Looking at a Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM

[ldavidson]

<p>I have a 7D body and two lenses, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and I recently purchased the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro after receiving helpful advice here in this forum. I sold my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM because I found it awkward and difficult to focus. I am now thinking of getting the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM to replace it. If anyone here has any thoughts or advice on this lens I would be happy to hear from them. <br>

Thanks. <br /><br>

Linda</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I've got the 7D+300/4 IS combination, it's a real delight.<br>

I have no hesitation in recommending it. If you can run to a 1.4x too, you have a very usable 420/5.6.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Thanks Peter.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Great lens. 400mm f/5.6L is longer and lighter, but no IS and a stop slower. The 1.4x will work nicely on the 300mm, but won't AF on the 400mm on your 7D. I own the 400mm and love it, but the 300mm + 1.4x may be more versatile. I would decide which lens works best for your photography and pull the trigger. Both lenses are great and hold their value.</p>

[wegner]

<p>I also have 7D + 300/4 L IS. It's a gem.<br>

Here are some samples:<br>

<a href="

<a href="

<a href="

<a href="

[lester_wareham]

I too use the 300/4 IS and 7D, it is a great lens.

 

For birds the the 400/5.6 probably has the edge in sharpness over the 300/4 IS + 1.4x in good light. The IS is useful in

lower light and the close focus capability of the 300/4 IS makes the lens very versatile for smaller subjects.

 

I wouldn't suggest the 300/4 IS is a replacement for a good macro lens but it does give an additional option. I guess the

400/5.6 would need a tube or two for that use case.

[jim_j2]

<p>Linda,<br>

Somewhat sorry to hear that you got rid of your 100-400 and found it cumbersome. I love mine, but I can't argue with your choice on the 300 f/4 L IS to replace it!<br>

That's the one I've always figured I would try to obtain next, or to replace my 100-400 someday. From my research some time back, it does well with the 1.4X TC, and I would imagine on your 7D and its more advanced AF, it should really shine!</p>

<p>Not to stray your thread but, how do you like your 100 f/2.8 L Macro? It was my last lens purchase shortly after it was released a couple of years ago. I do like mine and find the hybrid IS in the "full" mode amazing.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Jim j.</p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

Hi Linda,

 

I have rented the 300 f4 IS twice. Once I had it on an XSI, then another time on the 7D. I would encourage you to rent it, if you can, to try it out and see how it feels to you. I found it more manageable than the 100-400, but that's me. I found it more comfortable with the 1.4x TC than without, again, that's me. It's a very nice lens though it's got a little heft to it. The relatively close focusing distance is quite handy. As mentioned, with the 1.4x TC it is quite versatile.

 

Best Wishes,

Laura

[john_macpherson]

<p>I did a side by side comparison (in the field) one day between the 300F4IS and 300 f2.8 IS (my own) and the difference was slight wide open and hardly noticeable stopped down a bit. Considering the 300 F2.8 is a stellar performer and probably up there amongst the sharpest lenses made by anyone, the performance of the F4 is really very very good. </p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>+1 For the EF-300mm f4 w/IS on a crop body! I had mine on a 40D and really liked that setup. </p>

<p>Some of the posts recommend the 1.4x teleconverter. Do you mean more specifically the version II or version III or do all three work well with this lens?</p>

<p>For Lester - I never thought of the EF-300mm F4 as close focusing? There have been many times where I wished it would focus about a 1ft closer than it does. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>To Linda:<br>

+1 what Peter M wrote.<br>

I don’t own a 300/4 L IS but have reasonable access to one: I’ve only used it on 5D and it is ‘very nice; all the way to the corners @ F/4 - thus “even better” on a 7D I would expect.<br>

I find it a very easy lens to hold and use for long periods of time, I rarely (I donl;t think I have ever) used a monopod with this lens.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><em><strong>“Do you mean more specifically the version II or version III or do all three work well with this lens?”</strong></em></p>

<p>To Brad et al:<br>

I’ve used the 300/4L IS with a MKII Canon x1.4 Tele Extender – (with 5D) and that combination is very good: (and slightly better than the 70 to 200/2.8L plus Canon x2.0MkII, which is also good.)<br>

I have no firsthand experience with the 300/4L IS and either the original Canon Tele extenders or the MKIII versions – however I <strong><em>assume</em></strong> the MKIII extenders would be as good, or better.<br>

I did put the 300 + x1.4 Extender on a monopod - easier and smoother with a monopod to follow action at that FL for me.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>Hmmm, I just gave up my 300 f/4 for the convenience of the 100-400. ;-) </p>

<p>Yes, the 300 is a great lens. If it is the right focal length for you, you'll love it.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>What didn't you like about the 100-400?</p>

<p>Last year, I sold my 300/4 IS in favor of the 70-300L. The latter is much faster at focusing.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I have the no-IS version of the 300mm f4 and with the 1.4x extender the lens is very difficult to focus. I gave up trying to focus on moving subjects with that combination. Although focusing manually helps a little bit. Without the 1.4x extender the focusing is very fast and locks on the subject, but not as fast as my 70-200 f2.8.</p>

[dave_kim2]

