canon 300/f4 L IS

[Burrd255314]

Hey.
I have been browsing through ebay recently and also jessops (my local store).

For the store price of roughly £700 for a bigma, a whole new world of lenses has opened up.
I have been looking at the bigma for a while now, but I'm not sure I'm ready take the last step and get one (considering what else is available for the money).
i don't do this for the cash, it's just a hobby, but I enjoy getting the good shots, and have travelled around europe to various airports to add to my personal collection.

I was wondering if anyone has used the canon 300/F4L IS?
Does anyone use primes at all?
I am upgrading from my basic canon 75-300 USM, so anything really will be an improvement
Thanks for the help

[Will M]

I've used the 300mm F/4 L IS for a few months now and don't have one single complaint about the lens , it's lightweight and sharp ! Infact I ditched my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for this lens and haven't looked back ! it opens up a whole new world of photograpy , new angles new chances.

some examples:

[photoid=5948166]

[photoid=5946370]

[photoid=5942897]

[Burrd255314]

Thanks for the quick response will.
The thing is, I will be using it at airshows too, and was wondering if a zoom is better for that kind of thing. . . ..

[MaxPower]

Great shots Will.

I'm really amazed about the quality it produces. I'll be getting this one at June. I can't wait to get my hand on it. Everytime I'm on a photo-shop, I ask if they got a 300mm f4 demo to try out. The snapshots I took always was tacksharp everytime. It's so good you don't want to let go of it.

I'm a user of the same lens like Will, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.
The condition here at EKCH is that you're far away from the planes.
I have my 1.4x attached to it so the lens becomes 98-280mm
I'm happy with the shots it produces, but heck, If I had the money right now, I would get it without any regret. (the 300mm f4)
Btw the 300mm f4 is 3000dkr,- cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 IS here in Denmark G-d forbids me to get rid of the 70-200mm 2.8, so I'll probably get the 300mm sooner or later (2 months from now)
But I understand Will's choice though.


Burrd. If you got the cash/money, get it. It will be a "BIG" improvement once you upgrade from that "thing" 75-300 USM

[Tanner_J]

The 300 f4 is always cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 IS.

If you're going to get a 70-200 go for the f4 IS. You don't need the 2.8 for aviation spotting, and if you need the IS you'll save the $600.

The 300 f4 is a great lens if you don't need the f stop. You can't go wrong with it.

[MELflyer]

After having a short go with Will's 300 f4 recently as well as a couple of plays with it in camera shops, I'll definatly be picking one up later this year. Won't be dumping the 70-200L f2.8 though, best $$$ i have ever spent!

[McG]

Another vote for using a Prime Lens - although I own the 400 F5.6L This lens is cheaper than the 300 F4 with an extra 100mm of reach. Excellent quality lens.
Either the 300F4 or the 400F5.6 would be a superb purchase. Both are lightweight and easily handholdable. I prefer using my prime to using my Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I find the AF of the Prime really quick.

[MaxPower]

Superb shots @ McG.

This 400mm f5.6 is cheaper than the 300 F4 with an extra 100mm of reach. Excellent quality lens.

Can you tell more of the quality between these two primes ?
I haven't yet tried the 400mm f5.6.

[Burrd255314]

The thing is, I live at MAN and find that the way I shoot is to fully extend my lens to 300, then take some shots at maybe 270, 250, 200 and 150 as the aircraft gets closer.
This won't be possible with the prime.

Will I have to change my technique too much when using primes? (I am a bit worried about shooting through heat haze etc)

[MaxPower]

Well avoid the groundshots as much as possible if you don't want/worry about heat haze in your photos. Heat haze is a real bugger here at EKCH.

[Paul Maier]

Will I have to change my technique too much when using primes? (I am a bit worried about shooting through heat haze etc)

not your technique, more the way you approach your editting.

the different opportunities for cropping which are presented make you think twice about how you would approach your standard cropping of shots.

I frequently use a 300mm f2.8 and it allows for different angles to be tried, although not always successfully.

good luck in making your choice, you wont regret it!

[Paul Maier]

Heat haze is a real bugger here at EKCH.

Can you claim that at 3degrees C to get heat haze?
When i was living in Canberra i shot airside a few times in the winter and still had heat haze issues!!1

heat haze is shit!

[Will M]

Superb shots @ McG.



Can you tell more of the quality between these two primes ?
I haven't yet tried the 400mm f5.6.

300mm F/4 L IS Review : http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=2

400mm F/5.6 L Review : http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=2

Hope that helps you out somewhat.

[B7772ADL]

Most people will know by now that i'm a huge fan of my 70-200. I use it with the 1.4x most of the time as this allows a great degree of flexibility. At MAN I can shoot at max zoom (290mm or whatever it is with the tc on) with great consistent results.

The biggest problem at the moment at MAN is the heat haze. For the last few weeks as it begins to warm up, the haze seems to be unusually bad for this time of year and will only get worse. Basically most shots on the ground in the sun that i've shot at the 290mm mark are unusable, leaving largely close ups and also airbourne aircraft.

I bought a 300mm a few months back to get rid of my useless 100-400 and it has sadly so far remain unused as the heat haze will not allow decent shots on the ground given that we can get relatively close to the aircraft at MAN. I'm saving it largely for airshow work this summer.

On a different note, does anyone have experience of using the 300 f4 with 1.4x or even 2x tc's? I know the 1.4 with the 70-200 is an awesome combo but how does it fare with the 300mm?

[Olli Vainio]

300 f/4 IS + 1.4x will beat 70-200 2.8 IS without TC in quality IMHO. AF is slightly slower but it is still a killer combination.

And about 400 f/5.6 L...big downside, no IS.