Which lens bettwe quality: 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM or the one wihout image stabilizer 300 mm f/4.0 L USM

HI,

 

I am planning to purchase new telephoto lens and have decided to go for Canon

300 mm f/4.0 L USM

However I can't decide wchich version to choose - the new one with image

stabilizer or the older one without IS.

 

Of course, I understand that IS is a good thing especially for hand-hold

photography, which sometimes might be used with 300 mm. However my primary

priority would be image quality.

 

So, could you advise if this lens with IS option is worse with regard to image

quality than the older version without stabilizer?

 

I have read few reviews as well as Bob Atkins, where there was a comment that

the lens with IS has 11 elements while the older version of the lens has only 8

elements. Which logically can mean better quality for older version. Is it true

and visible?

 

Or the image quality actually does not differ (I mean in the cases when shooting

without IS).

 

best greetings from Lithuania

Zymantas

IS is worth more than 0.01% more resolution and from what i have read those lenses fall into that category.

I have the 300/4 L IS and it's great.

IS is for image stabilizer, for the difference in the price, a wiser option would be to purchase a monopod especialy if you plan on shooting at 300mm. I don't own a Canon IS len's but I've heard they aren't very good for pictures taken at speeds above 1/125 sec.

I have the 300 non-IS. Everything I have found says the older, non-IS version has better image quality than the new one, which I have not used. I have never had trouble getting sharp images from a tripod without IS. I do not generally shoot this lens without a tripod and don't think I would even if it had IS. For me, since I don't often shoot without a tripod, the better image quality and lower price made the decision easy.

IS is great, I own and have owned image stabilized lenses for years. But, people have been taking sharp pictures for a long time, even I've been told, before the advent of IS. If you want to save a little money, get the non-IS version used. No sense in obssessing over the IQ between the two, I doubt you'll see much difference in these two fine lenses.Good luck.

Well.. .yes but. . .Last I looked, high quality used non-IS lenses were in the $700-$800 range, while a NEW IS lens was about $1050.

 

That is not an impressive used discount. If both lenses were new. . .the price difference would actually be larger.

 

I guess the bottom line question is: Are you shooting on a tripod or not? If you are shooting on a tripod like Adam. . .then the non-IS is definately a better choice since it is sharper.

 

BUT. . .if you are shooting without tripod. . .then the 1/focal rule imlies that shooting handheld at less than 1/300th will result in motion blur. Note that this lens is HEAVY. You probably need to have super steady hands to get this performance. 1/300th to 1/500th shutter speed at F4 implies that you ALWAYS will need good light hand held.

 

So: Got a tripod? Always use it? Well. . .do ya?

 

 

UPDATE: On the KEH website, the 300/4L "Like New" is $999. The 300/4L-IS "Like New Minus" is $999. Ow. The IS new is $1099 -> and often gets $50 rebates.

I would go with the IS version. In fact, I'd snatch up the one Jim mentioned from KEH if I were in the market for one and didn't already have one.

 

<p>

You can always turn the IS feature off. You can't add IS to the older lens, though. :)

 

 

 

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.merrillphotography.com/canid/pics/070122_001b.jpg">

</center>

<p>

300/4 IS at f/4 & 1/40th, ISO 1600

 

 

<p>

 

Eric

You may find it useful to compare these reviews, especially the qualifications in the first:

 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm

 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4/index.htm

 

When I looked recently, I got the impression the older, non-IS variety is in short supply, and consequently, in view of its reviews, almost as pricey as it successor. The other thing to factor in is the longevity of the older lens, especially its service life.

The non-IS version does have better image quality. But this is one of the few cases where it may not matter because the IS version is already one of the best lenses Canon makes. You're already in the stratosphere as far as image quality is concerned. I would be willing to bet that you would only see the difference with the best DSLRs or film handling techniques, and even then only by studying at extreme magnification. (Note: the photodo.com MTF rating appears to have been a bad copy. The performance of the IS version is comparable to 4+ lenses, not 3.x lenses.)

 

On the other hand, any time you have to hand hold the lens, even if that's rare, IS will make a difference in image quality.

 

I would go for the IS version, brand new with warranty.

<I> I don't own a Canon IS len's but I've heard they aren't very good for pictures taken at

speeds above 1/125 sec.</i><p>

 

This is, to be blunt, a crock, at least as written. IS lenses work perfectly well at very high

shutter speeds. The poster may be refering to the utility of IS (although that's not what the

sentence reads). How much benefit one gets from IS is dependent on shutter speed, but

also focal length and lots of other factors (is the wind blowing? are you on the vibrating deck

of a ship?), but for a long lens, you would have to get to a much higher speed than 1/125

before the benefits of IS in hand-holding would be negligible.

>>I don't own a Canon IS len's but I've heard they aren't very good for pictures taken at speeds above 1/125 sec.<<

 

I 2nd the post by Mark...

You will never be able to tell the difference. I just bought a 70-200 non IS because I will never use it without a monopod or tripod and almost all shots will be at 1/500 or higher. I do own 2 other IS lens. If you might be shooting without a tripod, then buy the IS lens, you'll need it.

I tested them both (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html) and I found that the non-IS version had slighly lower flare and slightly higher resolution, but the difference was so small that to most people in most situations the advantages of IS and closer focusing would probably far outweight any slight differences in optical performance.

shot handheld with a 300mm IS and 1.4 TC @ 1/200th sec<div></div>

crop of above<div></div>

hi all,

 

thank you for the answers so far. they are a lot, however, opinions are different. just to clarify a bit my situation:

- for such focal lens I will use tripod (or in certain cases monopod) 90% of the time using this lens.

- while using on the tripod I guess I will swich off the IS

- image quality is a concern for me and most important criteria. this is why I am not considering buying 100-400 mm canon lens or other;

- Currently I have Canon 30D body;

- paying this price difference to get the IS option is not an issue to me in this case. I am ready to pay more and will purschase a new lens with warranty.

- I see the IS option as nice "bonus" to the lens, which I might use in some cases. but it is just as bonus and probably for the feeling to have this possibility in the field (you never know - sometimes there is no tripod near you at that particular moment...)

- but i CRAVE for quality and sharpness of images. and if the difference of image quality is visible on the picture e.g. printed on A3 or bigger format, I would consider better image quality lens.

 

So, how would you advise me to conclude?

I think you'd have to be raving nuts to even THINK about a long lens without IS in this day

and age. When the other guys have broken out the tripods, rooted to one place, you are

free to roam and get into some heavy brush, whatever. When the other guys go home

because 1/100th is too dark for their lens, you can stay and shoot.

"image quality is a concern for me and most important criteria"

 

You will have to work quite hard to exploit all the potential of any lens. Cable release,

mirror lock, etc. If you are even thinking about spending less than a few hundred bucks on

your tripod you probably will never be able to fully exploit even a kit lens. Forget about a

monopod!

So if you get the IS lens, you may give up little quality (which you probably can't detect) for the 90% of shots you shoot on a tripod. In return, you get lots more flexibility (and probably image quality) for the 10% you hand hold.

 

I'd say Andrew's right on. Go for the IS version.

 

Good luck!

I'm not convinced that the non-IS version is optically superior. The thought that it is stems

from a single online test. Last year, the testers acquired a new sample of the 300 f/4L IS

and it tested about identically to the non-IS version.

Thanks everybody for the responses - I have ordered already IS version.