# Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Sharpness



## skybraun (Jun 7, 2014)

Can anyone that owns this lens attest to the sharpness of this lens? How is it wide open? Looking to shoot football with it. Any advice on this lens? I've heard mixed reviews on the sharpness of this lens although I've heard nothing but good on how fast it focuses. Any suggestions for a sharper alternative prime at this focal length?


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 7, 2014)

Rented one years ago and used it on an XTi on a trip to see polar bears. Worked pretty well on that body even at dawn and dusk. Focus was reasonable. Clearly (wow, a pun) the 2.8 variety is a stellar lens but the f/4 is pretty darn good for the price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2014)

It's a very good lens. I did sell mine in favor of a 100-400L, but the driver was needing the extra 100mm (and I really needed more, so I eventually bought the 600/4L IS II). 

Be aware that you'll _know_ the IS system is working - it starts up with a 'clunk' before settling down to a low growl.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jun 7, 2014)

I miss mine. This image got a little colour treatment and the profile correction in LR5 but no sharpening.

Jim


----------



## skybraun (Jun 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a very good lens. I did sell mine in favor of a 100-400L, but the driver was needing the extra 100mm (and I really needed more, so I eventually bought the 600/4L IS II).
> 
> Be aware that you'll _know_ the IS system is working - it starts up with a 'clunk' before settling down to a low growl.





Is the noise really that bothersome? Is it bearable?


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 7, 2014)

Sharp - definitely.
Bearable - lighter then the 70-200/2.8.

Be aware: 300mm is tricky with moving blur. And the IS is quite old.
So use it for best results with a monopod.

Noisy: yes, bit more and different then the new ISs.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jun 7, 2014)

skybraun said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very good lens. I did sell mine in favor of a 100-400L, but the driver was needing the extra 100mm (and I really needed more, so I eventually bought the 600/4L IS II).
> ...




I'd call it about as loud as a mirror moving back and forth.

Jim


----------



## dpc (Jun 7, 2014)

It's a great lens. I use it with a Canon 1.4x Extender III all the time for birding and other wildlife photography. I have admittedly been toying with the idea of trading it in for a Tamron 150-600mm but I doubt that I will. I would like the extra reach, but I'm having a hard time justifying the move on any other grounds. I guess I'll just have to find ways to get closer to my subjects. I've attached a couple of pictures taken with this lens and the extender.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 7, 2014)

Love the penguins! One thing about the 300mm f/4 L IS that is unusual is its close focus. It gets magnification of 0.3x or so. This is a pretty good magnification for whole-body shots of larger insects like butterflies and dragonflies.


----------



## Aaron77 (Jun 7, 2014)

I have used a 300mm f4 many times for birds in flight and find that this lens struggles to lock on. However it is very sharp when it eventually locks on. Even sharper at f8. Also, I find a few of the fps on the camera is dropped with this lens attached. I am using a 70d and can only achieve about 5/6 fps with this lens on. Ok lens but if you don't need the f4, I'd get the 70-300l


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 7, 2014)

skybraun said:


> Is the noise really that bothersome? Is it bearable?



A slight "clunk" and then a gear/grinding kind of sound BUT I think only I heard it. Nobody around me noticed. Maybe in a quiet room it would be noticeable? The 300 f/2.8 ii is very quiet compared to the f/4 but it is 4 or 5x more expensive. I don't think the IS noise will be an issue unless you need absolute quiet, but then the mirror noise forom your DSLR is also apparent.

Go try one and decide for yourself.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2014)

dpc said:


> It's a great lens. I use it with a Canon 1.4x Extender III all the time for birding and other wildlife photography. I have admittedly been toying with the idea of trading it in for a Tamron 150-600mm but I doubt that I will. I would like the extra reach, but I'm having a hard time justifying the move on any other grounds. I guess I'll just have to find ways to get closer to my subjects. I've attached a couple of pictures taken with this lens and the extender.



The Tamron is significantly sharper than the 300/4 + 1.4 xTC according to lenstip and TDP and has much better IS as well as being as sharp at 300mm and having a zoom from 150-600mm. It is also cheaper than a 300/4 plus TC new. The 100-400L is sharper than the 300+TC. The 300/4 was a fine lens for its time but is now another Canon dinosaur, still OK to use and still a favourite for some but it could be so much better still and is expensive for what it is. I suppose a really good 300/4 would dent the sales of the 300/2.8.


