Test Driving a 300mmf4.0

Ann McRae

A coworker is selling a 300f4, a 1.4X TC and a lensbaby.

He insisted that I bring the 300 home for the weekend to see if it will meet my needs (needs - HA!).

Anything I should look for? Is there a known sweet spot for this lens? Known problems with it?

ann

PS - he sent the lensbaby home with me too.

jdryan3

Ann McRae wrote:

Anything I should look for?

My address, a padded box and FedEx drop off?

I don't have the 300 f/4, but beyond the obvious physical inspection, I would mount it on a tripod and take a series of test shot @ different aperatures so you can determine if it front/back focuses.

Test the focusing speed, such as how quickly & well it acquires and holds focus on an object. Try it in a low light situation wide open. I don't know what kind of body (make that camera body) you have, preferred subjects, or focus point you use, but use it in the various scenarios you are used to.

Also try the same shots with and without the TC.

Oh and if you can't find that FedEx/Kinkos, I can stop by to pick it up!

sherstone

Regarding the Lensbaby - I have no experience with it so that one I will leave alone as far as commenting on it

when it comes to 300 F4 - is it an IS version or not?

I own the IS version and I love this lens I can shoot hand held in most lighting situations without worry. It works really well with a 1.4x but I wouldn't bother using a 2x on it.

If it isn't an IS version keep in mind you will need to have above 1/250th shutter to get anything semi credible from it or of course a tripod.
You need to ask yourself if you want to use a tripod most of the time, sometimes or never.

I have read that the F4 Non-IS version is actually sharper than the IS version and my copy is really very very sharp - one of my sharpest lenses in fact.

Overall I would not hesitate to buy this lens - it is a perfect compromise between longer and heavier and more $ and getting a nice reach.

Sweet spot is probably anything below F8 - I normally shoot with it wide open or at 5.6

Skippy

Ann McRae wrote:

A coworker is selling a 300f4, a 1.4X TC and a lensbaby.

He insisted that I bring the 300 home for the weekend to see if it will meet my needs (needs - HA!).

Anything I should look for? Is there a known sweet spot for this lens? Known problems with it?

ann

PS - he sent the lensbaby home with me too.

Question.... just wondering why would you want a 300mm F4 when you already own
a 70-200mm F2.8 ???

If you add a 1.4x TC to that you will have your 300mm

Now if it was a 400mm I could understand ......... Skippy
.

Ric Grupe

Skippy wrote:

Question.... just wondering why would you want a 300mm F4 when you already own
a 70-200mm F2.8 ???

If you add a 1.4x TC to that you will have your 300mm

Now if it was a 400mm I could understand ......... Skippy
.

280mm vs. 420mm....no contest for wildlife shooting.:D That gap widens even more with a 1.6 FOVC camera.

At 300 it is awesome. Since I got my 300...the 70-200 never gets used for wildlife.

Ann McRae

hehehe jd!
So, ctual seriour test shots ! hmmm, I never even thought of that! Have a couple games I can shoot tomorrow, and for today it will have to be my garden birds and bugs!
And if I don't buy it, I may help him sell it here!
ann

jdryan3 wrote:

My address, a padded box and FedEx drop off?

I don't have the 300 f/4, but beyond the obvious physical inspection, I would mount it on a tripod and take a series of test shot @ different aperatures so you can determine if it front/back focuses.

Test the focusing speed, such as how quickly & well it acquires and holds focus on an object. Try it in a low light situation wide open. I don't know what kind of body (make that camera body) you have, preferred subjects, or focus point you use, but use it in the various scenarios you are used to.

Also try the same shots with and without the TC.

Oh and if you can't find that FedEx/Kinkos, I can stop by to pick it up!

Ann McRae

Excellent, thanks. It is the IS version. My first response to it is 'holy moly, it is light'. and it does have great reach.

ann

sherstone wrote:

Regarding the Lensbaby - I have no experience with it so that one I will leave alone as far as commenting on it

when it comes to 300 F4 - is it an IS version or not?

I own the IS version and I love this lens I can shoot hand held in most lighting situations without worry. It works really well with a 1.4x but I wouldn't bother using a 2x on it.

