300mm F/4 L IS USM - some advice please!

Blackstar · 25 Jul 2006 at 13:06

I think that this is going to be my next glass purchase - it is fast enough for me at F/4 with the IS (no reason to go silly and get the F/2.8) and although not as versatile as the 100-400L it is supposed to offer much improved image quality. According to a couple of reviews, at F/8 the F/4 IS version is just as sharp as the F/2.8 too, which is a bonus.

I plan to couple this with the 1.4x TC at some point too.

The problem for me is that obviously its a lot of cash to spend on a lens that is fairly specific in application compared to the 100-400L so I want to make sure the IQ is right up there with the best of them and there are no gremlins to avoid!

I have seen a couple of samples that have blown me away but I dont know what sort of post processing etc had been done on them so I throw it open to you guys that have had/used this lens to put up some samples, tell me your user experiences etc and give me a better idea about this lens! I trust the opinions of people I see regularly posting etc over some randoms that I dont know on FM etc

Cheers guys!

saddler · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:09

It might be worth considering the Sigma 100-300 F4 as well. Its cheaper than either Canon and matches the 300 F4 for IQ. I have this lens and have nothing but praise for it. I use it a lot with a 1.4x converter for wildlife.

Check out the review of all these lenses at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Let me know if you have any questions about it.

JonnyGLC · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:12

saddler said:
It might be worth considering the Sigma 100-300 F4 as well. Its cheaper than either Canon and matches the 300 F4 for IQ. I have this lens and have nothing but praise for it. I use it a lot with a 1.4x converter for wildlife.

Check out the review of all these lenses at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Let me know if you have any questions about it.

I don't think any zoom lens is going to match the 300mm prime in qualty terms tbh :confused:

Matt · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:18

This sounds like a much better idea than the 100-400L! Have you asked on FM/PoTN for samples straight from the camera?

Maybe this will help: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_300_4is

cyKey · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:25

Matt said:
This sounds like a much better idea than the 100-400L! Have you asked on FM/PoTN for samples straight from the camera?

There's this on Flickr which is just fap worthy.

saddler · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:34

A random name said:
I don't think any zoom lens is going to match the 300mm prime in qualty terms tbh

Well according to photozone the Sigma 100-300 is better than the 300 F4 IS, scoring 1919.5 wide open compared to the 1904.5 of the Canon on the MTF charts.

The 100-300 also does gulls

DRZ · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:37

I appear to have had a sex change. Ah well

(I am posting from her laptop so it automatically signed her in, whoops!)

Anyway, onto the matter in hand!

The Sigma doesnt appear to be that close to the Canon prime on CA and resolution really. In the real world it might be closer but it doesnt have IS, Sigma zooms tend to be terribly slow to focus even with HSM (compared to USM) and hunt a lot more and the build quality "issues" with Sigma mean its a bit of a risk that for this money, I dont really want to take! I have the Sigma 105mm Macro but I bought that on the highstreet and made sure it was a good copy etc before I got it. I would ideally be importing lenses of this expense so I wouldnt have that option available

The samples I have seen all tend to indicate this is a very good lens indeed and unless there is something I have missed, I may well order one in the near future

DRZ · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:42

saddler said:
Well according to photozone the Sigma 100-300 is better than the 300 F4 IS, scoring 1919.5 wide open compared to the 1904.5 of the Canon on the MTF charts.

Statistics, eh?

One stop down and you have 1996 compared to 1951. Beyond that, the 100-300 really starts to slope off - at F/8 the Canon appears to be still going strong but the Sigma is dropping off hugely - at F/11 its way down.

Hardly indicates it is a better lens - with the IS in the Canon that extra stop to get maximum resolution is recoverable whereas it isnt on the Sigma!

saddler · 25 Jul 2006 at 14:52

I guess it depends on your specific requirements, for me wildlife and airshows were paramount and a zoom is essential for both these, I can think of countless shots I would have missed if I was stuck with a prime.

All of these lenses are impessive and I doubt many people could tell the difference in IQ from real world images they take.

I would suggest going to a big high-street store and trying the feel of these lenses, they are all big and heavy and you may prefer the ergonomics of one over the others.

SDK^ · 25 Jul 2006 at 18:42

The Canon 300mm F4 L IS is a superb lens Blackstar. It's very sharp and even with a 1.4x convertot (420mm) it's sharper than the 100-400L IS.

Go for it

saddler said:
It might be worth considering the Sigma 100-300 F4 as well. Its cheaper than either Canon and matches the 300 F4 for IQ.

saddler said:
Well according to photozone the Sigma 100-300 is better than the 300 F4 IS, scoring 1919.5 wide open compared to the 1904.5 of the Canon on the MTF charts.

What have you been smoking

Comparing the MTF on the Sigma and Canon websites; the Canon 300 F4 is about the same sharpness wide open (F4) as the Sigma lens is stopped down (F8).

saddler · 25 Jul 2006 at 18:56

I took the figures off the independant site photozone who reviewed both lenses on the same body

SDK^ · 25 Jul 2006 at 19:04

saddler said:
I took the figures off the independant site photozone who reviewed both lenses on the same body

Well according to that site the Sigma 100-300 is sharper at 300mm F4 than at F8 :confused:

Which is the complete opposite to the chart on the Sigma website

saddler · 25 Jul 2006 at 19:34

SDK^ said:
Well according to that site the Sigma 100-300 is sharper at 300mm F4 than at F8
Which is the complete opposite to the chart on the Sigma website

Perhaps Sigma did'nt get a sharp copy for thier review

TBH the 300 F4 IS is the best option @ 300mm for under £1000. I'd consider the Sigma more as an alternative to the Canon 100-400, especially given the price difference. If i'd had more money I would have chosen the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and the 400 5.6 but I couldnt afford that and the 100-300 was the best option for my budget.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 25 Jul 2006 at 20:09

You'l get nicer Bokeh on the prime also.

Spanker · 25 Jul 2006 at 23:50

Sigma 100 - 300 gets great reviews here.

http://www.fredmiranda.com

DRZ · 26 Jul 2006 at 00:09

SDK^ said:
The Canon 300mm F4 L IS is a superb lens Blackstar. It's very sharp and even with a 1.4x convertot (420mm) it's sharper than the 100-400L IS.

Go for it

Its for me

I forgot to sign her out before I posted

I have pretty much settled on this now I have heard a few people's opinion of it. Have you personally used this lens for motorsport or did you take the F/2.8 out for a spin?

Raider · 26 Jul 2006 at 08:14

This is something i'm debating atm. I have a 70-200mm F4 + 1.4x TC but i'd still like more reach. I'm split between selling the 70-200 and replacing it with the 100-400L, or just adding a 300mm F4 L IS, which would give me 420mm F5.6 with the TC.

If I had an infiinitely large kit bag (and the strength!) i'd just add the 300mm, but the idea of having just one lens to cover my telephoto needs appeals to me. And surely 400mm on the 100-400L has to be fairly close (in terms of sharpness) to 400mm when seen through the TC on the 300mm F4?

Gah don't think i'll ever decide