# 300mm F4L IS



## wickidwombat (Nov 16, 2011)

Hi, I was wondering if i could get some feedback from other owners of this lens
I picked one up vey cheap a while back and while its obviously older its in very good condition no scratches came withcase and manual and everything functions fine and takes nice sharp images.

just a couple of things i was wondering others experience with this lens
1 its noisey makes alot of clunking when focusing, this is probably the older style IS i guess but its alot louder than my 28-300 used to be

2 the focus ring is not firm like all my other L Lenses its turns smoothly and works perfectly there is just a bit of slop in the tolerance and it has some play in the direction along the barrel

any feedback would be great.

still IQ is fantastic and having that extra stop at 300 is great over a5.6


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2011)

That was my experience when I had a 300/4 IS - the IS engaged with a 'clunk' and was pretty audible when operating.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 16, 2011)

Yup, same noise with the one I had, and that wasn't used at all.. Maybe the weatherseal in a few other L's make them tighter when focusing or zooming (?). My guess is that it's perfectly alright.


----------



## Harv (Nov 17, 2011)

That's standard for the 300/4L IS. I've had 3 copies of that lens over the years and all had very noisy IS systems.

If you were to read all the reviews on that lens on Fred Miranda, the vast majority of users had the same noise. Still a great lens though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 17, 2011)

I recently bought a used one, and noted a clunk about the time it reached focus, so I thought it was the AF. I tried it again just now, and it does seem to be the IS making a clunk as it actuates. I just bought a new hearing aid and now can hear all the focusing and IS noises that I could not hear before. It definitely makes a lot of noise.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 17, 2011)

It's a kicking lens! It is the second best lens ever (in some ways...)! Especially with a 7D, this is a amazing lens I have used mightily, and love it!


----------



## pwp (Nov 17, 2011)

I bought a 300mm f/4is in 1996 or 1997 which I used solidly for years. It was pin-sharp wide open. It's the size of a 70-200 and weighs a lot less. 

When threads like this pop up I still get pangs of sellers-regret. I traded this incredibly useful piece of glass when I bought my 300 f/2.8is. While I completely love using the f/2.8 300, I don't tend to just leave it in the bag like I did with the f/4. Among other things I used to shoot food with it for a client who loved the look...minimum focus distance is WAY closer than the f/2.8. There is room in any photographers kit for both these 300's. I'm on the lookout for another f/4.

With the improved AF and radically improved high iso performance that is available to us now, an f/4 lens doesn't cramp your style in the same way as it did in the days of sleepy AF and a reluctance to shoot beyond 100 iso.

For the past 15 or so years the 300 f/4is has been a genuine "sleeper" bargain in the Canon L range. You'll barely hear a negative comment about them. 

Paul Wright


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 17, 2011)

I love the balance of the lens and i leave the tripod foot off so its handled more easily
and I love that build in lens hood, dunno why this concept didn't pop up on more lenses


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 17, 2011)

Unfortunately for the 300 f4 the newer 70-300L has got better IQ, IS and bokeh. Add in the fact that that the 70-300L is smaller and of course the bonus of being a zoom means that it is going to take sales away from the 300 f4.

The improved iso performance of todays bodies means that unless you really need F4 instead of f5.6, the 70-300L looks a better buy. I know, I had both and the 300f4 lost out.

Brian


----------



## alek35 (Nov 17, 2011)

My 300 F/4 only becomes noisy when I use extension tubes and the focusing seems to reach its limits. 
The IS seems very quiet. 

I am however very disappointed with the sharpness of my unit wide open. On top of that it is front focusing pretty heavy, so much I find it useless on my 20D. On my new body (5D) I had to set MFA to +16 to get proper AF.

Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.

BTW does anybody know if it is possible to do MFA on the lens by dissambling it ? My unit is past warranty anyway...

Best regards,
Thomas


----------



## pwp (Nov 17, 2011)

alek35 said:


> Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.
> Thomas



That's rare...go to the Fred Miranda reviews and most of the bazillions of reviews for this lens report stellar sharpness wide open, as do most of the posts in this thread. 

Consider taking your 300 to Canon for a health check.

