Canon EF 300mm F4.0L IS USM SLR lens -77mm

[otlip]

I recently changed from a Elan 2E to a Digital Rebel kit. I'm looking to replace my Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 IS lens with the 300 F4.0L lense. Would the new lense be good for shooting out door sports such as surfing, lacrosse etc. Can you use an extender on the 300 F4.0L? Has anyone had a similar experience. I would appriciate any feed back.

Otlip





Digital Rebel
Gb-E1 Battery Grip
Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0,5.6 IS

[cmM]

Lacrosee -yes. Surfing - most likely not long enough... Go to Fred Miranda's forum and see what those "surf shooters" say. Most of them use up to 600mm long lenses... unless you wanna get wet, of course.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It obviously won't be any longer.. but the 300mm f/4L IS will be a large improvement over your current lens. The AF speed, image quality etc.. not to mention the help of IS will be a very different experience.

Many users of this lens use it in conjunction with the 1.4X t-con as there "normal" set up.

The other option is the 400mm f/5.6L which arguably has better image quality than the 300mm alone.. definately better than the 300mm with a 1.4X t-con.. and definately has even faster AF performance. (although whether that will be noticeable on a 10D may be debateable too..)

It's only real downside is the lack of IS.

There are pages of debates over these two lenses at FredMiranda.com... but if you are happy with the 300mm focal length for most of what you do.. then a 400mm won't be an advantage at all!

Hope this helps.

[scottbergerphoto]

The optical quality of the 300 f/4 IS L is inferior to the older non IS which is available used. I tried the 300 f/4 IS L and replaced it with the 400 f/5.6. It's performance with the 1.4X Extender was terrible. The pictures were low in contrast and grainy.
Scott

[FrenchAmateur]

It obviously won't be any longer.. but the 300mm f/4L IS will be a large improvement over your current lens. The AF speed, image quality etc.. not to mention the help of IS will be a very different experience.

Many users of this lens use it in conjunction with the 1.4X t-con as there "normal" set up.

The other option is the 400mm f/5.6L which arguably has better image quality than the 300mm alone.. definately better than the 300mm with a 1.4X t-con.. and definately has even faster AF performance. (although whether that will be noticeable on a 10D may be debateable too..)

It's only real downside is the lack of IS.

There are pages of debates over these two lenses at FredMiranda.com... but if you are happy with the 300mm focal length for most of what you do.. then a 400mm won't be an advantage at all!

Hope this helps.

Your affirmation surprises me.
In the test I have the 400 mm is obviously inferior to the 300 mm...
It is "good" at 5,6 8 and 11, when the 300 mm is "good" at 4, "very good" at 5,6, and more than good at 8... (no difference with both lenses between the center and the corners...).

[FrenchAmateur]

The optical quality of the 300 f/4 IS L is inferior to the older non IS which is available used. I tried the 300 f/4 IS L and replaced it with the 400 f/5.6. It's performance with the 1.4X Extender was terrible. The pictures were low in contrast and grainy.
Scott

I had both and sold the first one for the IS and the second one for the 100-400.
In fact, the IS version is slighthly superior to the non IS in the tests, but it's very close in fact.

This 300 mm f:4 IS is an excellent lens.

[FrenchAmateur]

The optical quality of the 300 f/4 IS L is inferior to the older non IS which is available used. I tried the 300 f/4 IS L and replaced it with the 400 f/5.6. It's performance with the 1.4X Extender was terrible. The pictures were low in contrast and grainy.
Scott

I had both and sold the first one for the IS and the second one for the 100-400.
In fact, the IS version is slighthly superior to the non IS in the tests, but it's very close in fact.

This 300 mm f:4 IS is an excellent lens.

[nosquare2003]

I have no experience in long lens but I may get one for at least 400mm to learn to shoot birds. From what I read, the 300/4L is on par with 400/5.6L and slightly better than 300/4L IS. Any other inputs?

In fact, I'm leaning towards 100-400/5.6L (used with a monopod). Anyway, I have not yet decided...

P.S. otlip, sorry if I steal your thread but I think it is somewhat related.

[scottbergerphoto]

The optical quality of the 300 f/4 IS L is inferior to the older non IS which is available used. I tried the 300 f/4 IS L and replaced it with the 400 f/5.6. It's performance with the 1.4X Extender was terrible. The pictures were low in contrast and grainy.
Scott

I had both and sold the first one for the IS and the second one for the 100-400.
In fact, the IS version is slighthly superior to the non IS in the tests, but it's very close in fact.

This 300 mm f:4 IS is an excellent lens.
If you check the MTF test results at www.photodo.com, http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html ,you will see that the newer IS version is significantly inferior to the older non IS version. The newer IS has an MTF value of 3.4 vs. the older non IS of 4.3. Perhaps you could post a link to the tests you're talking about.
Scott

[FrenchAmateur]

I would be glad to do so but they are not on line.
This tests are made by the French Magazine Chasseur d'Images. They have the biggest testing laboratory in Europe for such tests (or one of the biggest...).

