Canon 300mm F4L IS USM

primrosegirl

primrosegirl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
119
Name
Jen
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently bought the Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and love it! Anyone who has one knows how wonderfully sharp it is!
I now want something a bit longer, and was thinking of the Canon 300mm f4L IS, the reviews are mostly good, but I believe this is a fairly old Canon lens and wondered if there was any reason why I shouldn't give it serious thought.
 
primrosegirl said:
I recently bought the Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and love it! Anyone who has one knows how wonderfully sharp it is!
I now want something a bit longer, and was thinking of the Canon 300mm f4L IS, the reviews are mostly good, but I believe this is a fairly old Canon lens and wondered if there was any reason why I shouldn't give it serious thought.
Click to expand...

No, it's a cracker of a lens and takes a 1.4 TC well. Has IS which can help out enormously at times, nice weight and very sharp.
 
I may be well off base here but I think Canon seem to be revising a fair few of the older lenses from the range over the next year or so. Judging from previous revisions though the price is likely to shoot up on the mk2 version like it did on the 24-70 f2.8L
 
May be worth just waiting for awhile to see what happens! Thanks guys. :-)
 
300mm f4 a great lens was my main sport / aviation lens until I upgraded last year to the bigger brother. The f4 works very well with the canon 1.4x TC, but you do need the light to get the best from that combo.

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3850copy1.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_4393copy2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_3794_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg
 
WOW! Stunning shots Peter! I particularly love the leopard shot, brilliant. Thanks. :-)
 
I had a 100 - 400 that gave very mixed results. I used to have a lot of soft images. The 300 F4 is amazing in comparison. Nails most things. I'd recommend it all day long. The 400 5.6 is supposed to be great too :-)
 
It's a great lens. I've always felt it doesn't focus as quickly as other L lenses. Maybe it's got a longer throw or the motor could be with being a bit bigger. But id only swap it for a 2.8
 
Gaz J said:
It's a great lens. I've always felt it doesn't focus as quickly as other L lenses. Maybe it's got a longer throw or the motor could be with being a bit bigger. But id only swap it for a 2.8
Click to expand...

Yes, if you can afford the weight and the conga, the 2.8...even the mk1, is an absolute belter of a lens and with a 1.4 it's af is still pretty quick.
 
Keith_m said:
I had a 100 - 400 that gave very mixed results. I used to have a lot of soft images. The 300 F4 is amazing in comparison. Nails most things. I'd recommend it all day long. The 400 5.6 is supposed to be great too :-)
Click to expand...
Yes I've heard the 400 5.6 is very good, I need the IS as I don't often use a tripod, so the weight can be a problem for me.

Gaz J said:
It's a great lens. I've always felt it doesn't focus as quickly as other L lenses. Maybe it's got a longer throw or the motor could be with being a bit bigger. But id only swap it for a 2.8
Click to expand...
Yes I've heard that too, but if they do upgrade, it will probably be out of my price range! :shake:
Oh yes! The 2.8 I wish!! :lol:
 
The weight isn't a problem? Lighter than my 500mm. The price is though. It's the one lens that every now and again I get the urge to swap my 500 for. But i always think I'll miss the extra reach of the 500.
 
The focus speed isn't a deal breaker. I always keep mine switched to its minimum distance 3m-infinity and keep it set at between 10 m and infinity on the scale in the distance window. That minimises the throw it needs to focus.
 
Rick_Luke said:
I may be well off base here but I think Canon seem to be revising a fair few of the older lenses from the range over the next year or so. Judging from previous revisions though the price is likely to shoot up on the mk2 version like it did on the 24-70 f2.8L
Click to expand...

Yes it's a possibility, but then the price will probably be a significant increase over the current model - Canon seem to be having a habit of this recently.
 
andyred said:
No, it's a cracker of a lens and takes a 1.4 TC well. Has IS which can help out enormously at times, nice weight and very sharp.
Click to expand...

I think all things considered, I will probably go for the 300 f4....but I need a bit of time to regroup after my spend on the 70-200 f4!!
Thanks to you all for the advice. :clap:
 
Jen if you look at my Flickr birds folder most certainly in the last 2 years have been taken with the 300+1.4 handheld, it is a very good combo imo, if there was if they replaced the 400 with IS then I may consider changing other wise the 300 will be with me for ever :thumbs:
 
Why not get a 1.4X TC for your 70-200mm

I have that combo and works very nicely when you need that little bit more length
 
primrosegirl said:
I think all things considered, I will probably go for the 300 f4....but I need a bit of time to regroup after my spend on the 70-200 f4!!
Thanks to you all for the advice. :clap:
Click to expand...

I don't think you'd be disappointed with it.

Get saving up :-)
 
tijuana taxi said:
Why not get a 1.4X TC for your 70-200mm

I have that combo and works very nicely when you need that little bit more length
Click to expand...
That's also a thought Rich.... Hmmmm, got me thinking again, maybe get the 1.4 first and see how I go! Although, doesn't the extension work better on a prime?
 
RKC said:
Jen if you look at my Flickr birds folder most certainly in the last 2 years have been taken with the 300+1.4 handheld, it is a very good combo imo, if there was if they replaced the 400 with IS then I may consider changing other wise the 300 will be with me for ever :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Fabulous bird shots Bob, a great advert for the 300! Thanks for that! :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top