300 f/4 L IS compared to 28-135 IS

[PacAce]

Photodo rates the Canon 28-135 IS at 3.5 and the Canon 300 f/4 L IS at 3.4. Does that mean that the 300's sharpness is as good (or as bad, depending on how you look at it) as the 28-135? Is it really worth the price that they're asking for it?

I'd really like to get the non-IS version of this lens but it seems like it's only available second hand, if one is lucky enough to even find one for sale.

Does anybody have any suggestions for alternative lenses? I'd like to be able to hand-hold it, mostly for nature and birds-in-flight shooting.

Thanks.

[Jeppe]

Hmm maybe 135mm will be just a tad short for in-flicht pictures.. Also.. You cant compare a zoom with a fix-focal length. Regardless of hat photodo says.. the EF 200/4L IS will giver you sharper results than with the EF 28-135 IS zoom. I personally think that photodos test-figures are wrong.. since the non-IS version is almost a point higher.

You might wanna try a EF 200/2.8L USM II. That is a killer lens, and you can add an extender for 280/4 or 400/5.6 (also 560/8 accually ;))

[PacAce]

Jeppe wrote:
Hmm maybe 135mm will be just a tad short for in-flicht pictures.. Also.. You cant compare a zoom with a fix-focal length. Regardless of hat photodo says.. the EF 200/4L IS will giver you sharper results than with the EF 28-135 IS zoom. I personally think that photodos test-figures are wrong.. since the non-IS version is almost a point higher.

You might wanna try a EF 200/2.8L USM II. That is a killer lens, and you can add an extender for 280/4 or 400/5.6 (also 560/8 accually ;))

Jeppe, thanks for your response. I really appreciate it.

I currently have th 28-135 IS zoom as my general purpose lens and, as you indicated, it's much too short for shootings birds in flight or otherwise. That's the reason I'm looking at the 300/4 L (with the option to also use a 1.4x for a longer reach) and some other alternatives.

I have thought about the 200/2.8L with a 1.4X. AAMOF, that was my first consideration. Price is right, as is it's weight and size. However, my concern is whether 280mm going to be long enough for my needs? The other option would be to use the 2X but then, I've heard that image will be degraded but I don't know by how much or if it'll even be noticeable.

Another option is the Sigma 100-300/4 EX although it's slightly heavier and longer than I'd like.

I made this Excel spread sheet, with all the lens options available to me in different rows. There are columns for focal length, max aperture, length, weight, cost, etc. and I colored coded each cell value, good values being green and bad being red and anything in-between being yellow or orange. I've stared at this chart for longer than I care to mention and I still can't decide on which lens to go with. I did manage to eliminate a few based on cost (too high or low low) and/or bad performance reviews. The 300/4 L IS, the 200/2.8 L and the Sigma 100-300/4 EX are the three choices I'm left with for consideration. Any thought? Thanks.

[PacAce]

brault wrote:
I have posted two pictures. More will follow when I get a chance.

Both are at f8. The 28-135 is at 70mm and the 24-85 at 73mm (I had set both at 70). The focus point was the license plate.

Click on the picture once and a small version will come up. Click a second time and a full resoution will load. Feel free to download them to your computer.

They are at:

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid=%7B232C13F7-84AF-4195-9B69-D8D8FE960C58%7D&tio=0

Frank B

Franks, thanks for your posts but I guess I wasn't very clear on what I was after with my first post. Sorry about that. However, my second post, to Jeppe, should make that clear. I hope. :)

However, now that I've been to your site (nice pictures, BTW), I'm curious...what lens did you use to take the pictures of the sea gulls (#5 and #7) in your 10D favorites page? The only way I was able to get a picture similar to #5 with the 28-135 was by going right up to his face and snapping a shot. Actually, I'm exaggerating about going right up to his face but I'm sure you get my drift. I must have been within 4 or 5 feet of him.

Thanks.

[Jeppe]

Hmm Yes that is a tough choice.

The Sigma EX 100-300/4 is a REALLY good zoomlens, but since you need longer focallength you really dont need the 100-200 area (also since you have the 28-135, that will cover that alightly). So that leaves you with the 200-300 area and that ill be an really good one, also you can add the Sigma EX 1.4x for additional length, turning it into a 140-420/5.6. Although its quite on the heavy side (but you will ofcourse get a tripod collar)

The EF 300/4L IS (or Non-IS) is a GREAT lens.. its L and its white ;) (acually gray). No seriously.. Its sharper than the sigma zoom (as all Canon primes are). Ofcourse its a prime and you wont be able to change FOV without running around ;) Also this turns into a whopping 420/5.6 I could go on and on with this lens, but ill just leave it with: Great Lens!

And then there is the EF 200/2.8L wich is great @ 200 and also great at 400/5.6 (not as great as the EF 300/4L + 1.4...

I would choose the EF 300/4L and add an EF 1.4x (and yes.. of course i have ;))

[PacAce]

Jeppe wrote:
I would choose the EF 300/4L and add an EF 1.4x (and yes.. of course i have ;))


Thanks for the analysis and advice, Jeppe. Now all I have to do is get my reluctant hand to pull out the credit card from my wallet so that I can pay for the lens. :D

But, before taking the plunge and placing the order with B&H for a new 300/4L IS, I think I'll do myself a favor and see if I can find a used 300/4L non-IS out there someplace. I'll give myself about a week to do that.

Thanks again.

[Rudi]

The 300mm f/4 L IS is FAR SHARPER than the 28-135 IS! I cannot emphasise how much BETTER the prime L lens is compared to the consumer zoom! It is a well-known fact that Photodo must have tested a bad copy of the 300mm f/4 L IS, because there is no way that it would test lower than the 28-135 IS (and I have nothing against the 28-135 IS, it's just that the 300 f/4 L, IS or no IS, is a much better lens!).

Hope this helps.

[PacAce]

Rudi wrote:
The 300mm f/4 L IS is FAR SHARPER than the 28-135 IS! I cannot emphasise how much BETTER the prime L lens is compared to the consumer zoom! It is a well-known fact that Photodo must have tested a bad copy of the 300mm f/4 L IS, because there is no way that it would test lower than the 28-135 IS (and I have nothing against the 28-135 IS, it's just that the 300 f/4 L, IS or no IS, is a much better lens!).

Hope this helps.

Rudi,

Thanks. Yes, it does help.