I am uncompetent even to post these tests, but what I can do, if you have basic knowlegde in French (but the graphics are quite clear anyway), is to scan them and to E-mail them to you tonight (in 12 hours...).

I dont know if you have an E-mail adress in your profile, I will check, if not, please send it to me by pm...

I will enclose the tests of :
- the 5, 6 400 mm
- the "old" 4 300 mm
- the "new" 4 300 mm IS.

Would it be ok for you ?

You will be free to post them if you want in this forum.

Kind regards from Paris,

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not at all sure what lens Chasseur d'Images was testing to come up with the results that the 300mm f/4L IS was superior to the 400mm f/5.6L ? But that would certainly put there results at exactly the opposite of every test I have read.. as well as my own personal expeirience.

Oh well.. all we can offer when asked is what we know from our own experince and our own humble opinions.

I notice this is not the first time you have referred to Chasseur d'Images when offering an opinion on lenses here.. do you work for them? I wonder do you have the authority to give permission for there articles to be re-published here?

Just curious.

[FrenchAmateur]

Their tests are very reliable.
I dont know where you are located but the reputation of the 400 mm 5,6 is not very good here.
I had a number of lenses, including both 300 mm, the 2,8 400 mm, and some others...
I cannot give my personal views as I do not know the 400 mm 5,6, but I can certainly on the two 300 mm. I did not see any difference.
I am glad nobody asked for the test as I will save time by not making the scans anyway.
With regard to Chasseur d'Images, I can quote their articles as far as I mention the source... I am not working for them, but definitively in the field of intellectual property... so I know rather well...
I hope your curiosity, expressed only on this aspect, is satisfied...
Sorry not share your views.

[scottbergerphoto]

Their tests are very reliable.
I dont know where you are located but the reputation of the 400 mm 5,6 is not very good here.
I had a number of lenses, including both 300 mm, the 2,8 400 mm, and some others...
I cannot give my personal views as I do not know the 400 mm 5,6, but I can certainly on the two 300 mm. I did not see any difference.
I am glad nobody asked for the test as I will save time by not making the scans anyway.
With regard to Chasseur d'Images, I can quote their articles as far as I mention the source... I am not working for them, but definitively in the field of intellectual property... so I know rather well...
I hope your curiosity, expressed only on this aspect, is satisfied...
Sorry not share your views.
Your views on the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is counter to my experience and the experience of others.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=42&sort=7&thecat=2
Arthur Morris considers it a superb hand held bird lens.
Scott

[FrenchAmateur]

Their tests are very reliable.
I dont know where you are located but the reputation of the 400 mm 5,6 is not very good here.
I had a number of lenses, including both 300 mm, the 2,8 400 mm, and some others...
I cannot give my personal views as I do not know the 400 mm 5,6, but I can certainly on the two 300 mm. I did not see any difference.
I am glad nobody asked for the test as I will save time by not making the scans anyway.
With regard to Chasseur d'Images, I can quote their articles as far as I mention the source... I am not working for them, but definitively in the field of intellectual property... so I know rather well...
I hope your curiosity, expressed only on this aspect, is satisfied...
Sorry not share your views.
Your views on the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is counter to my experience and the experience of others.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=42&sort=7&thecat=2
Arthur Morris considers it a superb hand held bird lens.
Scott

Fine !
May be the bad 400 are sold in Europe and the best in the US... :wink:
(I was mentioning tests and not my views on the 400 mm...)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Or perhaps the one source that you have for information on lenses had a single bad copy.. as they seem to be the only bad review of this lens anyone has ever come across? :wink:

Also interesting that one would spend so much effort debating a lens that one has no experience with?

[FrenchAmateur]

Or perhaps the one source that you have for information on lenses had a single bad copy.. as they seem to be the only bad review of this lens anyone has ever come across? :wink:

Also interesting that one would spend so much effort debating a lens that one has no experience with?

Yes, I am naive enough to think that people would appreciate contribution on this site.
It's good that the remark come from a moderator...
May be you noticed that I have tried only to report serious and scientific test.
Probably my English is not clear enough.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I apologize if I am coming across as rude :(

I don't mean to... sometimes text has a way of doing that ... I am not even sure the langiage barrier has as much influence as the "forum barrier"

I am just very curious about the source of info that seems to disagree with the "consensus" opinion on this lens,.. and thus do not know how to use the information you offer...

Of course your input is appreciated! :)

[FrenchAmateur]

I went out for holidays before seeing your answer.
Thank you for your kind words, sorry also if I was too disturbed by your answer... At least for the two 300 mm and the 100-400, I used them a lot personnally (I had also the 2,8 400 mm IF ED II, but sparsely used it and changed for the 4,5 500 mm that was more adapted to my wildlife photography).
Send me your E-mail adress and I will scan the tests I mentioned of the two 300 mm, the 400 mm and the 100-400 and weill send them to you.
I do not pretend of course that these tests are the only valid one, but at least you will have the origin of my remarks...

Kind regards,