 300 and 1.4 make it look as if I will be sticking with the 100-400 for th etime being (the 400f4 and 500f4 being out of the question at present!)
robski
Well-known member
Hi Graham
I tend to agree with you if your looking to move on from the 100-400 that the 400f4 and 500f4 is a better route to take for an improvement. I was talking to an owner of a 100-400 and his opinion was that it was over rated. His experience was also soared by the fact the AF jammed up for no apparent reason after 18 months of light use. Resulting in a hefty repair bill.
I've not experienced IS so I don't know if it would be of any real benefit to my photograhy.
I took my route as an alternative to the 100-400.
My setup was cheaper than the approx £800 best deal I could find for the 100-400.
The bare lens @ 300 is faster and better image quaility than the 100-400 @ 300.
With the 1.4 TC the image quaility is on par with the 100-400 @ 400.
With a bit of support I can get steady images @ 1/150 Sec and if I can't achive anything like that @ 1600 ISO, normally the light quaility is too poor to get enough contrast in the image. Then it's time to pack up and come home.
Robert
I tend to agree with you if your looking to move on from the 100-400 that the 400f4 and 500f4 is a better route to take for an improvement. I was talking to an owner of a 100-400 and his opinion was that it was over rated. His experience was also soared by the fact the AF jammed up for no apparent reason after 18 months of light use. Resulting in a hefty repair bill.
I've not experienced IS so I don't know if it would be of any real benefit to my photograhy.
I took my route as an alternative to the 100-400.
My setup was cheaper than the approx £800 best deal I could find for the 100-400.
The bare lens @ 300 is faster and better image quaility than the 100-400 @ 300.
With the 1.4 TC the image quaility is on par with the 100-400 @ 400.
With a bit of support I can get steady images @ 1/150 Sec and if I can't achive anything like that @ 1600 ISO, normally the light quaility is too poor to get enough contrast in the image. Then it's time to pack up and come home.
Robert
Last edited:
condyk
Well-known member
I recognise all the issues presented here and it's a tough call between 400mm, 300mm and 100-400mm. Personally, the image quality and IS convinced me to go the 300mm IS L route and the images with a 1.4x that I have seen are superb. You have the enhanced flexibility of 300mm pure or 420mm with TCon over the 400mm and the quality over the 100-400mm. Add in the cheaper Kenko or Tamron 2.0x TCon and you get to 600mm for silly money and retain AF (may hunt a bit if light is reducing)
graham catley,
I have got the 300/4L is. and can only say it is a great lens! I do use it with a 1.4x EF converter as well. Works good!
I do use the EOS 5 body with it, and haven't got a decent scanner(flatbed only). got excellent pictures that i made with it at home. Nice fast lens!
I have got the 300/4L is. and can only say it is a great lens! I do use it with a 1.4x EF converter as well. Works good!
I do use the EOS 5 body with it, and haven't got a decent scanner(flatbed only). got excellent pictures that i made with it at home. Nice fast lens!