If it isn't an IS version keep in mind you will need to have above 1/250th shutter to get anything semi credible from it or of course a tripod.
You need to ask yourself if you want to use a tripod most of the time, sometimes or never.

I have read that the F4 Non-IS version is actually sharper than the IS version and my copy is really very very sharp - one of my sharpest lenses in fact.

Overall I would not hesitate to buy this lens - it is a perfect compromise between longer and heavier and more $ and getting a nice reach.

Sweet spot is probably anything below F8 - I normally shoot with it wide open or at 5.6

Ann McRae

Hi Skipy

Well, the mid field area of the soccer pitch is something I am having trouble with. Not sure more reach will help with that , but I can try tomorrow.

Birds and fast flying insects are something else I need more reach for - and less weight. The 300f4 is about 1/2 to 2/3 the weight of the 70 - 200.

and(shhh, its a secret) I am probably going to own a 1dmkIIN shortly, with a 1.3 crop rather than a 1.6, so I loose some of the reach of the 70 - 200.

and this is available for a great price (no shipping, no tax, no brokerage fee, etc.)
ann

Skippy wrote:

Question.... just wondering why would you want a 300mm F4 when you already own
a 70-200mm F2.8 ???

If you add a 1.4x TC to that you will have your 300mm

Now if it was a 400mm I could understand ......... Skippy
.

Ann McRae

Thanks, Ric - good to know that you use it!

ann

Ric Grupe wrote:

280mm vs. 420mm....no contest for wildlife shooting.:D That gap widens even more with a 1.6 FOVC camera.

At 300 it is awesome. Since I got my 300...the 70-200 never gets used for wildlife.

sirsloop

I'm w/ skippy!! If you already have a 70-200/2.8 then you have ~300/4 covered! If you are looking for something long, check out the 400/5.6L or the 50-500 (BIGMA)

Ric Grupe

sirsloop wrote:

I'm w/ skippy!! If you already have a 70-200/2.8 then you have ~300/4 covered! If you are looking for something long, check out the 400/5.6L or the 50-500 (BIGMA)

The 300 has IS.

Do you shoot wildlife?

The 400 is a nice lens but no IS. If you want to shoot handheld IS is a godsend.

sirsloop

I shoot wildlife when I come across (or visit a zoo) it but my bread and butter is sports shooting. Lol... do you consider horses wildlife??! I shoot those A LOT! My lenses don't have IS because is costs a fortune and does absolutely nothing for me when I'm shooting 1/2000th of a sec. Actually, I think sometimes IS causes wierd distortions if you are panning hard - even if its set on mode 2. Since I figured that out i've been selling all of my IS lenses. Granted, yes if I had a 400mm lens IS would be super awesome but i've generally got enough light even with the 1.4 @ 280mm/4 for AT LEAST 1/500th. (70-200/2.8L). The 400/5.6L is on my list... and if canon released a 400/5.6L IS I would buy it, even if it cost $1500

Ann McRae

First Test shots




w/ 1.4X


W/out tcon



Next (and meaningful) test is my sons soccer match this p.m. (afternoon light, 33C, clear sky)

ann

sherstone

maybe you have outside links turned off?
I cannot see the images you have posted.

claudermilk

I think those questioning getting a 300mm when a 70-200 is already in the bag have not used one. That 100mm is big. I've had the opportunity to use the 300/2.8IS, and the 70-200 could not touch what I wasable to do with it. Add in the TCs--which by all accounts work much better on these long primes--and you have even MORE reach. If I had the bank to buy either the IS or non-IS 300mm, I would not think twice about it.

IMHO this lens is right up Ann's alley with shooting soccer. Oh, and I'm totally jealous...a Mk IIn AND a 300/4L IS. Sheesh. :bluduh

As light as it may be--I've only handled the f2.8 monster--I'd still use at least a monopod with these super teles.

sirsloop

well a 300/2.8 and a 300/4 are two entirely different animals. The 300/2.8 takes a 2x converter pretty gracefully leaving you with a much more versatile lens.

