Opinions on Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS (with or without TCs)

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am looking for opinions on the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS. On paper, it is near perfection to me: a 300mm L prime lens with 2-stop image stabilization with a price tag that fits in my wallet. The only drawback seems to be the old design as it was launched in 1997. However, I do not read many comments about this lens online, so I was wondering if it is not practical, not good or just not popular. Could anyone who owns (or has owned) this lens comment on its properties and, if you have experience, its performance with Canon teleconverters?</p>

<p>I am preparing for a once in a lifetime event, a trip to Antarctica and South Georgia. I will bring a Canon 6D and 7D II with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 17-40mm f/4L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 and 2x teleconverter. I like to make pictures of landscapes and also birds. The 70-200mm is amazing on my 6D, but it lacks a little more reach. When I use it with the 2x II teleconverter, I am disappointed by the IQ, that is why I am considering the 300mm f/4L IS. It would give my 50% more reach and I was wondering as it is a prime, if it would produce better results with the TC (I could even buy the 2x III) when compared to the 70-200mm with the 2x II TC.</p>

<p>I would appreciate to hear (or read) any opinions on this lens.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Antonio</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I always like the reviews at Photozone.de -- Nobody is perfect, but they have a good track record in terms of my personal experience:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/611-canon300f4ff</p>

<p>I think many of us who wanted more reach went for the old EF 100-400mm L zoom instead of a fixed focal length lens. I did. It's of the same general vintage as the 300mm ( http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff ).</p>

<p>New versions are to be expected, sooner or later, for all of these pre-21st c. designs. Like the new 100-400 and the 200-400 lenses, they will cost a "little" more.</p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>I really liked my copy of the 300L f4 IS. The weight was very tolerable, the built in shade was awesome and the IS was good enough if you ask me. Wonderful out of focus rendering and I really liked the colors and contrast. If it had any fault (besides being a fixed focal length) is that the IS clunks when it engages and is kind of loud. Not wreck-a-wedding kind of loud but the first time you use it you might wonder if something is wrong.</p>

<p>I think the 300L f4 IS on a crop camera is a awesome combination. Having that lens on a 7DII would be such a nice setup (with or without teleconverter).</p>

<p>I ultimately sold off my crop cameras and 300mm just doesn't seem worth it on the FF. I tried a 70-200 f2.8 and didn't care for that reach or weight.</p>

<p>I would think the new 100-400L on the 7DII would be just about perfect. Then use the 6D for wider shots and any really low light photos. And if you have an issue with the 7DII the 100-400 is still a decent focal length on the 6D (for some redundancy). You already have the 70-200L f2.8 IS, very nice lens - heavy though. I know my next 70-200 will be the f4 with IS version. The 2.8 is just no fun to carry around for very long.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I've had limited use of the 300/4L but<a href="/photo/10291553&size=lg"> I do use a 70 to 200 F/2.8L USM + x2.0MkII EF Extender combination.</a> The 300/4L has better IQ and it is also is F/4 – and NOT F/5.6 Maximum Aperture. I expect that the 300 Prime would have better IQ than the combination of your zoom and extender also.</p>

<p>I also have used all five of the EF70 to 200 lenses: of the three F/2.8 lenses, the EF 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII USM (your lens) is the BEST of the five with both the x2.0 MkII EF Extender and is better with the x2.0MkIII EF Extender. This is most noticed using a FF Camera and when the lens used is near to or wide open. (Of the three 70 to 200/2.8L lenses, mine is the next best to yours for use with an EF Extender).</p>

<p>I suggest that you should critically and methodically conduct tests and analyse your results using your 70 to 200 and the MkII Extender. Certainly using and EF Extender will cause degradation, but I suggest doing A/B comparisons/contrasts of the Native Lens and then the Lens with the Extender, because other factors (for example but not limited to: Post Production Sharpening; Shutter Speed selection; ISO selection; lighting conditions) may have a marked effect on the conclusions that you draw.</p>

<p>Note that you will lose AF with your cameras when using the combination of the EF 300 F/4 IS USM – AND - a x2.0 EF Extender. <a href="/photo/15757934&size=lg">You can cover the pins on the EF Extender to alleviate this functionality, but there are mixed results</a> – I have no comment specifically re the 300/4L as I have not done it with that lens.</p>

<p>As the EF100 to 400L has been introduced to the discussion: although I have used three copies, I did not buy a 100 to 400 for myself. There were a few reasons I didn’t buy one: using my 70 to 200 with either a x1.4 or (less often) a x2.0 MkII EF Extender were two of those reasons; another reason is that I have access to a 400/2.8L.</p>

