EF 300 f/4 L IS opinions

Steve Balcombe wrote:

There are two questions here, aren't there - is 300 mm enough, and in this price range, is the 300/4L IS a good choice?

The price range is a biggie, the only two lenses really in my price range (used btw) would be the 300 and 400.

The 300/4L IS was my first decent-quality long lens, though like you I had the 70-200/4L and TC before that, and also the truly terrible 75-300 USM before that. This was on a crop body, giving me an equivalent focal length of 480 mm, or 672 mm with the TC. Is that enough? Well, it's more than most photographers had for their film cameras in the 1990s! It's also very similar to my combination of choice now that my budget is not so constrained - the 500/4L IS II plus 1.4x III on a 5D4. And it's not just me - this is a hugely popular combination. Sure you won't achieve the same IQ with a 300/4L IS plus TC on a crop body (TANSTAAFL), but you will have roughly the same frame-filling ability.

So now that we've established that a 300x1.4 = 420 mm combination on a crop body is suitable for the job, what are the pros and cons of the 300/4L IS?

- Small, light, handles very well.

- The built-in lens hood is excellent - you only really appreciate this when you actually use it.

- Great image quality. There is one fault, which is quite pronounced LoCA. If you focus on a group of brightly-lit white birds, those which are closer than the focus point will have green fringes, and those beyond the focusing distance will have purple fringes. The good news is that Photoshop or Lightroom corrects this very effectively. I expect DPP does too, but I don't use it myself. (The lengthy description of this issue makes it look like I'm making a big deal of it. I don't mean to, it just takes that many words to explain!)

- IS is really useful, and this is the main reason I chose the 300 instead of the 400. It's first generation and a bit clunky, but still a lot better than nothing.

- I took many birds in flight shots. The 400 is said to be better and I don't doubt that, but the 300 plus TC is ok too.

Bird in flight is not my main subject, I see more perched birds, flowers, etc being my main target right now anyway.  I was hoping though that with the 1.4 extender pushing the lens to 420 it would be good enough for birds in flight at times, which it seems like it would be.

- The 300 was my 'dragonfly lens' due to its close focusing ability. Unlike many non-macro lenses the image quality doesn't drop off at close distances, and it even handles dragonflies in flight very well.

This I can see personally being a big subject for me.

- Having to use the TC is a definite disadvantage, but you have to weigh this against the IS, option to shoot at 300mm f/4, and close focusing where it trounces the 400/5.6L.

Hope that helps - I'd say go for it!

The big advantage I saw with this lens was it being a 300 f/4 with IS and a 420 f/5.6 with IS when using the extender, so its like having two lenses in one.   I wouldn't use the extender with a 400 f/5.6 lens, at least right now, since it would lose auto-focus on my body.

Thanks for the review/opinions, very helpful.