Paul Wright


----------



## Steve Campbell (Nov 17, 2011)

I recently picked one of these up and so far so good. The minimum focal distance of 1.5 meters is a plus, and I like the retracable hood. As for comparisons to the newer 70-300L, I can't say as I have never used one. No doubt it's nice, but it is more expensive. You don't see many used ones and when you do they won't be in the sub $1000 range, which can happen with the 300L. Constant apperture is nice too and it works well with the 1.4 TC's from reports I've read. That gives you the option to go to 420mm at 5.6. I don't believe the 70-300L takes a TC.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 17, 2011)

Yeah after having used the 28-300 max aperture of 5.6 compared to 4 is a BIG difference and one that just bumping up the iso isnt a good fix in my eyes also i can stick on a TC and get 420mm at 5.6 stop it down to 8 with the TC and it IQ is back to awesome. They dont show up alot even on ebay so i consider myself lucky to get it at a bargain


----------



## alek35 (Nov 17, 2011)

pwp said:


> alek35 said:
> 
> 
> > Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.
> ...



Paul,

The reason I got the 300mmF/4 IS over the 100-400mm was that extra stop of light @300mm and because I had seen got opinions about it (also on FM site) and had expected it to be sharp.

Would love to give it a health check - but Canon service is pretty expensive here in Denmark (150Eur/hour).

Do you think that a lens can be calibrated for sharpness at all ?

The only calibration I've heard about is AF adjustment - which I have done myselft on my 5DmkII

Best regards,
Thomas


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 17, 2011)

As with the comments above, love it. Macro ability of the lens is a serious plus.


----------



## Caps18 (Nov 17, 2011)

I have the 300mm f/4, and I like it. I would have purchased a bigger lens if money way no object...
The 70-300mm looks like a great tourist lens, and it would have made the decision much harder had it been available.

I do have a 2x & 1.4x on my copy right now (it could use another if you want to do Moon or Sun Photograpgy (with correct 99.99% silver filter).

I do like the macro ability. You can even use the extenders with the extension tubes...


----------



## docsavage123 (Nov 17, 2011)

Just bought one 2 weeks ago, best Â£730 I ever spent (2nd hand) off ebay. Just went on a shoot at Donna Nook and used it on the 1d mark II, I ended up leaving my 7D and 400mm F5.6 in the bag. Its a cracking piece of kit. I was a bit alarmed by the clunk of the image stabilisation, so turned it off. The focusing is very quick and it is not very heavy.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 17, 2011)

Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best


----------



## pwp (Nov 17, 2011)

alek35 said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > alek35 said:
> ...



Thomas, regarding Danish servicing costs that's your call. You could do what plenty of photographers do with less than stellar lens purchases...send them back to eBay and try another copy. I'm sure there are lenses around that have been bought and sold a dozen times....

There is always an element of risk with a pre-owned lens, or even new for that matter. Lenses do vary. I had three new 24-70 f/2.8L lenses in a row. They were all shockers. On a whim I bought a cheap, knocked around 24-105 f/4is on eBay to see me through until the new 24-70 f/2.8 ships, and it is a knockout lens. Go figure. 

If you've got a piece of equipment that isn't performing as expected, my advice is to fix it or shift it. Irritations like you describe will impinge negatively on your creative process.

Paul Wright


----------



## pwp (Nov 18, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best



You know the saying...YMMV. My f/4 was an IQ & sharpness match for my stellar f/2.8, provided you were shooting a static or almost static subject. While the f/4 is a clear bargain buy and totally worthy of it's L designation, the f/2.8 300is is worth every penny of it's relatively high asking price. It's all about extreme high performance on a variety of levels, the very real 2.8 advantage & the incomparable "look" of the files.

They are different lenses for different purposes.

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 18, 2011)

pwp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best
> ...



Strange then that the scientific tests of the 300 f/4 dont match the owners perception with the MTF scores being very good but not exceptional - example http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/611-canon300f4ff?start=1 - with the bokeh being pretty average.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 18, 2011)

I have the 300/4 IS and do like it a lot. I use it most often for sports and dragonflies. I actually purchased it specifically for dragonflies as they tend to be a bit skittish. The following are some shots I have taken with it

http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/4574322409/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6092850943/in/photostream

I find my copy to be very sharp. For sports I almost always use it at F4. It does not take extenders well so I never use them with this lens. Recently for sports it has been receiving competition from my 70-200/2.8 II with a 1.4 extender. The 300/4 has slightly better image quality but it is close enough to not matter much. During the last season I used the 300/4 when my sons were up to bat and the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 when they were fielding.

The AF is quite good on the 300/4 and though I do hear the IS it isn't too bad. One thing I have noticed is when shooting action shots (fielding) at high shutter speeds the IS in the 70-200/2.8 II noticeably hurts the shot. I therefore need to always remember to turn it off for sports. I do not have this issue with the 300/4. Note that for static scenarios where IS is meant for, the 70-200/2.8 II obviously blows away the 300/4 in terms of IS.

