Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS

Without the 1.4x TC, its very sharp at any aperture. Focus speed is blazing fast (but understand the limitations of the 20D's focusing system) and dead silent. Image stabilization seems to work well enough. I have gotten sharp pictures down to 1/50th of a second with IS on.

With the 1.4xTC, image quality degrades by a noticible amount, but its still what I would consider "very good" at F8 (which is one stop down). Wide open it shows a touch too much softness and CA for my tastes. At it improves considerably with regards to sharpness and almost all of the CA disappears. If you shoot RAW you can probably "get away" with shooting wide open with the 1.4x a little better than if you shoot jpeg.

Hope these comments help.

--



http://jmhphoto.net/gallery

I've got two more online at http://www.pbase.com/zidar/fotos_zidaros&page=2

I left the land of surf before digital was really up and running. In Alaska we do have good surf in Yakutat...which is 800 miles away. I'm right on the beach of the Chukchi Sea but it's flat as a pancake...especially when frozen solid, like now.

The best way to shoot surfing is from in the water....where are you? I hope not Oklahoma City.

Zidar
Alaska

--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'

• Apocalypse Now

Is the IS on your lens silent too? I just got mine and the IS is pretty noisy. I thought it is because it has older generation IS. I can even "feel" the IS move when it's turnning on or off. Is it normal?

Jamie H. said:

Without the 1.4x TC, its very sharp at any aperture. Focus speed
is blazing fast (but understand the limitations of the 20D's
focusing system) and dead silent. Image stabilization seems to
work well enough. I have gotten sharp pictures down to 1/50th of a
second with IS on.

With the 1.4xTC, image quality degrades by a noticible amount, but
its still what I would consider "very good" at F8 (which is one
stop down). Wide open it shows a touch too much softness and CA
for my tastes. At it improves considerably with regards to
sharpness and almost all of the CA disappears. If you shoot RAW
you can probably "get away" with shooting wide open with the 1.4x a
little better than if you shoot jpeg.

Hope these comments help.

--



http://jmhphoto.net/gallery

Click to expand...

ljfinger said:

Daniella said:

if you want the lens for sport then yes the F4 is better..but the
300mm F4 IS with a 1.4x tc need to be stopped down to F5.6 at least
to give decent results.

Click to expand...

Ummmm...that would be wide-open, Daniella.

Did you mean f8?

Click to expand...

yes

Lee Jay said:

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

The IS on mine is clunky sounding and rather noisy. Its the "older" generation, so this is normal.

carlk said:

Jamie H. said:

Without the 1.4x TC, its very sharp at any aperture. Focus speed
is blazing fast (but understand the limitations of the 20D's
focusing system) and dead silent. Image stabilization seems to
work well enough. I have gotten sharp pictures down to 1/50th of a
second with IS on.

With the 1.4xTC, image quality degrades by a noticible amount, but
its still what I would consider "very good" at F8 (which is one
stop down). Wide open it shows a touch too much softness and CA
for my tastes. At it improves considerably with regards to
sharpness and almost all of the CA disappears. If you shoot RAW
you can probably "get away" with shooting wide open with the 1.4x a
little better than if you shoot jpeg.

Hope these comments help.

--



http://jmhphoto.net/gallery

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--



http://jmhphoto.net/gallery

n/t

I owned it for a while..because I needed a lighter lens for PGA Golf.. and I was fairly pleased.. It isn't like the 300mm f2.8 L.. which is bulkier, heavier, yet faster, sharper, and 4x more $,.. but after I stopped covering pro golf, I just sold my 300mm f4 IS..

It's O.K. wide open.. acceptable.. at 5.6 it's nice,.. better than any long range zoom lens that reaches out to 300mm.. but what I would do if I were you,.. I'd get the 300mm f2.8 L lnes, (non IS) used, for about 2,500 in decent shape, and you'll have a lens that is 10x better! I'm not kidding on that either.. especially when you add the 1.4x..

JP

--
Please don't look at my GLAMOUR photography websites on my Profile!!

cqf said:

I see what you mean. I really have to consider what I’ll be
shooting. I certainly would be doing surfing but am also
considering other sports like soccer, basketball and even rodeos.

By the way, thanks guys for the interest in my dilema!!!

Click to expand...

i would say that 300 f/4 would certainly be better for soccer than 400 f5.6.

no clue about rodeo.

neither is all that great for basketball, totally forget the 400 f5.6 though. the 300 f/4 can capture across court action but the f/4 is a little slow with the f-stop even for top tier NCAA Div I amd pro stadiums, but it certainly can pull those off, if not something in a highschool or poorly lit college gym. 17-55 2.8 for wide under basket, 85 1.8 is good, 70-200 f2.8 also. and some also use 300 2.8 for far court (or 400 for FF or 1.3 bodies), but that is crazy pricey for one lens.

i would guess for surfing you would often be in strong enough sun for f/5.6 and usually able to back off a bit if need be, so 400 f/5.6 probably could work for that.

