User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 300mm F4

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    300mm F4

    Hello AP Regs,

    Looking for anybody that has used the Canon 300mm L F4 Prime for sport shooting ,any positive or negative feedback with it. It will be used at high shutter settings and pushed with higher ISO in lower afternoon light.

    I'm looking at using this lens for rugby union and league. I feel it might suit my intended use better, rather than the 400mm F5.6 due to faster glass and the lower afternoon light it will be mostly used in. Secondary for birding and surf/beach work. Also being a 77mm lens, the filters will interchange from my 70-200mm L (But if you feel the 400 is the goods, please enlighten me)

    It will be used on my 50D so I would get 480mm equalivant on my APS-C (400mm to 640mm). Added to that, I have a 1.4TC so that would blow the IQ on the 400mm out to much I feel, but still be usefull on the 300mm L F4 for other daylight use.

    Please link any pictures you've taken with this lens if available.

    Thanks in advance.
    They call me "Blue" it's a red head thing.
    "My Flickr Site"
    Canon Bodies - 1DMk2N + 50D - Lenses - 17-35mm F2.8 L - 24-70mm F2.8 L - 70-200mm F2.8 L - 300mm F4 IS L - Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 - Sigma 10-20mm
    " I Never get tired of looking at our diverse country, even if its through the lens of someone else".
    CC is always appreciated.


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a 300 non IS, IQ is great from f4, can't help you with the high iso

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carrg1954 View Post
    I have a 300 non IS, IQ is great from f4, can't help you with the high iso
    Hi, Have you used this lens on fast shutter speed, chasing moving objects, or was it more for stationery use? How was the focus tracking?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes,Yes,Yes and Good,
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by carrg1954; 02-02-2011 at 9:10pm.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is at the other end, f18, 1/100, the Hornet was with another 300 f4 IS, either version gives great results.
    I can say that my non is version is sharp all the way through, focus I'd suggest is more to do with operator-camera-and what you are trying to shoot, I really don't think the lenses have limitations, (you always get what you pay for). Mine is almost always on mkiii nowadays, but it performs equally well on 30d, so your 50 should have no problems.
    If you can find a non IS and you have steady hands then get it, otherwise go for an IS version. I know I have some low light late afternoon shots but these will be low shutter speed 1/100 to 1/160, colour is good. Other than a 300 2.8 that I cannot afford it is a solid choice. I don't know about BIF etc, regards
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by carrg1954; 02-02-2011 at 10:17pm. Reason: addition

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Regular Bercy's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't have this lens but those aeroplane shots are fantastic! Good demo of lens capability.
    Berni

    ""The most important piece of camera equipment you will ever own sits between your ears...."

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Carrg1954, Thanks so much for these, bueat shots mate. I was looking at a new lens, have kept my eyes open for same as yours, but I think I'll have more luck getting poop for a rocking horse. These have made my decesion allot easier over the 400mm L F5.6. Thanks again.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Roosta,
    I thought of your question re high iso.
    I never shoot then but yesterday I did the attached at 1600iso, f4.0, 1/500 handheld. First quickly processed in my usual workflow in DDP, while the second
    is no processing, just coverted and saved. Spitfire mk xvi
    regards Gerard
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice work on the PPed version, the light is still good in the second for 1600, Thanks for these. I do appreciate the feedback. What distance where you from the Spit?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    maybe 30m

  11. #11
    Member dannat's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2010
    Location
    WOODEND
    Posts
    85
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i would like some advice re: this lens -it seems to have a lot of elements (15) for a prime -when i think the 200mm 2.8 & 400 5.6 have 10 or less. Can anyone tell me if the earlier mid 90's version which first came out with IS has the same no. of elements? -i have a friend who thinks his is lighter than 1190g -he says its under 1kg (& its the earlier version) -any links to specs would be appreicated
    reason{i would use it for star shots -above 10 elements can give int reflections)-under 10 element primes are the best -i already have a 200mm f2.8

  12. #12
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dannat View Post
    i would like some advice re: this lens -it seems to have a lot of elements (15) for a prime -when i think the 200mm 2.8 & 400 5.6 have 10 or less. Can anyone tell me if the earlier mid 90's version which first came out with IS has the same no. of elements? -i have a friend who thinks his is lighter than 1190g -he says its under 1kg (& its the earlier version) -any links to specs would be appreicated
    reason{i would use it for star shots -above 10 elements can give int reflections)-under 10 element primes are the best -i already have a 200mm f2.8
    Check out this link, it lists all the Primes, and if you go right to the bottom of the page, you'll find the discontinued lenses, "http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx"

  13. #13
    Member dannat's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2010
    Location
    WOODEND
    Posts
    85
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks roosta

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    27 Mar 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosta View Post
    Hello AP Regs,

    Looking for anybody that has used the Canon 300mm L F4 Prime for sport shooting ,any positive or negative feedback with it. It will be used at high shutter settings and pushed with higher ISO in lower afternoon light.
    Hi Roosta,
    did you buy the 300L? I'm currently thinking about the same thing or possibly spending a bit more on the Sigma 120-300..

    Cheers
    John

  15. #15
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wobbles View Post
    Hi Roosta,
    did you buy the 300L? I'm currently thinking about the same thing or possibly spending a bit more on the Sigma 120-300..

    Cheers
    John
    Hi john, Was really happy with lens, but think a prime is not going to suit what I want. Waying up the options what to add to my 70-200 F2.8 for shooting Rugby Union.

    Attached is a hand held shots.

    Overall, the lens performed really well, was easy to use hand held and on a mono. Will hire it again when rugby kicks off over here (Weekend grade union not Super 15's)
    My main aim with the lens is to capture my sons (Under 9's) rugby action, and then from there, shoot the senior grades, If I can get a couple of great shots, well may be start a small site and sell some shots. Hope this helps.

    The weather was crap. The Kooka was over 70 Foot away, wouldn't sit still, focus was very quick.

    Kooka-4-Comp.jpg

    Kooka-3.jpg

    Moon.jpg
    Last edited by Roosta; 09-03-2011 at 7:11pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •