Oh boy! EF 300mm f/4 L IS

[Rudi]

Help! Someone, please tell me this lens is absolutely awful, so I won't have to buy it! :)

Tell me what you really think about it, 'cause unless someone talks me out of it, I might just buy one...

Seriously! Anyone here have one? How do you like it? This would be the last of my purchases for a while (Oops! Except for a 1.4x Teleconverter... :)), and I'd like any and all opinions.

Let me have 'em! :D

[mrchips]

Why not the 70-200 non IS f/2.8 best of bothe worlds and tack sharp with 1.4 and 2x II converters. I have one and its my everyday lens. Like having 70, 100, 135, 200... etc primes.

Just some thoughts

[Rudi]

I already have the 70-200 f/4 L, so the 300mm prime makes more sense for me. :)

[pigasus]

Rudi wrote:
Tell me what you really think about it, 'cause unless someone talks me out of it, I might just buy one...


Ok Rudi ... just take a deep breath and let's look at this sensibly. :D

You've got the 70 - 200 f/4. Add a 1.4x TC to that and you've got a 280 f/5.6. So the question is - how many photos do you envisage taking at 300 f/4 or at 420 f/5.6+? Lots? Tons of missed opportunities because you didn't have it before? Hmmm? Enough to make carrying around an extra 1.2 kilos seem worthwhile?

If you still want it, then it must be love. And you must go for it. But if I were you I'd only buy it secondhand so that when the honeymoon is over and the lust fades you can sell it on without taking a loss. :)

Your faithful servant,
Sir Pigasus

[Rudi]

Sally,

of course I'm looking at it sensibly! :D

I have been actively looking for a second-hand example of this lens for a few weeks, but they're a bit thin on the ground over here, and the one that I did see wasn't much cheaper than a new one, and was well out of warranty...

I am planning to buy the 1.4x TC first, but feel that I will end up buying this lens. I love taking wildlife and bird (feathered kind) :) photos occasionally, so it would not be a full-time lens, but when needed... it would be great!

I already have the Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO. While this is a great lens, the new prime would replace it. The Sigma is nice and sharp and mechanically great, BUT... it's not very easy to use and the AF is just not that fast! It's noisy, too, so I usually end up focusing manually to avoid spooking the birds. If I get the 300 f/4L, I don't see myself reaching for the Sigma too often...

[RichardKlain]

I have both the 70-200 f.4 L and the 300 f 4 L IS, as well as the 1.4X tele-converter. Love them both and see no overlap. I shoot a lot in photojournalism mode and mostly use the 70-200 for "medium" people shots and the 300 for close-up "head shots", and extreme detail closeups. The 300 is amazingly sharp and contrasty, and I really appreciate the IS feature, since I'm often shooting at fairly low shutter speeds (1/60th and 1/125th, occasionally at 1/30th). This is why I'm not usually using the 70-200 at longer focal lenths and also willing to hoist the extra weight of the 300 when it's needed. I had considered the 70-200 f 2.8 L IS, but opted to get all of the above for the same overall cost, instead.

Hope this insight helps.

[soumya63]

I can not agree more with Richard.

[Rudi]

Richard,

that is exactly the kind of reasoning that I was following... :)

If I want to travel light and won't foresee the need for the longer lens, I can still "get there" in an emergency with the 70-200 f/4 (which I love for the handling and light weight) and the 1.4x TC. If I decide that I will need the longer lens, I have the option of the 300 f/4, or the 420 f/5.6 (300 f/4 with 1.4x TC).

Best of both worlds!

Thanks for understanding :D

[ethan1219]

i have the 70 200 2.8 is and sometime do wish for the extra...i have the 1D and so have lost a factor of .3 compared to the d60/30 crowd so their are days when i want...need...the extra focal length...but i personally am going to save and get one of the 300 2.8 or the 400mm
JWC

[Woofess]

I recently bought this lens (the 300 IS 4L) and it has been a bit of a learning curve, but I have just managed to get some great shots with it. My biceps are bulking up nicely too, from carrying it;) The cons with it is that you have problems in low light, however, it works well on a tripod. So, yes, I do recommend it.
W:)

[KCY]

Wow, this is a 8 year old thread!! :p

Congrats on the new lens!!

[turkleten]

Wow, this is a 8 year old thread!! :p



bw!

Someone had to say it...

[Woofess]

Hey! I'm a slow reader, OK! <G> :)