Decided to get the 300mm f4L IS USM

I've been debating on what Telephoto Lens to get for a while, my first option was the 70-200mm IS II with a Extender but i heard the sharpness drops quite a bit with an Extender. So at the end of the month, I'm going to get the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with a 1.4X Extender. This combination seems to work well and it'll get me enough reach for my needs. Most of my shots are at 250mm when shooting wildlife so why not a prime right.

This seems like a final decision but I'm still open to other suggestions. I'm trying to stay away from Zooms that extend out so the 100-400 is out of Question. Also the 400mm Prime is nice but no IS. I have very shaky hands lol.

it is a fine lens. I have one that I'm actually trying to sell right now though. I find the focal length just too short for most wildlife (took a few grizzly bear images with it and I didn't feel particularly safe about the ordeal).

If the FL works for you then you'll probably enjoy it.

I also noticed that it really did need to be stopped down at least a stop for it to sharpen up (on my 7D). Add the extender and it made it pretty tough to get high enough shutterspeeds.

I'm sure you've looked pretty carefully at the 400 5.6 and 100-400 so no need to point them out.

All in all, have fun with it. Great lens for what it is. Pretty packable too.

I have ordered some new gear so I plan on selling my 300 F4 IS USM also. I have the 70-200 2.8 ISII and 1.4,2X converters so I hardly switch to the 300mm. Let me know if you are interested and if not I hope you enjoy it. It is a very nice lens!

Thanks guys, will keep that in mind. the Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD is very temping too.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16583147
Thanks guys, will keep that in mind. the Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD is very temping too.

Awfully tempting...

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16582810
I've been debating on what Telephoto Lens to get for a while, my first option was the 70-200mm IS II with a Extender but i heard the sharpness drops quite a bit with an Extender. So at the end of the month, I'm going to get the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with a 1.4X Extender. This combination seems to work well and it'll get me enough reach for my needs. Most of my shots are at 250mm when shooting wildlife so why not a prime right.

This seems like a final decision but I'm still open to other suggestions. I'm trying to stay away from Zooms that extend out so the 100-400 is out of Question. Also the 400mm Prime is nice but no IS. I have very shaky hands lol.

Heya,

It's an excellent lens, but it will probably only make you want more reach.

Teleconverters really work best with lenses with very low apertures (like F2 and F2.8), so that the effective light stopping doesn't tear into the autofocus. When you apply something that stops 2 aperture stops of light to something F4 and higher, it can get really close to F8 for autofocus, which means, no autofocus for lots of cameras. Something to keep in mind for the future, if you consider extenders and what not.

If you think 300mm is enough and you don't plan on using a teleconverter, then you have a nice lens on your hands. I'm afraid it's not enough reach though and you will be quickly tempted to push further and further, but you will be stuck with a prime and stuck when it comes to teleconverters.

I would stress getting the longest reaching lens you can get ahold of early, instead of trying to play catchup later.

That said, for the money, the 500mm by Sigma and the new Tamron 600mm are big contenders for the cost.

The question becomes... how much are you willing to pay for wider apertures, as those are the big $7k and $10k Canon options, really. And those are the ones that the extenders really pair well with.

Very best,

if not in a rush I'd wait a bit and see how the Tammy shapes up in more reviews etc. I don't shoot wildlife, but am still considering this lens at the advertised price, with that much reach I might just get into new areas of photography. I don't think 300 is really reaching far enough unless you're talking birds in the yard or park.

The 300/4 is an excellent lens, very good for wildlife and also a good lens for near-macro work as it has a very short MFD for a 300mm lens. It also works very well with the Canon 1.4X TC II, so if you do feel the need for longer reach there is that.

I had the 300/4 IS for a couple years before selling it and getting the 100-400L instead. For what I shoot with the long lens, the flexibility of the zoom is very valuable. And really I do not see much difference between the two for images except the zoom is more likely to give me the focal length I need for any specific shot.

phantelope wrote in post #16583275
if not in a rush I'd wait a bit and see how the Tammy shapes up in more reviews etc. I don't shoot wildlife, but am still considering this lens at the advertised price, with that much reach I might just get into new areas of photography. I don't think 300 is really reaching far enough unless you're talking birds in the yard or park.

I use 400mm on FF for wildlife. 300 is plenty on 1.6 crop. you're always going to want more reach at times no matter what you are using.

I've owned the 300L f4 IS twice. there won't be a third time. it's a noisey lens with about the worse IS of any L lens you'll use -- maybe good for two stops. it's a good size though. I much prefer the 100-400L though. you'll see it used much more in the field, and it's the number one wildlife lens for canon DSLRs.

the 70-300L is a MUCH better choice. adjustable. very compact. excellent IQ. 4-stop IS.

ed rader wrote in post #16583768
the 70-300L is a MUCH better choice. adjustable. very compact. excellent IQ. 4-stop IS.

Is that the little black one that isn't huge, but still has really good optics?

Very best,

Whats the Sharpness difference between the 70-300L and 300 f4L? I would think the prime would be sharper.

ed rader wrote in post #16583725
I use 400mm on FF for wildlife. 300 is plenty on 1.6 crop. you're always going to want more reach at times no matter what you are using.

Maybe for you! About the best i can get with my 300/4L, is Seagull flyby's. Between my lack of stealth (something i might be able to improve), and my physical limitations (something i can't improve), getting closer= more focal length. 420mm is about my minimum (on crop), and that's for Blue Herons, Canada Geese and Osprey.... not songbirds.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16583937
Is that the little black one that isn't huge, but still has really good optics?

Very best,

The black 70-300 IS USM is quite different than the white 70-300L. If you plan on spending a lot of time at 300mm, consider the black one an f/8 lens. I'd rather have the 300 f/4 than either of the zooms.