Canon lens comparison

Gaza · #1 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 08:01 PM

Has any one here, any experience with both the the Canon 300mm L f4 IS USM and the Canon 500mm L f4 IS USM ?

What i want to know is, apart from the obvious 200mm difference in length. Is there any other difference between the two. Image quality? or any other differences ?

I apreciate that there is l a lot of difference in length, and that there is a large difference in price. So i am wondering, is the massive price difference purely just for the extra 200mm. Or am i missing something ?

glsammy · #2 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 08:30 PM

You could ask the same re the 300mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8. A huge price difference for what appears to be little image quality difference. It's all down to the speed of the glass, fast good glass costs lots of money! The fact one is F4 @ 300mm and the other F4 @ 500mm almost says it all. The 500mm also has super fast AF, something I found the 300mm F4 didn't have.

Gaza · #3 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glsammy

You could ask the same re the 300mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8. A huge price difference for what appears to be little image quality difference. It's all down to the speed of the glass, fast good glass costs lots of money! The fact one is F4 @ 300mm and the other F4 @ 500mm almost says it all. The 500mm also has super fast AF, something I found the 300mm F4 didn't have.

Thanks Graham

I can understand why the 300mm f2.8 would be faster than a 300mm f4, and i apreciate that fast lens are expensive.

But why would the 500mm f4 be faster than the 300mm f4 ?
Also, apart from that. Would there be any image quality difference ? They are both " L " range both f4
Am i missing something ?

glsammy · #4 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaza

Thanks Graham

I can understand why the 300mm f2.8 would be faster than a 300mm f4, and i apreciate that fast lens are expensive.

But why would the 500mm f4 be faster than the 300mm f4 ?
Also, apart from that. Would there be any image quality difference ? They are both " L " range both f4
Am i missing something ?

Your only missing the obvious.

The 300mm is F4 @ 300mm whilst the 500mm is F4 @ 500mm.

Using a prime @ 500mm makes a huge difference against using one @ 300mm; that's what you pay for.

Gaza · #5 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glsammy

Your only missing the obvious.

The 300mm is F4 @ 300mm whilst the 500mm is F4 @ 500mm.

Using a prime @ 500mm makes a huge difference against using one @ 300mm; that's what you pay for.

Of course

Forgive me. I was thinking simplistically. Thinking that they were both the same, apart from 200mm length.

Okay. Forget the speed difference. What about image quality ?
Is the 300mm f4 IS very good for image quality ?

BillyPilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 08:59 PM

I have both of those lenses.

The autofocus is better and faster on the 500mm and it also has several focussing gadget buttons. I'm afraid I've forgotten what they do though as I never use them

. The AF speed on the 300mm does improve when you put it on a 1d mk II n though.

The IS on the 500mm also works when you have it on a tripod. Reducing mirror slap and other vibrations. Not sure if the 300mm does this but I would guess not.

Image quality? The 500mm is best but not by a great deal. The reach is the killer though. You have to be very close with the 300mm to get the best out of it but the 500mm seems to perform well at all distances. This is could well be down to the fact that I always have the 500mm on a tripod though!

After 2 years of owning the 500mm I find I only ever use the 300mm these days if the subject is either too close to fit in frame or closer than the minimum focus distance of the 500 (4.5m as opposed to 1.5m).

Gaza · #7 (**permalink**) 07-04-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyPilgrim

I have both of those lenses.

The autofocus is better and faster on the 500mm and it also has several focussing gadget buttons. I'm afraid I've forgotten what they do though as I never use them

. The AF speed on the 300mm does improve when you put it on a 1d mk II n though.

The IS on the 500mm also works when you have it on a tripod. Reducing mirror slap and other vibrations. Not sure if the 300mm does this but I would guess not.

Image quality? The 500mm is best but not by a great deal. The reach is the killer though. You have to be very close with the 300mm to get the best out of it but the 500mm seems to perform well at all distances. This is could well be down to the fact that I always have the 500mm on a tripod though!

After 2 years of owning the 500mm I find I only ever use the 300mm these days if the subject is either too close to fit in frame or closer than the minimum focus distance of the 500 (4.5m as opposed to 1.5m).

Brilliant !

Thanks BillyPilgrim.
That is exactly the info I was looking for.