Hey Guys thanks a lot. I appreciate all the help.
--
cqf

bronxbombers said:

cqf said:

I see what you mean. I really have to consider what I’ll be
shooting. I certainly would be doing surfing but am also
considering other sports like soccer, basketball and even rodeos.

By the way, thanks guys for the interest in my dilema!!!

Click to expand...

i would say that 300 f/4 would certainly be better for soccer than
400 f5.6.

Click to expand...

the 400mm F5.6 L is pretty bad in low light..the magnification, no IS and F5.6 makes it very difficult to use in low light. In Sequoia I shot the bears with the 80-200 F2.8 L and even then I had to use ISO 800. F2.8 is really a must for low light.

if one cannot afford this speed..or the 70-200 F2.8 or the 300mm F2.8, then the 300mm F4 is really better than the 400mm F5.6. that is way too slow for low light.

bronxbombers said:

no clue about rodeo.

neither is all that great for basketball, totally forget the 400
f5.6 though. the 300 f/4 can capture across court action but the
f/4 is a little slow with the f-stop even for top tier NCAA Div I
amd pro stadiums, but it certainly can pull those off, if not
something in a highschool or poorly lit college gym. 17-55 2.8 for
wide under basket, 85 1.8 is good, 70-200 f2.8 also. and some also
use 300 2.8 for far court (or 400 for FF or 1.3 bodies), but that
is crazy pricey for one lens.

i would guess for surfing you would often be in strong enough sun
for f/5.6 and usually able to back off a bit if need be, so 400
f/5.6 probably could work for that.

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

bronxbombers said:

i would say that 300 f/4 would certainly be better for soccer than
400 f5.6.

Click to expand...

I hope so as this may be my main application for this lens.
And besides that general used for nature/wildlife with and without the TC1.4.

http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/telelenses/

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk

The lens is good IMO but you have to decide on the distance you will be from the action and let that drive your choice of focal length. The use of a 1.4 or 2x is best considered for use as the exception not the norm. For surf I guess using a 'pod of some sort is easy(?) and you may benefit from the reach of the 400/5.6. Other sports will of course have their own requirements. Here are a couple one wide open.



Model Canon EOS 20D
Flash Used No
Focal Length 300 mm
Exposure Time 1/1000 sec
Aperture f/4
ISO Equivalent 400
Exposure Bias
White Balance (-1)
Metering Mode matrix (5)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Program aperture priority (3)



Make Canon
Model Canon EOS 20D
Flash Used No
Focal Length 300 mm
Exposure Time 1/800 sec
Aperture f/4
ISO Equivalent 400
Exposure Bias
White Balance (-1)
Metering Mode matrix (5)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Program aperture priority (3)

hi, currently using this set up 300 f4 IS+1.4 TC. with 20D. Great lens to start out in surfing. Someone said the 400 5.6 will do. No it won't. Right size but you loose AF at f8 with the 20D. Trust me you want to learn to shoot with af in surf shots. Resolution is enough for half page shots in glossy surf mag after cropping etc in PS. Lens is very robust against salt spray as long as you wipe it down with a clean damp cloth. Mine was brought 2nd hand and you can check with CPS about the lens history re. repairs.

Have used the lens with 2x TC but it's grainy, dark and a very shallow DOF. Use only in extreme calm (bird shots) or shooting a bombora at a last ditch effort. You will get a shot but not a 100% one.

This lens combination works very well with eos 3 and both TC's. But may be let down by grainy film.
What's film?

Of course 600mm or so isn't long enough for most beach breaks. So if you go longer you need the big heavy stuff, my dilemma now. I will not sell the 300 f4 IS because it's a great little lens that fits in a back pack with all my other stuff and can go every where with me without drawing too much attention.

Don't mean to offend about the 400 f5.6 but the 300 f4 IS is more versatile and really the only other option is to bite the bullet & go the long f2.8 or f4 lens.

If you want I'll send some pix from the weekend with this lens set up. 6 ft Soldiers Beach Norah Head, NSW Australia.

Unfortunately the 300 f4 won't A/F with a 2x extender on a 20D (camera sees an aperture of f8) unless the pins are taped, or it's a cheap converter that sends no aperture information to the body. I think that with the pins taped the A/F will be slower and less reliable, if it works at all.

Flower is a Macro, the squirrel is a with a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter and the fire fighters shot is without the teleconverter - ISO 1600.

Great shots, which body did you use, etc. Ant

30D

30D. I had a 20D. The autofocus was pathetic and the images were soft. I finally traded it in for the 30D. Very happy with the 30D.

Thanks to all of you. I’ll rent the aforementioned lenses and see for myself which one is the one for my use. I am leaning towards de 300f4 but let’s. I’ll post my findings.
--
cqf