It's Mine 300mm f/4 IS

Great lens!! Enjoy it in good health and post more pics.

i want one *sigh*

One popular lens at present! I too couldn't resist getting one for my wildlife shots, although I couldn't find one in stock in the UK (& I work for Jessops) I ended up getting it from B&H

I'm getting into wildlife and I just can't decide between the 100-400 L and the 300 L with a convertor.....decision​s, decisions!

Mark

I would go with the 300L if those were the two choices. I am using the 4005.6 with TC and still always looking to get closer. Wildlife = Super Telephoto

fotostopjoe I think did a comparison between those two lenses. The 100-400L at 400mm, and the 300L IS with 1.4x t-con at 420mm. The 100-400L mopped the floor with it. It was noticably sharper, but the 400L was sharper than all of them.

I just bought the 300L IS myself, and I like it, but it isn't as sharp as I was expecting. I find myself making use of USM more than usual... maybe I just got a crap copy, but oh well.

Unless your going to be shooting sports (which the 300L IS is good for) I'd just recommend going with the 100-400L...

Get the 100-400L. I have both the 100-400L and the 300L F/4 with the Canon 1.4x converter. The 100-400 is a bit sharper. The extra 20mm (for me) didn't make that much difference. The 300L is a bit loud when IS is used. With the 1.4x converter on the 300 I found that the AF had to search more, especially when lighting conditions weren't perfect. Both are great on a sunny day but there is a slight edge to the 100-400 on dull/foggy days. Don't put a filter on either unless you really need it. The 100-400 hood is a piece of junk. The 300 has a slide forward builtin hood which is much better (I think). If used on a tripod both are camera end heavy so a good gimbel type mount is preferable. When tripod mounted both require IS to be OFF.

Hope these comments help.

Well, we need to be careful here because those wheren't the results. You sound disappointed. Long lens usage is a skill in itself, even with IS!

Having owned the 100-400 and the 300mm IS L's I think phrases like 'mopped the floor' really are not accurate unless you really do have a sucky copy of the latter. In fact fstopjojo says "... without the TC, the 300f4 was truly stellar, simply a lovely piece of glass" and really that was my experience.

With a TCon, AF is affected a tad too much for me on the 300mm but still perfectly usable and also the IQ suffers, but it is still a lovely lens that prtoduces excellent shots. The 100-400 IS L was my choice because it is close or a tad better than the 300mm with TCon (really not by much in real world use) and is more flexible. I reckon why get a prime when a zoom is close to or at least as good optically and as fast? Seems senseless!

If you're going to use a 300mm with a TCon then get a 400mm 5.6 and monopod!

His tests are here: http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/teletest

Don't forget to try some macro with it. I use a monopod and get great results. Very close focus for such a long lens.

I agree, I have the 300 f/4 IS and choose it over the 100-400 because I did not like the push/pull zoom (have borrowed the 100-400 for a short time).

I expect I will add the 400 f/5.6 to my collection some time during 2006 because I often use my 300 f/4 with my 1,4x extender.

This is a fantastic lens and one of the biggest bargains in the Canon lens lineup. Mine is sharper than my 70-200 f2.8/L IS, and lighter as well.

The 300f4IS is a great lens. If I were to shoot mostly around 300mm, that would be it for me. With prime optics, IS, superb MFD, good walkaround size/weight, fast AF, and more than useable TC performance, it is not hard to see why so many choose it (e.g., FM user reviews almost double over the excellent 400f5.6). While it cannot surpass the native 400mm lenses (400f5.6 or 100400IS) with a 1.4xTC in IQ, it is still quite an amazing lens, all things considered. I can't speak highly enough about it really (even though I ended up with the 100400IS). Enjoy.