<p>But the (new) EF 100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6L IS MkII USM (on paper) warrants a really close look for Photographers who want that 100 to 400 (or 140 to 400) flexibility. Maybe this new lens would be more suitable for you, both for the upcoming trip and and generally as part of your kit. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>Thank you for your comments.</p>

<p>@ JDM von Weinberg</p>

<p>Thank you for the link to photozone. I hadn´t read their review.</p>

<p>I have considered buying the 100-400mm for several months before buying the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. The fact that the 100-400mm was scheduled to be upgraded prevented me from buying it and also the push-pull design as I was afraid that it might suck dust into the mirror chamber and then to the sensor, so I ended up buying the 70-200.<br>

<br />@ Brad Trostad</p>

<p>Since the new 100-400mm was released, I have been thinking of selling my 70-200mm and buying it. The 2.8 is as good as heavy.</p>

<p>@ William W</p>

<p>Very good photos. Congrats.<br>

I need to improve my post production skills. That might help my photos.<br>

The 7D II can focus at f/8 with the central focus point and the 4 points surrounding it, so I could use the 300 f/4L IS + 2x extender + 7D II and retain autofocus.<br>

I will consider the new 100-400mm.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I've used the 300mm f4 for years and really enjoyed it. By itself, its very sharp. I've used it with the 1.4 extender and the results are quite good, but not what I would call outstanding. Last summer I tried it with a friends 2X extender and was disappointed with the results.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"The <strong>7D II</strong> can focus at <strong>f/8</strong> with the central focus point and the 4 points surrounding it"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AH! <br>

I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>I used the 300 f/4 IS for over a decade - starting in the film era! Please be aware that I owned only one copy - your mileage may vary and all that. My experience - wonderfully sharp at f/4 - but with a 1.4x TC, not so much. With the 1.4x TC I had to stop down to f/11 to recover the sharpness I had without the TC. With the 2x - hopeless. And that was obvious in the days of film, when my EOS 3 would autofocus at f/8. I suspect it's not really f/4 - that would require a minimum clear aperture of 75mm and it has a 77mm filter ring. Today I use the 400mm f/5.6 L - wonderfully sharp at 5.6 - two effective stops gained relative to the 300 + 1.4 combination which wasn't as sharp until f/11. I would either wait for the new 100-400 or if you can rely on bean bags or monopods, go for the now ancient 400 f/5.6 which has really fast autofocus. And it is still useable with the 1.4x TC. Hope this helps.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Do also consider getting the Mark III teleconverter with your existing lens. Supposedly it is much improved over the old 2x and designed to work with the new 70-200 lens you have.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>My son has a 300/4L IS which I have used from time to time, most recently when he lent it to me for a wildlife trip to Costa Rica last Feb/Mar. On its own it is a pretty good lens, although it shows its age a bit, for example with the IS. It works acceptably with the Extender 1.4× (original, II) although AF is slowed. Performance with the Extender 2× II on a 5D Mark III is a bit marginal. AF technically works (slowly) at f/8 on that body at centre, fine centre, and centre+4 AF points, but focus racks through the range at the slightest provocation, and it is necessary to switch focus racking off to make it useable. IQ is not great with that combination, at best marginally preferable to using the 1.4× and cropping. It is important to carry out careful AF microadjustment for the lens+Extender combinations at the likely working distance. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Frankly, for this trip, I would equip yourself with the best possible combination of equipment - as you said, this is a once in a lifetime trip...</p>

<p>In your shoes (and I'm not), I would probably beg borrow or steal (no, not really, but selling your 70-200 & 2x to finance it seems reasonable to me) a <em>new</em> 100-400 and pair it with a 1.4x TC. Since your 7D2 will AF with that combination (though I'd still be prepared to 'assist' it ;) ), and you <em>need</em> the reach... this doesn't seem like rocket science to me. All I've seen of the new 100-400 w/ a 1.4x is the MTFs, they looks pretty similar to the MTFs of the original 100-400 - <em>without</em> a TC. To me that's a pretty compelling claim Canon has made. To me, the only downside to the new lens is the <em>lack</em> of a push/pull zoom.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I would also consider the new 100-400mm or the 70-300L or the 400mm f5.6, all of which will be very good and I suggest on a par IQ wise with the 300/f4. With the zooms you could leave the 70-200mm behind. The 300/4 is a good lens, but I suspect the 100-400 and 70-300L match or better it, although they are a bit slower. The 400mm f5.6 is probably slightly superior IQ-wise to the 300/4, but has no IS. On the other hand, it might be more useful than the 300mm, given that you have the 70-200mm and you can get to 280 with a 1.4X teleconverter.</p>