<p>I have the 300mm f4IS and a 7D, great results, but I use the 7D & 70-200mm f2.8 IS much more. It's kind of a long (480mm eq.) combo, I use it more on my 1D (390mm eq.). But if you used your 100-400mm on the long end most of the time it would be a good choice, great IQ even wide open, although you would have a big hole between 100 and 300mm.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Once I got the 100-400mm I never used the 300mm again. However, since you had issues with the 100-400mm the 300mm would be a good choice. Good luck with your photography.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p><strong>Nathan</strong>, thanks. I like the IS feature on the 300 which makes me lean towards it. When shooting birds, or other wildlife I don't always have time to set up my tripod so the IS will be helpful. I have looked at the 400 (online) and read reviews. </p>

<p><strong>Vladimir</strong>, thanks for the great photos.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Lester</strong>, I have a good macro so that won't be a problem, but you said that the 400 mm is sharper. I guess I will have to look at the 400 again. Thanks. </p>

<p><strong>Jim,</strong> I have missed the 100 - 400 a little, but we were never really meant for each other. So many shots were out of focus and I found the push pull mechanism annoying and clumsy. I have arthritis which didn't help. I love the 100 f/4 macro. I am covered with bug bites and scratches from crawling around in the bushes stalking insects. It is whole new world and I am having a great time exploring and experimenting. I am so glad that I bought it.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Laura,</strong> I wish I could rent lenses but unfortunately I live in a small town in the middle of British Columbia, Canada. There is no one here that does it. You are fortunate to be able to. Thanks for commenting.</p>

<p><strong>John,</strong> thanks so much for the info.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Brad</strong>, thank you.</p>

<p><strong>William</strong>, thanks for your input, I appreciate it.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, I hope you enjoy using your 100 - 400, I think most owners are happy with it. I found it difficult to use the push pull mechanism with arthritis. </p>

<p><strong>Eric</strong>, I didn't like the push pull mechanism, it was also heavy. I found it awkward and annoying. Arthritis made it even more difficult. To get good clear focus I had to use a tripod, which isn't always possible. I also found it was soft over 300. Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Harry</strong>, thanks for your input.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Dave,</strong> thanks. I haven't used the 70 - 200, I will have to check it out. You are right, I will have a gap. I have the 24 -70 L, it is the lens I have used the most.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, thanks so much.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"<strong>Lester</strong>, I have a good macro so that won't be a problem, but you said that the 400 mm is sharper. I guess I will have to look at the 400 again. Thanks."</p>

<p>I believe Lester means that the 400/5.6 is a bit sharper than the 300/4+1.4x extender. I'd believe this, though the 300/4+1.4x is an excellent combination.</p>

<p>I would not believe that it's sharper than the 300/4 "naked" as I own this lens and mine's very sharp. Not quite as sharp as the 300/2.8 it replaces (I went to the 300/4 for its lightness and for IS and because I routinely shoot at ISO 200 rather than the ISO 50 (velvia) or ISO 100 (E100SW) slide films I depended on in the 1990s/early 2000s), but as someone mentioned above it's very close. And the original EF 300/2.8 as well as the IS versions have the reputation of being perhaps the sharptest telephotos ever made as of the time they were introduced.</p>

<p>I love the handholdability of this lens using IS, I've been spending a lot of time recently photographing off of boats where a tripod or monopod would be inconvenient and would serve as a very efficient transmitter of engine vibration to the camera.</p>

<p>I shot this cormorant feeding one of its chicks a couple of weeks ago, 300/4 wide open, no extender, handheld with IS:</p>

<p>http://donb.photo.net/2012-05/corm-chick.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Don, thanks for this helpful information. Your shot of the cormorant is wonderful, the focus is excellent. I am impressed.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I bought a used 300/4 IS several years ago for use with a film body and was completely pleased with it. Completely. I ended up selling it a little while after going digital, since on a 1.6-crop body, it was now too long a fair bit of the time (and I kept needing something between it and my next-longest lens).</p>

 

<p>If a 300mm prime is what you need, and the 2.8 is not an option for whatever reason (price, size, weight, etc.), this lens is a great choice. It's very sharp, even wide open (and I found it works well with the 1.4x II as well, though it's a bit soft wide open with the TC; stopping down one stop makes a big difference). IS is very handy, even though it's an outdated IS version (only good for about two stops). With IS and the relatively modest weight of this lens, it's quite handholdable, and IS works well on a monopod, too.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Personally when I want a 300mm I use the 70-200mm f4IS + 1.4 TC or 200mm/2.8 + 1.4 TC to make 280mm f 5.6 or f4. Works for me for the small number of times I need 300mm and the quality is excellent and they are light combinations. If I wanted to go longer I'd go for the 400/5.6. Perhaps you should also consider the 70-200/f4 variants? How often do you need 300mm as opposed to 200mm?</p>

[ldavidson]

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, thanks for your input.</p>

<p><strong>Robin</strong>, I am planning to go up north to the Yukon next month. I would like to be able to get some good wildlife shots. My 100 - 400 only focused well up to 300, beyond that it was soft. I am going to do some research on the 400/5.6 before making a decision. Thanks for your thoughts. </p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Linda - some lens info <a href="http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/lenstech.html">here</a> but it wont be there for long as the site is coming down very soon. </p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>I have the 7D, 300 f/4 L and the 1.4x magnifier. It has done some superb work for me when on safari in Africa. Light enough to handhold and super sharp! Highly recommend it.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I am really enjoying the new Tamron 70-300 VR I just purchased at Calumet fr $449 with $100 rebate. I shoot with a Canon 5D2 and this lens has been extraordinarily sharp. It focuses very fast, Silent has great zoom and is dirt cheap. It is F4-5.6 not straight F4 but the VR is great for a lens at this price.</p>