bestactionshots Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Has anyone owned both or have experiences with them please give opinions and comments on the differences especially the AF speed? I guess the biggest difference is IS but beyond that are there any differences in quality (sharpness, color, ect) and AF speed? TIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 William Castleman has a nice comparison. <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I had both at one time. The non-IS lens was very slightly sharper and very slightly more flare resistant, but for most people the IS and closer focusing distance would more than make up for any intrinsic optical differences. Both are great lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestactionshots Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 Phew! Just read most of the reviews from links. Bob you've done an excellent job with the review way back in '97. Back then I was still shooting with Canon A-1 believe it or not! <br> <br> I'll be using this lens for hockey with 20D at ISO 3200 f/4 1/320sec along with monopod and no handheld here. It's a poor sports shooter gear kinda thing. Currently I'm using 200/2.8L from the players bench and it's just right and tight. I would like to have another shooting angle and moving to the stand hence needed 300mm. If this 300/4L can give the same sharpness and quick AF like 200/2.8L then I'm in cloud 9!<br> <a href="http://www.bestactionshots.com">WWW.BESTACTIONSHOTS.COM</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsawa Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I got the 300/4L non-IS used (still quite expensive for me) and I find it an incredible sharp, contrasty and fast AF lens. I shot sharp pictures with a monopod down to 1/60s. Don't have first hand experience, but I would think the monopod makes IS more or less superfluous. Also, if you shoot let's say 3 pics in continous mode instead of just one, you have the chance you'll get on sharp picture out of a series (someone here called this the "poor men's IS"). On the other hand, the price difference of a used non-IS (don't even know it's still sold new) and a new IS is not so large, so if you know you'll use the lens regularly, and without monopod, I think it would be better to save some money until you can get the IS version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjoseph Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Christof, Your statement about is is rather inaccurate. Monopods and IS go together like anchovies and pizza! Using my 100-400 IS, I can safely hand hold the lens too 1/250th of a second. Ok so my hands are not very steady and I am using it on a 1.6x crop camera. Anyways, when I put my IS lens on a monopod, things get even better! I gain an additional two stops, and can safely use the lens at 1/60th of a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Hi Best Action, You know how the 20D has amazed you with the high iso performance, that is what IS will do for tele use especially with a monopod. Don't forget you are useing an effective 480mm so your 320 shutter speed is marginal at best, this is the area I have found IS to be most effective. I don't own either of the 300's you talk about but do own the 300 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 IS, the portrait I posted in the long thread was shot at 1/ 60 sec at 200mm handheld. Don't underestimate the extra number of keepers and sales you will get because of IS. Take care, Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scavallucci Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Hi, Have you considered a 1.4x teleconverter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsawa Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Ryan, thanks for clarification. As I said, I never had the chance to use the IS version. Didn't know how much the IS + monopod combination is better than monopod alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 <p>When I first got my monopod, I tried using my 300/4L IS USM on it, both with IS on and IS off. I didn't take any photos; I just looked through the viewfinder, and quickly discovered there's no need to take photos to know that monopod+IS easily beats the monopod alone. The difference is immediately obvious. It can't completely replace a tripod, of course (the tripod is far more stable, and the monopod is incapable of holding the camera up on its own), but for the most part, my tripod now stays at home.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I have looked at both these lenses. With the 300/4L USED at $700-$800, and the 300/4L-IS NEW at $1100 or so, the IS version appears to be a better value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestactionshots Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 I think I've got a better deal. I've just got a mint Non-IS for $650 shipped. :-)<br> <br> <i>Jim Larson , dec 07, 2004; 02:43 p.m.<br> I have looked at both these lenses. With the 300/4L USED at $700-$800, and the 300/4L-IS NEW at $1100 or so, the IS version appears to be a better value.</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestactionshots Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 When I had 100-400L IS lens this past summer for all soccer games. The IS button was on Off position 100% of the time. I was using monopod and my shutter speed was around 800-1000 so IS feature didn't do me any good. One game I tried to handhold the darn thing for nearly 75 minutes and it was just not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 <p>Then you're in a good position to know whether IS is useful for you. If you can get your shutter speeds way up there on a consistent basis, you really don't need IS, and in that case, the non-IS 300/4 is a better choice for you. Hope you enjoy it!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Monopod and IS.... I have taken an acceptably sharp picture with my 300 F4L IS on a monopod at 1/80th of a second. With a 2X TC. With a 1.4X TC mounted on the back. On a 1.6X crop factor D30. That's an equivalent FL of 1344mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_turner Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Whether you are serious about your stacking of 1.4 and 2.0 TC's with the 300 and your 1.6 crop camera is anyone's guess, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's get your math straight- Your end result is equivalent to a 840mm focal length to a standard 35mm frame then cropped by essentially 63%. Not 1344mm. If you are serious, I'd love to see some sharp photos of that setup in action. I wonder if autofocus works at all, considering you are losing nearly four stops of light from f4? rt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Isaac is correct about the equivalent focal length of 1344 mm (that's what would be required on a full-frame 35 mm film camera to achieve the same field of view on his 1.6X DSLR). But..... whoooaaa! I, too, would love to see some sharp images with that combination! VERY doubtful if AF would work but IS probably keeps going. It does for me with a 500/4 with combined 1.4X and 2X, but I'd never try that combo except on a very firm tripod at the highest shutter speed I could manage. The bottom left image on this page (the <A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds3/ baldeagle.html"> scratching eagle</A>) was done this way. It's reasonably sharp but I would not want to enlarge it a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I am fully aware of the 840mm + crop. As the subsequent poster said, perhaps I should I have said equivalent FOV. The term acceptably sharp will of course vary...<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1429748&size=lg">The image</a><p> Not wildly exciting I know, and some CA is apparent, but it demonstrates what can be done with IS + Monopod. Not doable by IS alone nor Monopod alone. <p> Focusing is a serious issue. The D30 viewfinder makes it very hard at F11. It was about 1 of 20 or so that came out in focus and relatively non-shaky. This isn't a reliable method by any means. <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_turner Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Looks pretty good to me, Issac. Do you remember your shutter speed and what post proc you did? I don't get much sharper from my canon body connected to a Celestron via a T-mount, and that is on a rock solid telescope tripod. rt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 I concur. Not bad at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 1/80th, F11 (F8 showing on body, the stacked converters can't work out the presence of the 1.4X), ISO 100. Monopod + IS mode 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsbc Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Pretty good shot, but 1) do you need to focus. It thought you could turn it all to infinity 2) D30 is OK up to ISO400. That would save you a lot of trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 1) Yes, you do. The 300 F4L IS will focus beyond infinity. Where infinity focus lies on the focus scale depends on temperature. 2) I found that this didn't work so well. Another question might be why? I have now got a tripod, but at the time I didn't. Unfortunately, the tripod recently broke, so back to square 1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestactionshots Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 Well I've found that I need IS since my monopod won't work in the tight players box in hockey game. I have to handhold and the darn thing is heavy so a little shaky from time to time. The IS version is coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now