Canon EF 300mm f4.0 L IS USM

[willing to learn]

Whats any bodies thought on this lens,Canon EF 300mm f4.0 L IS USM. What does it function like with converters and what would be the maxium mag, with out quality loss.
Regards
Colin

[GerryNick2]

The magnification is x0.24, as far as I can tell it will accept a Canon 1.4tc but there does seem to be conflicting information about.

Having experimented with both Canon and Kenko converters I must say I have not been too impressed with the image quality, images are a lot softer than without the tc, the poorer the light the worse the image. Cropping seems to magnify noise even more.

The 300mm f4 +1.4 will give you a 420mm f5.6 lens, personally I would go for the 400mm f5.6 albeit no IS, its cheaper too.

Gerry

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by GerryNick2

The magnification is x0.24, as far as I can tell it will accept a Canon 1.4tc but there does seem to be conflicting information about.

Having experimented with both Canon and Kenko converters I must say I have not been too impressed with the image quality, images are a lot softer than without the tc, the poorer the light the worse the image. Cropping seems to magnify noise even more.

The 300mm f4 +1.4 will give you a 420mm f5.6 lens, personally I would go for the 400mm f5.6 albeit no IS, its cheaper too.

Gerry

Have you actually tried the 1.4X with the 300mm F4 Gerry? I've seen reviews that rate the combination highly, but I'd regard real users experiences more highly than some anonymous review.
This is one option I've been considering. Mind you, I've considered just about every possible 300mm combination.

[willing to learn]

The reason I ask. I took some pic's of my sun playing rubgy at the weekend with the 100-300mm usm. I struggled to get it working at all in any mode except TV auto focus lights did not lock and go red even in TV
I was greatly disapointed.I did'nt take the pump in case it got damaged it would'nt be the first time I have been taken out on a side line I Cleaned the contacts with a little alcohol today and it all seems to be working. With being a bit down hearted with the 100-300mm and already having the pump and not having a prime lens, I thought it would give me more options in the future when I might be able to afford one. I did manage a few pics but they are quite dark perhaps to do with shadows and high shutter speed, any less it was a blurred unfocused image. As i have said I don't think auto focus was working 100%. I supose I will try it again to see if it was just a blimp with the camera or lens. Hand held pics below.
Regards
Colin

[willing to learn]

Still not getting the focus points lighting up in the preset modes is that normal I am sure they use to
Regards
Colin

[BillyPilgrim]

I'm a bit biased because I own this lens but I think it is brilliant with or without the 1.4x converter.

I haven't noticed much, if any, difference when I use the tele-converter. Although I haven't done any 'scientific' tests. I just look at them and they seem sharp to me.

Take these two Mallard photos for example. One was taken with the tele-converter and one without it. They were both hand-held so camera shake could affect the results and they've been through PS but you should still be able to get some idea. Both were taken at f5.6.






Can you tell which is which?

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by BillyPilgrim

I'm a bit biased because I own this lens but I think it is brilliant with or without the 1.4x converter.

I haven't noticed much, if any, difference when I use the tele-converter. Although I haven't done any 'scientific' tests. I just look at them and they seem sharp to me.

Take these two Mallard photos for example. One was taken with the tele-converter and one without it. They were both hand-held so camera shake could affect the results and they've been through PS but you should still be able to get some idea. Both were taken at f5.6.






Can you tell which is which?

I'll make a wild guess at the first one with the TC.
Really though, I can't tell. There's excellent detail on them both.

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I'll make a wild guess at the first one with the TC.
Really though, I can't tell. There's excellent detail on them both.

The second one was taken with the TC!

However they were taken at different shutter speeds. The 300mm was at 1/1000s but the 420mm was 1/1500s which I suppose could distort the results.

As I said, not a scientific test but I honestly cannot tell the difference unless I look at the exif info.

They were also both taken with my old Sigma 1.4x which I have since sold and bought a canon but I can't tell the difference between the two. Apart from the Canon is bigger and heavier and the glass element is wider. So I suppose it should let more light in which might aid auto-focus but I can't say I've noticed an improvement there either.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by willing to learn

The reason I ask. I took some pic's of my sun playing rugby at the weekend with the 100-300mm usm. I struggled to get it working at all in any mode except TV auto focus lights did not lock and go red even in TV
I was greatly disappointed didn't take the pump in case it got damaged it wouldn't be the first time I have been taken out on a side line I Cleaned the contacts with a little alcohol today and it all seems to be working. With being a bit down hearted with the 100-300mm and already having the pump and not having a prime lens, I thought it would give me more options in the future when I might be able to afford one. I did manage a few pics but they are quite dark perhaps to do with shadows and high shutter speed, any less it was a blurred unfocused image. As i have said I don't think auto focus was working 100%. I suppose I will try it again to see if it was just a blimp with the camera or lens. Hand held pics below.
Regards
Colin

Your focus points would not necesarily light up - it depends on which mode and which points are selected. If you are in TV mode select the central focus point, then it will illuminate.
Coming to the choice of lens I have never heard anything but very positive comments about the 300mm prime lens, equally with the 1.4TC it is very good - for dragonflies for example.
I am a little puzzled why you would need this lens if you have a 100-400f5.6L IS. I use this lens regularly to photograph my son's rugby matches and it is perfect. I generally select the central or top central focus point and put it at ISO 400 and AV mode at 5.6 and shoot large JPEGS. You will find the 100-400 will snap into focus very much more quickly than the 100-300. Even in low light I have used it at ISO 800 and 1600 and have got perfectly acceptable results.
Jon

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by BillyPilgrim

The second one was taken with the TC!

However they were taken at different shutter speeds. The 300mm was at 1/1000s but the 420mm was 1/1500s which I suppose could distort the results.

As I said, not a scientific test but I honestly cannot tell the difference unless I look at the exif info.

They were also both taken with my old Sigma 1.4x which I have since sold and bought a canon but I can't tell the difference between the two. Apart from the Canon is bigger and heavier and the glass element is wider. So I suppose it should let more light in which might aid auto-focus but I can't say I've noticed an improvement there either.

I don't think the Canon one would let in more light, they both have the same effect on aperture, i.e. a loss of 1 stop. I would expect the shutter speeds to be different, it doesn't alter the fact that I can't tell which was used with or without.
Most reviews I've seen comparing extenders can't see much if any difference between the makes, apart from colour and price.