----------



## dpc (Jun 7, 2014)

Aaron77 said:


> I have used a 300mm f4 many times for birds in flight and find that this lens struggles to lock on. However it is very sharp when it eventually locks on. Even sharper at f8. Also, I find a few of the fps on the camera is dropped with this lens attached. I am using a 70d and can only achieve about 5/6 fps with this lens on. Ok lens but if you don't need the f4, I'd get the 70-300l




I have to agree that the 300mm f/4 does struggle locking on to birds in flight. I also agree that it is quite sharp when it does achieve focus in this situation. I have the 70-300mm L as well. I would choose the latter over the 300mm f/4 if I was interested in only going to 300mm. Not only is the 70-300L sharp enough but it is more versatile in that it is a zoom. I love the 300 but I use it with an extender for the extra reach. Otherwise I would likely sell it. I'm not prepared to put out the money for a 400, 500 or 600mm prime lens and I'm not convinced that the Tamron 150-600 will really suit my needs.


----------



## Niterider (Jun 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> dpc said:
> 
> 
> > It's a great lens. I use it with a Canon 1.4x Extender III all the time for birding and other wildlife photography. I have admittedly been toying with the idea of trading it in for a Tamron 150-600mm but I doubt that I will. I would like the extra reach, but I'm having a hard time justifying the move on any other grounds. I guess I'll just have to find ways to get closer to my subjects. I've attached a couple of pictures taken with this lens and the extender.
> ...



It may not be the best when coupled with a TC, but calling it a dinosaur or even comparing it to the Tamron is a bit absurd. For one, It uses 77mm filters, whereas the Tamron uses 95mm. It actually can shoot at F/4, which the tamron just cannot. The IQ of the canon is far superior too (sharpness, color, contrast, etc)

Needless to say, the canon is a very good lens at what it does. So is the Tamron for that matter. They just do very different things.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 7, 2014)

Mine is sharp, and I can backpack with it into the high country due to the low weight. That plus a wide zoom and maybe a 100mm macro and I feel like I am not missing too many shots. It is suitable for a purpose. It is crisp without a TC, but the quality drops off more noticeably with a TC than the bigger big whites. The autofocus is not zippy, but adequate for many common uses. The IS is slightly clunky sounding when engaging, but doesn't bother most wildlife I've encountered.

Mostly it depends on your own shooting style and what you want to photograph as well as what you will do with the shots (eg: 3 x 5" notecard prints, magazine spread, poster-size art prints). The bigger white lenses can deliver better quality. Zooms may be handy when you often can't move (eg: disturbs the animal, or at the shore looking out, or whale watching). Wider apertures give better separation from the background. Some lenses, like a 180mm macro, may give you enough reach but also macro capability if that is a higher percentage of your shooting. Bokeh, autofocus speed, and even whether there are 3rd party Arca-Swiss replacement lens feet could be considerations for some. Study your own shots to see what you most frequently need, and don't be afraid to wait and save rather than buy 50% of what you need.

In your shoes I might consider, if it is not a big part of your shooting, on waiting to see what the next generation of lenses might bring. Canon may go with built-in 1.4x TCs on other models. There may be significant improvements in sharpness (the 300 f/4 IS is a relatively old lens now). There may be further reductions in weight. I expect autofocus might get quieter and better, same for IS. And some of the non-Canon lenses are becoming more competitive, so that may push the L-series quality up a level. 

I take a while to really "digest" a new lens--I find it better to space them out by a couple years. This allows me to become comfortable with using the lens, get to know its quirks, and learn to reach for it instinctively when that lens is the right tool. If you are the same way, you may consider when your last purchase was.

Another possible consideration is _when you might use it_. I don't plan to upgrade to a big white yet, but I would be more willing to consider such an upgrade if I was headed on a major wildlife trip to someplace special. Then the lens (or a rental) might get factored into the cost of the trip.

I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea: the decision can say as much about you and your photography as you let it.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 7, 2014)

Unfortunately I had to sell my Canon 300 F4 IS as I also have the Canon 300 F2.8 IS and couldn't afford to keep both. Whilst my 300 F2.8 is better in all respects (except weight and price) the difference is surprisingly small.
I originally bought my 300 F4 as I was looking for more reach than I had with my Canon 100-400 (yes read that again). A cropped image from the 300 was better than I could get from my 100-400 at max focal length. A friend of mine (after trying my 300 F4 and a couple of others) made exactly the same switch for the same reason - reach. 
I never bothered much with extenders on my 300 as I had the 600 F4 IS, though my friend, mentioned above, has had good results with both his Canon 1.4 Mks and his 2 x Mk3 (in very good light).
What the above boils down to is that our two 300 F4 L IS lenses are very sharp by any standards and the images could stand far more cropping than we expected. For reference the cameras used were a 1D3 and two 1D4's.
It is an old design and not perfect (the IS is clunky so just turn it off!) but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics.


