canon f4L 300mm usm prime non is??

westley byford

westley byford

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,187
Name
westley
Edit My Images
Yes
im looking at one of these for sale near me at the moment, i cant seem to find any info on them,

can anyone help me out?
are they any good?

regards wes :)
 
really? this is up for 450.. :(
might have to try and barta with him although it states stricly no offers..

could you show me links with pictures from these lenses?

wes
:)
 
what would there use be best for, fast moving objects or widlife etc?
 
westley byford said:
what would there use be best for, fast moving objects or widlife etc?
Click to expand...

It could do both as long as it is not dark enough to require 2.8. On the other hand, 50D would handle fairly still wildlife a bit better (ie. AI-Servo = :thumbsdown:)
 
I have one that may be up for sale in the near future, however it has recieved quite a lot of interest... Unfortunately they are like gold dust (both the non IS and used versions of the IS) and I had terrible trouble getting mine a couple of years ago.

Going rate however seems a bit higher than Alastairb suggests, more liek 400-450 depending on condition. If it's in poor condition you're looking at £400 and good well £430-450.
 
Amp34 said:
I have one that may be up for sale in the near future, however it has recieved quite a lot of interest... Unfortunately they are like gold dust (both the non IS and used versions of the IS) and I had terrible trouble getting mine a couple of years ago.

Going rate however seems a bit higher than Alastairb suggests, more liek 400-450 depending on condition. If it's in poor condition you're looking at £400 and good well £430-450.
Click to expand...

do you have any sample pics of what it can do? :)
 
also this one is near mint, he's just offered ir to me for £425... very tempted!!
what i'd love is a 100-400L is pic quality on the 300mm much behind this??

sorry for all the questions but £400 is a lot of money to me so i dont want make wrong choices. :)
 
Pic quality should be better on the 300mm as it's a prime lens. My only concern would be the lack of IS at 300mm, but then maybe that says more about me than anything else.

I sold my 100-400 and went to a 300/4 IS. Picture quality is better than the 100-400 in my opinion.
 
really? ive also been told by people that when photogrssphing birds in flight etc that there is no need for IS..

have you use a T.C on your 300mm? if so how does it handle it?
 
I have used a 1.4TC and the quality is still excellent. I have not noticed any issues with it. Don't know about no IS for BIF, but I wouldn't get a long lens without it.
 
westley byford said:
really? ive also been told by people that when photogrssphing birds in flight etc that there is no need for IS..
Click to expand...

One of the most popular birding lenses, recommended over and above the 100-400 if all you shoot is birds, is Canon's 400/5.6L. It does not have IS.

IS definitely has its place, and can sometimes be an advantage when shooting BIF, especially if the light is poo, but if you can get the sort of shutter speeds you would really like, which is typically 1/1000 and faster then I would say that IS is of questionable value. I used to use IS with my 100-400 for BIF photography. I no longer do.

This 23 frame BIF sequence (shots are unedited) was shot at 400mm without IS. I'm very happy with the results....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/7DBIFSequence?authkey=Gv1sRgCLDs-46l9KPORg


All the BIF shots in this album (also unedited) were also taken without IS. The static shots were taken with the aid of a monopod rather than IS...

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1600?authkey=Gv1sRgCO-zsJ3YrIXnfQ
 
Tim, were these shots taken withthe 100-40L or the 400/5.6L?
 
scottduffy said:
Tim, were these shots taken withthe 100-40L or the 400/5.6L?
Click to expand...

All with the 100-400. I don't have, and have never owned or used the prime. But I don't doubt those who say it is sharper wide open and faster to AF.

Here's an example from the album at 285mm (you can't do that with the prime :)), but with a shutter speed of 1/1600, and the bird moving swiftly in a diagonal direction, IS would have been of no use at all. In fact, in my experience it would quite possibly have been detrimental.