If you want a 300/4 and already have a 70-200/2.8L, I think you'd be wasting your money. A 1.4x on a that 70-200/2.8 is 280mm f/4, and AF is still DAMN fast.

Ric Grupe

claudermilk wrote:

I think those questioning getting a 300mm when a 70-200 is already in the bag have not used one. That 100mm is big. I've had the opportunity to use the 300/2.8IS, and the 70-200 could not touch what I wasable to do with it. Add in the TCs--which by all accounts work much better on these long primes--and you have even MORE reach. If I had the bank to buy either the IS or non-IS 300mm, I would not think twice about it.

IMHO this lens is right up Ann's alley with shooting soccer..

Very sensible.

saurora

Ann I have this lens and I use it most of the time with the 1.4 t.c. I bought it because I felt it was a good value and probably the longest lens I could hand hold and get away with. It is light and very well balanced. I have the 200 (without IS) and when I use it with a t.c. I lose a lot of shots in spite of the faster glass. I like this lens a lot and I think you will, too.

Ann McRae

Thanks everybody. I appreciate all the thought that you are putting into this; it is helpful. I shot my sons U18 match in full daylight today - running between f5.6 and f4.0, 1/500, 1/640 etc.

Most of my shooting, and all of the shooting that pays for my lenses, is sports shooting.
I am buying a 1dmkIIN, and have concerns about loosing the long end of the 70 - 200 due to the difference in crop factor. I am also REALLY concerned about overall weight.

I handheld the 300mm today (I fairly regularly handhold the 70 - 200, since my monopod is not always in one peice). I used it from in the bleachers, from along the rail and finally along the fence beside the field (where I typically shoot the 70 - 200).

It will take me a while to get used to where to shoot - I can follow and change focal length quite efficiently with the 70 - 200. With the 300 I got many cut off heads, partial players etc.

Overall, I am really pleased with the shots. I cannot describe (I'll post pics shortly) how freaky sharp this lens is!!!!

To have the added reach for backyard birds is another thing I have wanted.

And finally, the reason the 400mmf5.6 does not appeal is because here in Edmonton, I cannot reliably have good light at evening games. f5.6 cannot be my minimum apeture for my sports shots.

So, anybody got any advice on what to pay?

ann

Ann McRae

the shots
100% crop - during warm up from the top row of the bleachers:


Along the sidelines, (see the cut off people)


and cropped:


and finally, a 100% crop because I was at the other 18 yard line

ann

Ric Grupe

Ann, there is nothing wrong with "cut off people". As long as your subject isn't!

You have a different beast to tame now...so comparison is a waste.

Shots look good to me.

Ann McRae

I know - a whole new learning curve to climb.


Ric - what would you sell yours for? what's a good price?

ann

Ric Grupe wrote:

Ann, there is nothing wrong with "cut off people". As long as your subject isn't!

You have a different beast to tame now...so comparison is a waste.

Shots look good to me.

dragon300zx

So ann are these lenses in addition to your new 1d mkII(n)?

I have a 1d MKII now

you know you want one.

Harv

Ann, I owned the 300/4L IS and sold it when I acquired my 300/2.8L IS. To this day I'm not sure I did the right thing in disposing of it. It was one of the sharpest and best handling lenses I ever owned. I used it regularly with the 1.4xTC and the images were tack sharp. The bare lens focuses very fast and only slows down a bit with the 1.4xTC. I also own a 70-200/2.8L IS but it was no where near as sharp using a TC. I used mine on a 1D MkIIn.

Here are some sample images with the 300/4L IS plus 1.4xTC combo.

This one was a major crop...
















I have never heard of a bad copy of this lens. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it if it's a clean lens. As for price, I would think somewhere around $900-$950 (U.S.) is what they normally sell for in excellent condition.

I hope this helps.

mercphoto

Ann McRae wrote:

Most of my shooting, and all of the shooting that pays for my lenses, is sports shooting.
I am buying a 1dmkIIN, and have concerns about loosing the long end of the 70 - 200 due to the difference in crop factor. I am also REALLY concerned about overall weight.