----------



## pwp (Jun 8, 2014)

Like Dr Neuro, I sold mine in favor of another lens, in my case a 300 f/2.8isII. And I miss the 300 f/4is! Honestly, there is room in my kit for both 300's. The f/4 is as tall and wide as a 70-200 f/2.8 and _MUCH _lighter. Therefore, I'd be far more likely to take a 300 with me as a matter of routine. With the bigger, heavier 300 f/2.8 I only take on location it when I know I need it.

My 300 f/4is dated from the 1990's but it's qualities have not diminished over time. Like most owners of this lens will report, it's pin sharp wide open and responds okay to a x1.4 TC. Another rarely mentioned benefit of the 300 f/4 is its ability to focus incredibly close, way closer than the 300 f/2.8. It's almost a semi macro. I used to shoot a lot of food with the f/4, plus interesting portraits. 

I did shoot sports with the f/4 and it did OK in strong light. The central reason I dropped $6.5k on a 300 f/2.8 was for action shooting, the blindingly fast AF and the extra stop are compelling. With the x1.4 TC it's still f/4.

The 300 f/4is is probably one of the great sleepers in the EF range. OP, if you're at all uncertain, get a second hand one, and if it's not for you you'll re-sell in a heartbeat and not lose a penny. Damn! I'm getting another one!

-pw


----------



## chas1113 (Jun 8, 2014)

This lens is constantly underrated because it's always compared to its $4000 big brother. But for approximately 1/4th the price, I think it's superb. I'm not sure how well this will show online, but the below shot of a moving boat was taken handheld from approximately 60 yards in harsh midday light on a 5D Mark II with a Kenko DGX 1.4 teleconverter. Is this lens sharp? In a word: Yes. Is it lighter? Much. Is it cheaper? Definitely. Is the IS clunky and loud? Yes. Does that affect its image-making capability? No. In the original file you can clearly read all the text on the bullhorn.

I will NEVER sell mine.

—chas


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 8, 2014)

It's a fantastic. Lens for the money if you need the faster aperture and as a bare lens af is quick and accurate.
A 70-200 mk2 with mk3 1.4 tc will give pretty similar results but is much more expensive and heavier
I got my 300 f4 off eBay for $700 so for that money it's an amazing lens
I don't use it often anymore and since getting the tamron I think ill use it even less however i won't sell it


----------



## Oceo (Jun 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a very good lens. I did sell mine in favor of a 100-400L, but the driver was needing the extra 100mm (and I really needed more, so I eventually bought the 600/4L IS II).
> 
> Be aware that you'll _know_ the IS system is working - it starts up with a 'clunk' before settling down to a low growl.



One reviewer wrote about the 300mm f/4L lens that with IS working it sounded as if "...a bunch of gnomes were in there moving furniture." ;D I can confirm that impression.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jun 8, 2014)

I had a 300 F4L IS in my bag for a couple of years before upgrading to the 300 F2.8L IS II in 2012. The 300F/4L IS is a fine lens which is sharp wide open. its comparably compact size and light weight make it easy to bring it along wherever you go. It takes teleconverters quite well, adding the 1.4x does not affect the image quality too much, you still get usable shots. Of course the IS and AF cannot put up with today's modern lenses but keep in mind that we are talking about a 1997 design.
The 300 F4L IS is very good value for money, can definitely recommend it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 8, 2014)

Great lens, my first white lens and my first telephoto. An unlike so many people above, I still have mine! :

I own a 400mm f2.8 IS , and a 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and both vIII teleconverters. And I still won't sell my 300mm f4 IS. Because when I need to pack light it goes with me. When I can pack heavy, it goes with me. And I shoot a ton of sports with it. Football, basketball, horse racing, car racing, bike racing… I will use the 400 and 70-200 when I can, but the 300 is a lens I can stick in my camera bag when i don't think I'll need telephoto. It's 33% lighter than the 70-200 II, but I swear it feel like half. In Basketball games I will se it up high in the stands and shoot with a remote camera. 

