I was wondering anyone who has used this lens. what would you give it on a scale of 1-10 in image quality. 1 being the worst canon lens you have ever used and 10 being the best.
--matt
Printable View
I was wondering anyone who has used this lens. what would you give it on a scale of 1-10 in image quality. 1 being the worst canon lens you have ever used and 10 being the best.
--matt
I've never owned the lens, but from what I've read the image quality is superb from that lens. In fact, they say there's only one lens that's marginally sharper--the 300mm f/4 L non-IS. ;-)
See what Bryan has to say:
Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review
Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens Review
I just bought this particular lens two weeks ago. I used it to shoot some images of the Agassi vs Sampras exhibition match in Macau. I am quite pleased with the lens' performance and the AF is very fast. I've also tried it outdoors with a 1.4 extender and I can find no loss in image quality. For the price, it's one of Canon's top lenses in their line up. I'm sure you will be delighted with it should you decide to buy one.
I use this lens on both a 30D and a 5D. You can use the 300 f/4 IS for sports or macro or most anything. I would rate it an 9.5. Good for about 5' closeups. The spider was on a 5D, ISO 800, f/4.5, 1/2000, Av. The two bikes were shot with a 5D, ISO 200, f/11, 1/250, Tv. The three bikes was a 30D, ISO 100, f/11, 1/250, Tv.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/Spider-_2600_-Lizard_5F00_09-09-12_5F00_a.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/WERA-Oct.-5D_5F00_09-10-11_5F00_1726_5F00_edited_2D00_2.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/WERA-Oct.-_2700_09_5F00_09-10-11_5F00_1138_5F00_edited_2D00_2.jpg[/img]
JeffersonPoster
Simply, awesome lens!
Canon's good at making telephoto lenses. The only concern I have is that the IS system is a bit old, only 2 stops correction.
Ben,
300 f/4L IS, 300 f/2.8L IS,400 f/2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS and 600 f/4L IS all have 2-stop Image Stabilizer. The newer 200 f/2L IS and 800 f/5.6L IS have 4-stop
Nate,
300 f/2.8L IS,400 f/2.8L IS, 600 f/4L IS,200 f/2L IS and 800 f/5.6L IS, EXPENSIVE! Your 500 f/4, Expensive (but very good, cograts, you deserve it!). The 300 f/4 IS, most bang for the buck IMO. My 70-200 f/4 IS has I belive 4 stops. I like my 200 f/2.8 II and use it more. Better IQ. You get fantastic shots from your 400 f/5.6 non IS. I think IS is useful (low light) but degrades the "skill factor" somewhat. Just my opinion for what it's worth. ( I think this may be a whole new topic, sorry!)
JeffersonPoster
I had this lens for a while, but i sold it. I own the 100-400 IS USM, and i wanted a lens which will give me more detail. i have a 50D body, and i photograph birds and wildlife. The truth is i didn't see difference between the 300 and the 100-400, quality speaking (at least obvious), and because the 300 is not enough for me (it's lenght), i decided to sell it.
But, it's handling and the feeling is much better for me than the 100-400, and also i liked the attached hood it had...My opinion is a good lense, about as sharp as the 100-400, but not like the 400 f/5,6. it has the advantage of close focusing, light, fast focusing, very nice feeling in the hand etc, but it had the disadvantage of being too short for my needs. if this is not a problem for you, i think is a good choise.
You can also consider the 100-400 (it's benefit is the zoom range and i found it in same quality as the 300)
<h6>the 5,6 which has the same feeling with the 300 and is sharper (but no IS).</h6>
as far as i know, these lenses are about the same price range, and the same category in quality. For me for example, which i use now the 400/5,6 and also the 100-400, my next lense is going to be the Canon's 500 f/4. you get in an other level with those expensive lenses..
I've had the 300 f4 L IS for over a year now and find it excellent. Even with the 1.4 TC the IQ is amazing (although AF is slower). For the price, it is great value. You asked it to be rated 1 to 10, I'd give it a 9.5. Any gripes? Well its not weather sealed and only has the older 2 stop IS but I can live with that.
I've heard nothing but great things about the 300 f/4 L IS. It's a wonderful lens, and surely lives up to "L" designation in terms of image quality. Although I have no real-world experience with the 300, I have worked with the 400 f/5.6 L and can confidently say that they share their excellent build quality. I have also used the 100-400 L and the handling, in my opinion, of the 300 f/4 IS is superior. Enjoy great image quality at a great price!