[RickDB]

<p>For a trip to Antarctica I found I didn't always have enough reach at 300mm on a crop frame camera. I would suggest you would be better served with a telephoto zoom lens, such as the EF 100-400, or a Tamron 150-600mm. The old adage to "zoom with your feet" doesn't always apply in Antarctica because of restrictions on where you can walk, and shots from a zodiac are even more difficult with a prime lens.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I love my 300mm f/4. I find it insanely good at f/4 and I like the way it performs with the 1.4x when stopped down to f8. The AF is very quick and the IS, whilst loud and clunky, is very effective. The built in lens hood is awesome but the lack of weather sealing is a disappointment. </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I bought a used 300/4L IS USM back in the film days and loved it. It was very sharp, even wide open, with beautiful background blur; well built; convenient to use with its nice focusing ring and built-in lens hood; and reasonably easy to handhold thanks to its modest (for a professional telephoto) weight and IS. I added the 1.4x II and was happy with that combination, too.</p>

 

<p>When I went digital with a 20D, I continued to love this lens for all the same reasons. With the 1.4x, I found it lacked some snap wide open but stopped down to f/8 it was fine; I'd probably have seen the same with film if it encouraged pixel peeping as digital does.</p>

 

<p>Unfortunately, while I found 300 (and 420 with the 1.4x) to be useful for me on film, I found they were often too long on 1.6-crop digital, and needed something to fill the gap between that and my 28-135, so I ended up selling this lens to help pay for the 70-200/2.8L IS USM. It saddened me to see it go, although it did at least go to a good home (I sold it to another photo.net user).</p>

 

<p>As for whether it's the best choice for your application, I'll have to leave that to the wisdom of others.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I just have to say that the old EF 100-400 L lens is</p>

<ul>

<li>An oldie, but goodie. Optically it is absolutely no slouch.</li>

<li>The suck-in-the-dust seems exaggerated by people who apparently have never actually used the lens. In practice, I've found no problem over the more than a year I've used it, although I have not used it in desert sand storms, to be sure.</li>

<li>Many people prefer the push-pull change of the focal length to the twist style. I personally can't see any real disadvantage to it.</li>

<li>And not least,</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS <strong>II</strong> USM = $2,199.00</li>

<li>EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (I) USM = $1,699.00</li>

</ul>

[don_baccus]

<p>JDM von Weinberg:</p>

<p>"EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS <strong>II</strong> USM = $2,199.00<br>

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (I) USM = $1,699.00"<br>

While I don't know what Antonio is paying for his Antarctic trip, most pay $10K+ if traveling from the US (not including airfare), which is why it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most.<br>

So if he's thinking of selling the 70-200/2.8 I'd suggest he buy the new 100-400L. As others have noted, it appears as though it will be about as good with the 1.4x as the old one was without.<br>

I photograph a lot from boats ranging from about 70 feet to much smaller zodiac-style ones on often fairly rough sea water on a frequent basis. I think the twist style zoom's better for shooting on a boat (and while at antarctica there are landings, there are also typically times when one shoots whales and other marine mammals from zodiacs, and opportunities for photographing pelagic birds from the ship itself). The reason I feel this way (and I owned a copy of the push-pull 100-400 for awhile) is that you can securely brace yourself and zoom without shifting your hand position with the twister, while pushing and pulling requires moving your front hand back-and-forth. Turning a ring just seems easier to me, and as I say, I've used both.<br>

Antonio, I use the 300/4 on salt water a lot and I've been very happy with it. Good quality, it has survived bumps and drops without a problem (well, the built-in lens hood is a mess, but we'll ignore that, stuff happens when you drop things and it's just the hood's locking ring). But I'm switching to the new 100-400 for my boat work.<br>

Remember, you're going to be in a harsh environment, so you want to avoid changing lenses as much as possible. If you can possibly take two bodies, one with something shorter, then the 100-400, the only lens-changing you'd probably need to do would be to add/remove the 1.4x depending on the situation.</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>I would like to update the friends who are following this thread. I have decided to follow the advice from some of you and I tried the Canon EF Extender 2x III with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. The diference from the 2x II is amazing. The new teleconverter produces images with much more contrast and saturation and also sharpness. I am extremely happy with this combination. The weight is my only concern now. I could leave the 70-200 with the TC on the 7D II, it would give me a EFoV of a 224-640mm (or I could just leave the lens on the camera, or try the 1.4x TC).</p>

<p>I might try the new 100-400mm. The old one is really a bargain these days, but I can not get used to the push-pull design. </p>