It's also a decent macro lens. For nature when you don't want to get bit, stung, or sprayed by the wee beast, it gives great stand off distance. No it's not 1:1, but it's a whole lot better than other 300mm lenses.



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr



REX46287h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

This lens performs great with a 1.4X converter. I had vI, then bought vIII.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 8, 2014)

The major websites such as TDP, Lenstip etc are all in agreement over the performance of the 300mm f/4. Lenstip has a lot of data. Here are the collated data for competitive lenses. Compare the data for the 300mm f/4 with 1.4xTC with the 100-400L and Tamron at 400. For a small lightweight very versatile lens at nearly 300mm, the 70-200mm f/4 L with 1.4xTC II at 280mm is pretty good, and is the one I throw into my camera bag. The 70-300mm L is an exceptional lens. If you want extreme sharpness and excellent image with stabilisers, then I am afraid the 300mm f/2.8 II is the real answer for those tiny crops. On my 100s of trips for bird photography, by far the most popular lens I see is the 100-400L, then the really keen birders use the 500L, there are a few 400 f/5.6, 1 or 2 300mm f/4, and I have yet to meet up with a fellow 300mm f/2.8.

_ I must emphasize that all these lenses produce superb images when used within their limits._


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 8, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> Rented one years ago and used it on an XTi on a trip to see polar bears. Worked pretty well on that body even at dawn and dusk. Focus was reasonable. Clearly (wow, a pun) the 2.8 variety is a stellar lens but the f/4 is pretty darn good for the price.



Ah. I misspoke. I found the files and this was at 6:53 am in November near Churchill, Manitoba. It was still pretty dark and this was handheld at f/4, iso 1000 and 1/500 sec then cropped. It was on my 50d, not the XTi. I know the color balance could be better and I have since learned a lot about better post-processing. But, the point is that in existing light in the dawn hours handheld using a camera that had a lot of noise, this lens did pretty well. I hope that gives you and idea of what the lens can do and in better light, this would be a nice shot. Maybe someday I'll repeat the trip with FF and the f/2.8!


----------



## skybraun (Jun 9, 2014)

Wow guys thanks for all the useful info! I guess my biggest fear now is buying the lens and then seeing Canon update it within the next year


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 9, 2014)

skybraun said:


> Wow guys thanks for all the useful info! I guess my biggest fear now is buying the lens and then seeing Canon update it within the next year



I think the chances of a unicorn taking the presidency of the united states in the next year is more likely than an upgrade of this lens being announced let alone updated... I dont even recall seeing a patent for an update


----------



## skybraun (Jun 9, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> skybraun said:
> 
> 
> > Wow guys thanks for all the useful info! I guess my biggest fear now is buying the lens and then seeing Canon update it within the next year
> ...




Haha! When do you think this lens will be updated?


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 9, 2014)

skybraun said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > skybraun said:
> ...



If they update this lens, it will be $2500+. And there have been no rumors of it. The 70-300 f5.6 IS is probably as close to a replacement for the lens we will see. If you are worried, buy used.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 9, 2014)

skybraun said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > skybraun said:
> ...



Not within a few years at least, 

if you need f4 for low light this lens is great, look around for a nice used copy and dont worry about the IS making clunking noises that is normal.

if you don't need the f4 have a serious look at the tamron 150-600 for the money this lens cannot be beaten


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I dont even recall seeing a patent for an update



There was one back in 2012.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/patents-24mm-f2-8-50mm-f1-2-300mm-f4/


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jun 9, 2014)

The lens is light and superb. The noise the IS makes is neglible and won't scare off anything you're shooting either.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I dont even recall seeing a patent for an update
> ...



Good catch, Neuro! I love the clumsy transliteration, where a casual reader might conclude they're developing lenses made of pine resin which focus some colors perpendicular to the path the light is supposed to travel. Huh?! Wish someone here knowledgeable of both Japanese and English could review the original documents and put together good translations for us. 

This does make me curious, though, about the patents versus the actual lenses put forth. In the case of this refractive index technology, it sounds like a mainframe churning night and day would be capable of developing progressively better index profiles for lenses and therefore better designs. Has anyone compared the lens releases to the earlier patents to see whether things like the #s of groups/elements tend to change a lot? I'm just wondering whether anyone has detected refinements to the designs post-patent application.


----------

