300mm f/4

okay i know, someone is gunna say it so let me say it! use the search bar, but my computer is broken-ish and logs me off ever time i use the search bar. Now onto the question....is the 300mm f/4 (non IS) the same as the newer version(is the focussing as good and such) and how much does IS really matter if i use a monopod?

its a very highly regarded lens, even sharper than the IS version. You just dont get IS. With a monopod, and outdoors, you certainly can get away without IS in most situations

jordan101 wrote in post #5409668
okay i know, someone is gunna say it so let me say it! use the search bar, but my computer is broken-ish and logs me off ever time i use the search bar. Now onto the question....is the 300mm f/4 (non IS) the same as the newer version(is the focussing as good and such) and how much does IS really matter if i use a monopod?

they say the non-IS is a hair sharper but the IS version is an excellent lens too and i would get it as a first choice...in fact i did own the 300L f4 IS before.

remember....you can use IS and a monopod at the same time to make even sharper pictures. that's what i do with my 100-400L if the conditions allow (like at the zoo).

with these long IS lenses you also have the option of handholding even in less than ideal conditions.

i would always pick the IS lens first, funds permitting !

ed rader

I use it all the time, great lens, very sharp and super fast AF. Vs. the IS version, pros are price and supposedly sharper (i've never used the IS version, so I can not say for sure)
Cons, IS and close focus, the IS version can be used closer for some macro capabilities. I also think the IS version has a better tripod ring (if it is the same as the 70-200IS). My 70-200 is very smooth, whereas my 300 can be very stiff to turn.

Joe