The macro ability is the main reason I am keeping this lens for now. The 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4 also has decent macro abilities though so I am becoming less inclined to keep it. I was planning to sell it when the 200-400 came out but since I blew all that I had saved on the 1D-X that isn't in the plans any longer...

The 70-300 is a curious competitor I never really considered. It has .21x magnification compared to .24x of the 300/4 so it isn't that far off. It is also a good deal smaller and more flexible with zoom. I have heard that it is very sharp. It of course is a stop slower. The main reason I doubt I would pick up the 70-300 though is a similar reason I may sell my 300/4 at some point though - with the 70-200/2.8 II + extenders it is less likely to make my bag.


----------



## Tan (Nov 18, 2011)

I love my 300/4 IS! It is compact (relatively that is), light (again relatively) and as sharp as you'll ever need. Easy to carry along in the bag and handhold when taking pictures. Basically that's what counts for me. 

If I had the money I would gladly buy the 300/2,8, but I still wouldn't bring it along as I do with the 300/4. This is a really neat lens and great value for money!


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Unfortunately for the 300 f4 the newer 70-300L has got better IQ, IS and bokeh.



Nope. The prime still retains an edge in sharpness and contrast, particularly at the edges. I doubt there's any real difference in bokeh (I'm open to being proven wrong by comparison images) considering that the prime is already incredibly smooth. IS is probably better on the L zoom, but then it's a stop slower to begin with. That stop can affect AF performance. While we're at it, the prime can be used with teleconverters.

The new zoom is an excellent and versatile piece of glass. But the prime still has its uses.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 19, 2011)

alek35 said:


> Acceptable sharpness is only from F/5.6.



Get your copy serviced. For real photographs I can see no real difference in sharpness from wide open, only in contrast. A test chart will reveal only a minor difference in sharpness. A properly adjusted 300 f/4L IS is brilliant from wide open.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best



They can see it by stopping down 1 stop, i.e. a 300 f/2.8L II IS @ f/4 is about the same as a 300 f/4L IS @ f/5.6.

Impressive, yes. Great for someone with the money and desire to carry that much weight, yes. But realistically even at the same f/stop you can make comparable prints with either, except of course for f/2.8.


----------



## pwp (Nov 19, 2011)

This may be drifting slightly off-topic, but the lens that has been demanding my attention is the new stabilized Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 zoom.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755328-USA/Sigma_136101_120_300mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm-sigma1
http://www.rytterfalk.com/2011/04/30/exploring-the-new-sigma-120-300-2-8-os-lens/ 

The old version of this lens was never quite there, but initial responses to the new OS lens are looking very promising. If this lens works as advertised it would be a fairly compelling addition to my working lens collection.

Any CR shooters use this lens? Links to meaningful independent reviews? Even the Fred Miranda lens reviews have not passed an opinion on the new OS lens yet....too new.

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 20, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Those people that think the 300 F/4 is razor sharp should see the output of the 300F2.8 or the 300F2.8 to understand that whilst it is good - it is by no means the best
> ...



The bokeh is rather different though ....


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Nov 23, 2011)

I'd go with the 70-300. or the 300 f4, but i agree with everyone else who says that you will need a 2.8 aperture or larger. i had a similar problem last year trying to find a great sports (and general purpose lens that i could use in most shooting situations), so many people said to get a prime; sharper, better IQ, lighter, larger aperture, etc. Long story short I got a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II (I perfer the versatility of a zoom more). I guess it also depends on your budget too. I think you have 3 options:

1. Get a cheaper alternative (outta the lenses you mentioned or the 300 f4) and save up for a lens that you really want
2. Don't get a lens at all, so you can start saving asap (you probably wont do this as you wnt a lens asap to shoot soccer)
3. Bite the bullet (and get a loan) and get the lens you really want. e.g 300mm f2.8 or 400mm.

Good luck trying to decide, let us know what you decide to get/do


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 23, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I'd go with the 70-300. or the 300 f4, but i agree with everyone else who says that you will need a 2.8 aperture or larger. i had a similar problem last year trying to find a great sports (and general purpose lens that i could use in most shooting situations), so many people said to get a prime; sharper, better IQ, lighter, larger aperture, etc. Long story short I got a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II (I perfer the versatility of a zoom more). I guess it also depends on your budget too. I think you have 3 options:
> 
> 1. Get a cheaper alternative (outta the lenses you mentioned or the 300 f4) and save up for a lens that you really want
> 2. Don't get a lens at all, so you can start saving asap (you probably wont do this as you wnt a lens asap to shoot soccer)
> ...



Option 4. Get 400 f/2.8IS to go on 1d4 and 70-200 to go on 7D. Buy Black Rapid double strap to carry them on.


----------