20100429_141056_6687_LR.jpg


The idea behind Mode 1 IS is to stabilise the lens and counteract the effects of movement at the camera/lens end of things. If your intent is to move the camera, which you usually do for BIF, then the IS will fight your movements and result in a jerky image in the viewfinder and potentially odd effects in the captured image. Mode 2 IS is designed to freeze motion EITHER horizontally OR vertically, while you attempt to pan smoothly in the other direction. If your subject is moving diagonally then mode 2 IS won't help either.

Mode 1 IS can be advantageous if you have a bird coming straight at you, where you have no need to pan, or where a bird is travelling in level flight across your field of view, requiring no panning in a vertical direction. However, any movements such as landing, swooping etc. are just not going to work well with IS engaged, at least in my experience. Take a look at this example....

20100429_141110_6702_LR.jpg


One moment I was tracking the bird horizontally (more or less) and then suddenly it soared upwards to catch some food. I have no clue what IS would have made of that little manoeuvre, but in the past I have had results which you would think would be perfect, yet ruined because the IS didn't have a clue what to do and crapped all over the image. Needless to say, I have learned from those experiences and now leave IS disabled for such shooting.

There is also an interesting article by Thom Hogan in relation to Nikon's VR system, where he cautions against the use of VR when using high shutter speeds, and he explains why. I would not be surprised if similar concerns apply to Canon's IS system and other similar systems. Here's the article....

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm
 
cheers tim :D confimed what i was just about to ask..
that IS is pretty much not needed at high shutter speeds,
if a camera can capture stationary helicopter blades at a speed of 1/1000 then capturing a birds wing flaps during a BIF shot shoud be no problem.. ;)

it does seem to be a good lens for £400 and seeing as i cant stretch to £800+ for a 100-400 then i think this may be a good starter lens for me,
 
These lenses are as sharp as a knife, due to their rarity and the fact that many have been used by pro sports 'togs and have signs of wear a good condition one often makes more than the figure You have been offered this one for. I sold my 100-400 as I found it too much of a compromise, though it suits many just fine. If I could find a 300mm prime for this sort of cash I would be severely tempted.
 
Briliant lens.. I had been using a sigma 120-300 for a long time.. broke it and got hold of one of these for a weekend.... I was amazed at the difference and as soon as the sigma got fixed i sold it and got a 300 2.8 and have never looked back..

I was like a lot of people on here telling everyone how good the sigma was... but when you try a canon prime L ... my oh my..
 
Wes, be careful not to confuse camera shake with subject blur. IS is intended to address problems with camera shake, usually when hand holding at low shutter speeds. IS will do nothing at all to freeze motion in the subject. That is all down to shutter speed and panning skill, and how fast the subject or its bits are moving.

Furthermore, wing blur is easily seen at shutter speeds of 1/1000. Personally I think it adds to the drama of the shot, and is a good thing, but you really want to right balance. Here is a shot at 1/2000, with blur at the wing tip clearly visible....

20091015_143504_3797_LR.jpg


and one at 1/1600....

20100220_102647_4716_LR.jpg


then again, at 1/160, very little blur, but for this one I'm pretty sure that Mode 2 IS did come in handy....

20080803_122723_1848_LR.jpg
 
Hi

I bought the IS version last year and am blown away with it, still getting to grips with using it for the lowfly aircraft, but have a look on the following threads - these were taken with it

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=184095

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=162494

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=158309


If you can afford it and it's a good example, get it, I don't think you'd be disappointed and could always sell on at a later date for similar money if you don't get on with it.

Good luck :thumbs:
 
westley byford said:
do you have any sample pics of what it can do? :)
Click to expand...

Not really, they are sort of mixed in with other photos, however I did do a review of it... :)

http://wildaboutlife.net/wp/archives/69

The two photos I don't think are a fair representation of the lens though, they were taken on the first outing with it and I think they are actually quite soft compared to subsequent trips (actually look like they have a bit of blur as the focal speed wasn't enough.:bonk:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top