- Alex
Very nice!
Shows off the panning IS (and/or your own ability to track the thing...)
waht i do normally pan it for the first few laps without taking the shot compensate speed and apature (manual mode) then the next lap snap it & spot on...
Somebody please, please, please stop me from pulling the trigger on this lens. I admit I have a bad case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome and I really want this one. Actually, I want the 300/2.8L IS but at $4000+ and nearly 6 pounds of weight, I can't really do that. Ironically, it also happens to be one of the reasons why I haven't bought the 300/4L IS, since in my mind I'm saying "well, if you buy the f/4, that's just about 1/4th the cost of the f/2.8 and that's really the one you want...."
Yeah. I am a sick, sick man. Don't get too close, or else you too may be infected.
Why do I want the 300/4?
- I often find myself without enough reach on my 70-200/2.8L IS.
- I can shoot 420/5.6 at a reasonably affordable price.
- I think lens prices are going to continue to rise.
- I don't think this lens will see an update for at least another 4-5 years.
- I love to shoot wildlife and street.
- It has much smaller MFD, enabling almost 1:4 magnification, which @ 300mm is freaking amazing. Unparalleled.
Why do I want to hold off?
- Because I could buy the 300/2.8L IS instead. Sick, I know.
- I need to save money and I've already spent obscene amounts on gear.
- I'm not earning any income from photography. If this changed somehow, I would be ALL OVER IT BABY.
- Did I mention the 300/2.8L IS already? Excuse me while I wipe the drool from my mouth.
Please help me. I'm begging you.
You are in good company! I havean advancedcase of G.A.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Me too...and me too :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
You make some great points, especially for the purchase of the 300 f/4. It's an outstanding lens. If you REALLY think that you'll eventually buy the 300 f/2.8 then maybe it would be better to just continue to save. Remember though, L glass has unheard of value retention. You could buy the f/4 and sell it if you decided that you absolutely needed the f/2.8. You would probably only take a 10% or 15% hit after resale. Other than what I have already said, my only other advice would be not to EVER rent the 300 f/2.8 because I'm sure it would be impossible to not want to buy it then!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
There is no known cure! Started with a 30D and 28-135 kit lens, sold the 28-135 and got a 100-400. Sold the 100-400 and got a the 300 f/4 IS. Also got along the way, 17-40, 70-200 f4 IS (great glass!), 200 2.8 (also killerglass), 5D (super IQ wit all this glass), getting a 35 f/1.4 for Christmas, a 135 f/2 (for birthday in Feb.), No Known Cure. Learn to live with it! Maybe a 1Ds MkIII now that the MkIV is here.
JeffersonPoster
Okay you guys, not exactly helping me out here... At this rate, I think it's terminal. LOL [:P]
Here's what happened today. I've been practicing shooting hummingbirds in my backyard for months now, off and on. I was using the 70-200/2.8L IS, but the problem was I couldn't get close enough, or I didn't have the range. Now that I got my flash off-camera thanks to the PocketWizards, I have been at it some more. They continue to be skittish around me and I feel like I could definitely get some nice images with the 300/4L IS.
In the meantime, I thought why not slap on the 100/2.8L macro IS if the MFD is the issue here. I was very doubtful that I could be let so close to these guys. I hung my feeder right outside the patio door and used my umbrella as a sort of makeshift blind. My lens was positioned about a foot away from the feeder. And guess what I got:
5D Mark II, 100/2.8L macro IS @ 100mm @ f/7.1 @ 1/40s @ ISO 320, ETTL flash on PW, 100% crop:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0022c.JPG[/img]
I could NOT have done this with the 70-200/2.8. No way. Not only would it not have been this sharp, it wouldn't be this big. And now my mind is thinking, "imagine what I could do with the 300/4L IS + 1.4x TC...."
And not too long ago I went to the zoo and got a shot of this sparkling violetear:
5D Mark II + 70-200/2.8L IS @ 200mm @ f/4 @ 1/50s @ ISO 320, 25% crop:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0242.JPG[/img]
And it absolutely *kills* me to know that I wasted a lot of pixels because I could not get close enough, and that I was literally cantilevered over the railing, hands shaking, to get as close as I could. And so the image is soft. If I had the 300/4L IS, I could have done a much, much better job. You have to understand. I NEVER expected to develop an obsession with photographing hummingbirds, of all things. I bought this camera to take photos of people, not wildlife. And yet, I have found wildlife (and macro) so much more rewarding and comfortable than portraiture that I am starting to wonder if I would be more successful shooting animals than people.
