IS THE 300 F4 IS A GOOD LENS

IIs the 300 f4 is a good lens its like $1300 when the 2.8 is like 5000 any feed back will help thanks

YES IT IS A GOOD LENS

(especially for the price!) but i think i'd rather have a 100-400L in that range since we're already at f4.

YES

It has good sharpness and has IS. If all you need is 300mm and don't mind f4, go for it. If you want a little more flexibility, I would consider the 100-400.

mikekelley wrote in post #11952212
YES IT IS A GOOD LENS

(especially for the price!) but i think i'd rather have a 100-400L in that range since we're already at f4.

The 1-4 is a fine lens, but it's also at f5.6 at 300mm. And the 300 f4 IS is close optically to the zoom IS at 420mm f5.6.

OP, the 300 f4 IS is a rippin' lens. One of my all-time favs, no kidding.

i think a 300 prime would do me fine i am puting it on a 50d 1.6 crop and i already have a 70-200 2.8 so yall think the 300 or the 100-400

If you want to go for birding then 300. If mammals then 100-400.

jsims wrote in post #11952194
IIs the 300 f4 is a good lens its like $1300 when the 2.8 is like 5000 any feed back will help thanks

I got this lens about a year and a half ago for shooting baseball, softball and HS football fortunatlely from the sidelines. I can tell you that it is a well built, very good, very sharp lens. Check out the photozone.de.com review.

NO, it is a great lens. Probably the best ever lens for butterflies and dragonflies.

I just got me one of these. And must say I am very impressed. I really like lenses with a good MFD. It's light and sharp at f.4. Only miss weather sealing, as I thought there would be. A little disappointed on that on a lens that cost as much as the 50L.

But flower shots and the likes from the sample thread is amongst the best I have seen. So looking forward to warmer weather.

What about 300/4 vs 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4x ?

The 300/4 is a great lens and even a greater value!

Not to say that it can replace a 300/2.8, but honestly with the new gen bodies with a better than before high ISO performance, it does work wonders.

Of course the DoF that the f/2.8 affords is narrower than the f/4. Some might need and value the f/2.8 DoF a lot. But otherwise, the 300/4 is a terrific lens.

I kept mine and sold the 100-400L (which I sometimes regret because my 100-400 copy was super sharp through the range and allowed me framing flexibility as I don't have lot of room for cropping). But I have no regrets about keeping the 300/f4 -

The 300/f4 is a great lens.

I regret selling mine, a lot! I needed the flexibility of a zoom and sold it for a 70-200 2.8 IS. After I sold the lens I grew impatient trying to save up the rest of the money and decided to try a Sigma 150-500.

I will always recommend the 150-500 to people. It's a great lens for the price. But to be honest, I was never truly happy with the image quality. If I had not gone from a 300/f4 to the 150-500 I might have liked it better. But the image quality of the 300/f4 was much better imo. Color, contrast, sharpness. Canon imo wins.

Yes, the Canon was an L prime, and the Sigma was a zoom with a lot of range to cover. So take my comments with a grain of salt.

Also, it's not a prime, but the new 70-300L looks absolutely wonderful from what I have read and the many images I have viewed from REAL users of the lens. This lens looks very sharp. So I would also consider that if you don't need f4 at 300mm.

Smaller, lighter, not push/pull, and "possibly" sharper throughout the 100-300mm focal range than the 100-400. It looks to me Canon did a great job with the 70-300L. When it was announced I had zero interest in it. Reading about it and seeing what it can produce I can now say that I am infatuated with it.

thanks for all of the veary good hands on knolage and advice that yall have passed on to me i value it alot thanks to u yall !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its a great lens at a reasonable price.

300mm f4L IS is a great lens. Hand holdable. Good IQ, fast focus, and its I.S. works pretty well. I use it on both crop sensor and full frame cameras.