300mm F4L

[drisley]

I've decided it may be time to get another prime for my collection, this time something for the long end of things.
The 300F4L IS has caught my eye, however most places I've read say that the non-IS version is noticably superiour optically.
However, I've checked B&H and Canon's site, and both only mention the IS version.
Has the non-IS version been discontinued?
Anybody have any opinions on these lenses?
I would like to use it, for football, and other sports, often with the 1.4x tcon.
TIA.

[nosquare2003]

Yes, it's been discontinued. I've the non IS one but I don't know how it's compared with the IS.

But if you always use it with 1.4TC, get the 400/5.6 instead.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You may also want to look at the 400mm f/5.6

It will give you at least the sharpness of the Non-IS 300mm... gut of course you won't have the flexibility of the 300mm when you need f/4 and the 300mm plus 1.4X t-con.. however.. you are looking at a telephoto like this.. and are contemplating wildlife.. most often 300mm is not quite long enough. In fact I would not dream of birding with anything shorter than 400mm myself.

[kiwimichael]

Hi,

I lucky enough to be able to borrow my girlfriend's father's 300/4 lens which I have been using to photograph cars on a racing circuit. I have used it with and without the 1.4 TC and it produces wonderfully sharp images.

300 (no TC)
http://michaelcrooymans.com/Home_Hi_Res/events/Club%20Special%2012-09-04/images/CRW_6734.jpg

300 + 1.4 TC
http://michaelcrooymans.com/Home_Hi_Res/events/Club%20Special%2012-09-04/images/CRW_6628.jpg

The images have been resized and sharpened.

I love the lens and as long as I'm able to use it I'm less likely to buy the 100-400.

Cheers
Michael

[drisley]

Thanks for the input.
Michael, is that the IS or non-IS version?
I plan on using it for field sports, like football, soccer, etc.

[nosquare2003]

Will you consider the 100-400 zoom?

[drisley]

Yes, I've been considering the 100-400 zoom.
However, I like primes, and apparently the 300F4L is much sharper.
If I could find a used 300F4L without IS somewhere for a decent price, that might be the way to go.

[nosquare2003]

Yes, you like all your primes.

An IQ question:

What's next in the following sequence:

50, 85, 135, 300, ?

:twisted:

[dtrayers]

If I could find a used 300F4L without IS somewhere for a decent price, that might be the way to go.

KEH has two of them right now for $725 and $781. They also have a new IS version for $1139.

http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=CE&cid=06&sid=newused&crid=8642460

I'm not in the market for one, but I just saw a local ad for a used 300 f/4 L IS for $750. I think it might be a typo and it's a non-IS version, but I'm going to call this morning. If it is an IS version it's an excellent price.

You don't think that the advantages of IS outweigh the extra sharpness of the non-IS?

[roanjohn]

dpreview has Petteri, we have Drisley.

Yes, you like all your primes.

An IQ question:

What's next in the following sequence:

50, 85, 135, 300, ?

:twisted:

I'm thinking 500 :-)

Ro1

[kiwimichael]

Thanks for the input.
Michael, is that the IS or non-IS version?
I plan on using it for field sports, like football, soccer, etc.

Hi Drisley,

The non IS version - just the one you have your eyes on.

Cheers
Michael

[drisley]

Wow, thanks for all the info dtrayers!
SInce the lens would be used primarily for shooting sports, I would never shoot below 1/500s anyway. So yes, the sharpness of the non-IS lens would FAR outweigh the IS.

An IQ question:
What's next in the following sequence:
50, 85, 135, 300, ?

:lol: :lol:
The next in order of sequence is "insanity"!

[drisley]

Thanks kiwi. Those really are awesome shots.
BTW, do y'all think that 300mm at F4, and 400mm at F5.6, offer enough blur to isolate subjects?

dpreview has Petteri, we have Drisley.
:lol:
This Petteri is a lover of primes I assume?

[kiwimichael]

Thanks kiwi. Those really are awesome shots.
BTW, do y'all think that 300mm at F4, and 400mm at F5.6, offer enough blur to isolate subjects?

Hi Drisley, I'm back from a 2 week vacation. If you give me a few suggestions, I'll take some shots for you so that you can make up your own mind.

Cheers
Michael

[IanD]

Yes, you like all your primes.

An IQ question:

What's next in the following sequence:

50, 85, 135, 300, ?

:twisted:
Bankruptcy :lol: :lol: :lol:

[timmyquest]

Yes, you like all your primes.

An IQ question:

What's next in the following sequence:

50, 85, 135, 300, ?

:twisted:
Bankruptcy :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol:

[drisley]

Hi Drisley, I'm back from a 2 week vacation. If you give me a few suggestions, I'll take some shots for you so that you can make up your own mind.
Cheers
Michael

Thanks Michael. 8)
I'm thinking of a full body shot. If you could post an example, that would be awesome!

[Johnny Bravo]

Yes, I've been considering the 100-400 zoom.
However, I like primes, and apparently the 300F4L is much sharper.
If I could find a used 300F4L without IS somewhere for a decent price, that might be the way to go.

I had and sold the 100-400, there were just too many disappointing shots with that lens. Once I picked up the 300mmf4 the zoom never came out of the bag.

The 300f4 IS is a GREAT lens--takes the 1.4TC very well and on it's own it's one of the sharpest lenses in the bag.

[Adam Hicks]

How about this one... non-IS looks excellent...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=38429572 28&rd=1