EF 300 f/4 L IS opinions

TeeJay626 wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

TeeJay626 wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

I'm also interested in this lens. I've thought many times that I want it, but never bought. Now I'm thinking about it again, stronger than ever, because I saw good deal from used lens... 🙃

I've had 400mm 5.6L many years. It's an excellent lens for BIF, but it lacks f4 and IS for static birds in low light. MFD 3,5m is also annoying for close ups, sometimes for birds too! Love the built-in hood and balanced feel with my bodies (5d3 and 7d2).

I bought Sigma 100-400mm when it was released, because it's small and light, has shorter mfd and IS, and it was cheap. But it's just f6.3 at 300mm... Sharp lens for landscapes and static bird shots in good light, but AF might fail in lower light, especially with 7d2. Not best action lens either.

70-200 ii + 1.4x is OK combo IQ-wise, but it's very awkward to handle (for me)...

I'm sure Canon 100-400 ii is great lens, but I'm not fan of its bulk, weight and price (2x pricier than 300 f4L IS, used or new). It's also "just" f5 at 300mm, so 2/3 stop less light. Yes, it has better IS, but IS won't stop the motion.

I've read a lot of this 300mm. Some say it's sharp, some find it too soft, propably copy variation too. Apparently it's sharper in FF than in crop? Anyway, talk me out of buying this lens!!! 😀

I"m definitely not going to talk you out of buying this lens! I traded in my Sigma 100-400 for this lens and I'm extremely happy with the choice. Even with a 1.4x TC, it's sharper than my copy of the 100-400. It's easy to carry and the sharpness and contrast is amazing. I'm shooting on a crop body, 60D, and it's the sharpest lens I've owned so far, just ahead of the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro I once had.

I picked my copy up used from a reputable local camera shop and like I said, am very satisfied.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I would be happier shooting with 300L in low light, compared to my current long lenses. F4 IS vs f5.6 non-IS / f6.3 IS is big enough to get better focus and IQ - with good sharp lens.

As I said, my Sigma is pretty sharp. But it's quite "demanding" lens: it needs good light and contrast, and target needs to be close enough to get good focus. I've got too many missed shots in lower light, especially from moving targets. If I buy 300L and like it, I might sell my Sigma, but definitely keep 400L for BIF.

By the way, what TC do you have? I have Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x, but haven't use it much...

I have the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x TC. I've done little testing with it so far, but from what I've seen and read, the sweet spot with the TC and the 300L is a f8. I took some shots at f5.6 and 6.3 and still had better IQ than my copy of the Sigma 100-400.

Yes, that's the same TC I have. If I remember correct, it had some "error-problems" with my 7d2 + 400mm 5.6, but works ok with 5d3 / M50 + 400mm. But I'm not a big fan of using TCs.

You were using 60D with Sigma? Maybe you would have needed some AF micro adjustment? (Apparently it's not possible in 60D?) Or you just had a bad copy of Sigma. Glad you are happy with 300L! I'm so tempted to try it too... But I should  save money on new body/bodies in the future.... 🙄

TeeJay626 wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

TeeJay626 wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

TeeJay626 wrote:

Bhotoz wrote:

I'm also interested in this lens. I've thought many times that I want it, but never bought. Now I'm thinking about it again, stronger than ever, because I saw good deal from used lens... 🙃

I've had 400mm 5.6L many years. It's an excellent lens for BIF, but it lacks f4 and IS for static birds in low light. MFD 3,5m is also annoying for close ups, sometimes for birds too! Love the built-in hood and balanced feel with my bodies (5d3 and 7d2).

I bought Sigma 100-400mm when it was released, because it's small and light, has shorter mfd and IS, and it was cheap. But it's just f6.3 at 300mm... Sharp lens for landscapes and static bird shots in good light, but AF might fail in lower light, especially with 7d2. Not best action lens either.

70-200 ii + 1.4x is OK combo IQ-wise, but it's very awkward to handle (for me)...

I'm sure Canon 100-400 ii is great lens, but I'm not fan of its bulk, weight and price (2x pricier than 300 f4L IS, used or new). It's also "just" f5 at 300mm, so 2/3 stop less light. Yes, it has better IS, but IS won't stop the motion.

I've read a lot of this 300mm. Some say it's sharp, some find it too soft, propably copy variation too. Apparently it's sharper in FF than in crop? Anyway, talk me out of buying this lens!!! 😀

I"m definitely not going to talk you out of buying this lens! I traded in my Sigma 100-400 for this lens and I'm extremely happy with the choice. Even with a 1.4x TC, it's sharper than my copy of the 100-400. It's easy to carry and the sharpness and contrast is amazing. I'm shooting on a crop body, 60D, and it's the sharpest lens I've owned so far, just ahead of the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro I once had.