The thing about the big primes attached to a 1-series is that the balance of the combination changes due to the heavier camera body. And you will probably find this a good thing. In other words, the combination will not feel as heavy as you fear it will. Big leans on small bodies like a 20D feel a bit odd by comparison. The other thing about hand-holding big lenses is its all in how you use your muscles. Technique. Make sure you are using your big muscles and not your little muscles to lift such heavy objects. If you find yourself scrunching your shoulders up and forward you will tire out even using a P&S camera. Its a natural tendancy, especially to scrunch your left shoulder up and foward in order to grab that lens with your left hand but doing so involves muscles that do not have strength and endurance.

Anyway you can swing for a used 300/2.8 instead of a /4? If at all possible you will not regret it.

claudermilk

Looking at my favorite price barometer (KEH), they have new 300/4IS for $1125, while the f2.8 version is $3850. Big price jump. Some poking around tells me this is a darn competitive price, too.

At that price, the 300/4IS is very tempting to me...except I use the f2.8 for a lot of my shooting. Hmm, Tamron makes a 300/2.8 at Canons f4 price... Now you've gaone & done it! You got upgradeitis going...:help Worse yet, Samys has all these tempting super-teles for rent for a song, so I could try them all out. Stop me!

Anyway, back on topic. Those 300/4 pics look great. I cannot disagree with Bill, the 300/2.8IS is really an amazing lens--even at the steep pricetag, IMHO it is worth every penny. I'l say again, the 70-200 just does not have the reach or capacity to accept TCs like these big primes do. I can see the argument that the 300/4 is darn close to a 70-200/2.8+1.4 TC; but given the choice and available funds, I'd go with the prime. From my limited experience with the 300/2.8, there really is something magical about that lens; my new 70-200/2.8 (non-IS) approaches the sharpness of the monster (probably says a lot about my particular copy of the lens), but the shots I have gotten with the many 70-200/2.8IS just do not compare.

Ric Grupe

Ann McRae wrote:

I know - a whole new learning curve to climb.


Ric - what would you sell yours for? what's a good price?

ann

Since this is a very popular lens, one in very good condition isn't going to drop much in price. If you can do better than 10% off new...I'd grab it!

Ann McRae

So, I bought it. I am amazed at its sharpness and responsiveness to shooting soccer - Wow. Used it last night to shoot some U12s and it ws great.

The attached lenshood has a crack in it - does not affect image quality at all.

This lens is $1495cdn new, plus tax. I paid $1000cdn w/ no shipping, no tax. I probably would have paid $1000USD if it had come up for sale here.

Gotta say though that it makes the lowepro bag really heavy.
I now have 50mmf1.4, 85mmf1.8, 135mmf2.0, 300mmf4IS
17-85mmf4IS
70-200mmf2.8IS
580EXflash
(and the money has been sent for the 1dMkIIN)
Only thing still on my wish list is a macro, and maybe a 35mm

ann

Ric Grupe

Ann McRae wrote:

I paid $1000cdn

.....:D

Frog Lady

Ann McRae wrote:

So, I bought it. I am amazed at its sharpness and responsiveness to shooting soccer - Wow. Used it last night to shoot some U12s and it ws great.

woohoo - congrats. Your test shots looked good. All this is making me wonder where I go from my 100-400... I was thinking about the 300 f/2.8 and it's ability to accept the TC's. I really liked the clarity of your test shots w/ the f/4, but I'm not sure how much I would gain over my current long zoom... Guess I'd better save the pennys for the faster version...

About 1 month to go before our season starts up in full force...

cheers,

C.

claudermilk

Ann McRae wrote:

The attached lenshood has a crack in it - does not affect image quality at all.

Duct tape it. Now you'll really look pro. wink

Gotta say though that it makes the lowepro bag really heavy.
I now have 50mmf1.4, 85mmf1.8, 135mmf2.0, 300mmf4IS
17-85mmf4IS
70-200mmf2.8IS
580EXflash
(and the money has been sent for the 1dMkIIN)
Only thing still on my wish list is a macro, and maybe a 35mm

ann

Sorry to say , I can't work up any sympathy through all this jealousy. However, if it gets too heavy, I have strong shoulders. Just let me know when you need a ship-to address.