So tell me, am I crazy for wanting to spend another $1200 on a lens, without having any expectation that I can earn something back for it? Am I unworthy of this lens?
Wow! Talk about detail!! My only critique is that I find the catchlight a little distracting. I find that bird's eyes don't reach as well to flash as other animals but that may just be me :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
There are few things that I don't enjoy shooting. It's really exciting though when you find that "one" thing that really inspires you though.Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
I don't think this is the right way to look at it. If you were a pro and your money maker was studio portraiture then it probably would not make business sense "to spend another $1200 on a lens, without having any expectation that I can earn something back for it". I think a better way to look at it is, "is it worth $1200 to me to purchase a tool that will further enhance my art and allow me to take photos that I could not take otherwise?"Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Call it what you want, a hobby, passion, job, etc. For those of us who don't pay the bills with our photographs we do it because we love it (not that you pros don't love it too!). It's hard to put a price on the things we love. Some people have extravagent home theater systems. Some people have fast cars. Some people don't buy their clothes at Target [:P]. We invest in photography gear. If nothing else, you will always have a support system here (enablers!) to help you make these decisions :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
wickerprints, this is an outstanding shot. (you could always photoshop out the catchlight, of course).
Would you be willing to post a shot of your makeshift blind set up? This really sounds intriguing and inspirational.
And, show the position to the feeder, too.
Thanks!
Okay, I can't take it any more!!!!! There are limits to my willpower. Dropped coin on the 300/4L IS. *shakes head*
I'll try to show off my setup when I get around to shooting more of these guys. Bear in mind, it's nothing fancy. Just hang the feeder on the awning just outside the doorway, let the hummingbirds get used to its location. Hang it low so that you can sit down. Get the camera + tripod super close, put the umbrella and OCF to the side, blocking most of your body. Then sit and wait. As soon as they fly by, bring your hand up to the camera and shoot.
Now I'm hearing rumors of an EF 70-200/2.8L IS Mark II...this makes me want to sell my 6 month-old Mark I and spend even *more* money. Help. Please. This is TERRIBLE.
It's a terminal disease called "gearlitis"..but what the hell, you seem to be doing ok
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius
AKA "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" (GAS)... and if you ask my wallet, it would most definitely be telling you that I am NOT doing okay. [:P]
I just heard about a price drop on the EF 300/2.8L IS. I could get one for just under $4000... the reptilian part of my brain is literally screaming "I do not want to lose out on this deal!!!!"
My 300/4L IS arrived yesterday. It's just about perfect right out of the box. No need for microadjustment.
But seeing as how this is the longest focal length lens I have used so far, during testing of this lens I discovered some interesting behavior.
As I was checking for focus accuracy, I had the 5D2 + 300/4L IS mounted on a tripod and took some shots with IS off. I saw vertical blurring and quickly concluded that mirror bounce was causing the problem. FWIW I did not observe this with the 70-200/2.8L IS mounted on the same tripod with IS off.
Next, I repeated the exposure with IS on. No change whatsoever in exposure, which makes me wonder if this lens' IS system is tripod-sensing, because with the 70-200/2.8L IS, if I turn on IS while on tripod, I get much blurrier images in all directions. This is confusing since the 300/4L IS was designed before the 70-200/2.8L IS.
Anyway, to confirm the issue with mirror bounce, I enabled MLU and repeated the two exposures, one with IS on, one with IS off. (All four exposures were taken on 10s timer @ 1/30-60s shutter speed.) In this MLU test, I saw a sharp image in each case--IS mode again made no difference.
Because the influence of IS was not yet observed, I unmounted the camera from the tripod and repeated the experiment handheld, MLU disabled and enabled. Again, exposure was about 1/50s, so more than 2 stops slower than 1/300s. With IS on, I was able to get a very sharp exposure, no directional blurring, both with and without MLU. So the IS system does work.
Based on this result, I conclude that 5D2 + 300/4L IS + tripod = MLU at intermediate shutter speeds (1s - 1/300s). The reflex mirror on the 5D2 induces a great deal of shake. Perhaps the tripod I am using is too light to damp the vibration, but these were my findings. My next step will be to try IS mode 2, to see if the panning mode will permit the IS system to recognize the vibration from the mirror.
Comments, questions, thoughts welcome [:)]
Great bird shots.
I don't have that lens!
I'm not buying more lenses, I'm not buying more lenses, I'M NOT BUYING MORE LENSES!
:(