I picked my copy up used from a reputable local camera shop and like I said, am very satisfied.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I would be happier shooting with 300L in low light, compared to my current long lenses. F4 IS vs f5.6 non-IS / f6.3 IS is big enough to get better focus and IQ - with good sharp lens.

As I said, my Sigma is pretty sharp. But it's quite "demanding" lens: it needs good light and contrast, and target needs to be close enough to get good focus. I've got too many missed shots in lower light, especially from moving targets. If I buy 300L and like it, I might sell my Sigma, but definitely keep 400L for BIF.

By the way, what TC do you have? I have Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x, but haven't use it much...

I have the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x TC. I've done little testing with it so far, but from what I've seen and read, the sweet spot with the TC and the 300L is a f8. I took some shots at f5.6 and 6.3 and still had better IQ than my copy of the Sigma 100-400.

Yes, that's the same TC I have. If I remember correct, it had some "error-problems" with my 7d2 + 400mm 5.6, but works ok with 5d3 / M50 + 400mm. But I'm not a big fan of using TCs.

You were using 60D with Sigma? Maybe you would have needed some AF micro adjustment? (Apparently it's not possible in 60D?) Or you just had a bad copy of Sigma. Glad you are happy with 300L! I'm so tempted to try it too... But I should save money on new body/bodies in the future.... 🙄

Yes, I was using the 60D with the Sigma, which does not have in-camera micro adjustments. I do have the Sigma USB Dock and updated the firmware on both the dock and the lens, and made several adjustments. The lens ultimately was inconsistent. I'd get a nice sharp image, and then very soft. I bought the lens direct from Sigma as a factory refurb, which in the past I've had great success. In the end, I did want an L lens, and this was a great opportunity to trade it in at my local camera shop. I've been happy ever since.

Yes, I've had that inconsistency too, more with 7d2 than 5d3. Same thing with Tamron 150-600 (orig.).  It's very annoying. Of course any lens can fail sometimes, but these third party f6.3 zooms seems to do it more often...

Quess what, I just bought the 300mm f4L IS! ✌ I couldn't resist the offer: used lens in good condition 670€. (New would have been about 1400€.) I haven't had much time to play with it, Love the size, weight and built-in lens hood! I took just a few shots with 5d3. Seems to be very sharp, no need for mfa based on these shots. (Didn't try with 7d2 yet.) Cannot wait the better weather and time to use that lens more! 😊

No doubt 300mm can be enough but in my experience longer focal lengths open up a LOT more opportunities.

I definitely understand about being on a budget.  I had the 300mm f/4L IS years ago and overall liked it.  With the 1.4x it isn't bad at all and even gives you a tad more FL than the Sigma 100-400.

maybe I got lucky with my Sigma 100-400C as I really like it a lot.  In fact I like it so much I sold my Canon 100-400 mk2 after getting it.  That isn't to say that the Canon isn't better but the difference in performance wasn't enough to justify the price difference to me and I liked the lighter weight of the Sigma.

ultimately you have to figure out what works best for you.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I definitely understand about being on a budget. I had the 300mm f/4L IS years ago and overall liked it. With the 1.4x it isn't bad at all and even gives you a tad more FL than the Sigma 100-400.

maybe I got lucky with my Sigma 100-400C as I really like it a lot. In fact I like it so much I sold my Canon 100-400 mk2 after getting it. That isn't to say that the Canon isn't better but the difference in performance wasn't enough to justify the price difference to me and I liked the lighter weight of the Sigma.

ultimately you have to figure out what works best for you.

What body you are using with Sigma?

EOS 7D and EOS RP

I used to own the 300 f/4 L IS. It was pretty sharp, and it focused very close, which was nice. I found the AF to be kind of slow, and it wasn't as sharp as I would have liked with a 1.4x. (In comparison, I think a 1.4x works great with a 300 2.8 IS and a 70-200 f4 IS II.) I've heard that both the 400 5.6 and the 100-400 II are both noticeably sharper and have faster AF.

The 300 f4L and 400 f5.6L are such different lenses. As you said, the short MFD is a real strength of the 300 along with lovely colour and contrast. It's also a much shorter 'stubbier' lens that balances much better on a 5D or 6D body. The IS is first generation so not all that much help, but it's there (and noisy compared to the latest iterations). The 400 is longer/ larger/ heavier and more unwieldy. It doesn't have IS so you have to use a monopod/ tripod a lot of the time for birding. Both have excellent IQ and fast accurate AF, But the 400 needs good light so if you have that in IL, it'll be great for BIF/ wildlife. Here in London UK, we rarely have such good light so I've hardly used it over the last two years. Great lens though it is, it'll be up for sale shortly.