 |
|
Photodo stats
1102 lenses 428 MTF tests 74 in-depth photodo reviews 100+ users join each day Help the lens community by reviewing or rating a lens today via our lens search | Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USMPage 1 of 1: 1 This 300mm prime lens from Canon is a popular choice among advanced amateur photographers as well as professionals due to it’s relatively compact dimensions and price tag. Available for inside the $1000 mark, we take a look at what you are getting for your money.
Build and Handling Next along the barrel, on the left side, are the IS (Image Stabilisation) controls consisting of two slide switches. The lower, larger one is the on/off and the smaller, upper one controls the two modes. The first is for static shots and the second is for panned shots. Across the centre of the barrel in front of the manual focus ring is a standard distance window marked in metres and feet. The manual focus ring is a good 50mm+ in size with a nice, rubberised ribbed surface that is easy to grip. The model I had had a slight forward and backward play in it, but this was not enough to be annoying. The autofocus is silent in operation although, for an L lens, it did seem a little sluggish even on a 1 series camera! The manual ring does not rotate during autofocus and is nicely torqued when over-riding or manual focussing. Forward of the focus ring is a sleeved, built in lens hood that slides back and forth and is locked with a quarter anti-clockwise turn. Once locked, it stayed in position well. The weight of the lens, not excessive for the type, gives a feeling of being fairly bomb-proof and solidly built. Optical Quality Canon claims two stops for the image stabilisation and I found no reason to doubt this. When shooting static subjects the IS is certainly a help, especially with this kind of focal length which is on the edge of where most people think they can hand hold.
Click on each comparision photo below to view full size versions
Below is our lens test data. To find out how to use these graphs look at this article: How we test lenses
Verdict In summary, the positive points of the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS USM are: The negative points are: Check out the latest price for the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS here Test by Ian Andrews www.wildaboutkent.co.uk I feel it is a little strange, that among the CONs you can read ”not stunning resolution” in the review on this website.
EVERYWHERE reviewers do agree, that the sharpness and resolution of this lens is excellent. For example - try these links: The Digital-Picture.com : www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx Photozone.de www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm FM Reviews : www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=39&sort=7&cat=2&page=2 EOSpix.com : www.eospix.com/reviews-24.html BobAtkins.com : www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/300-4.html Wlcastleman.com : www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm When you are reading about this lens at photo websites, then you get the feeling that the testers behind Photodo are still going to defend that sensational modest rating of this lens given in the past many years ago. I think, that they might have got a sub standard copy. It is a matter of fact, they seem to very isolated with that point of view. The lens is similar to the Nikon AFS 300/4 (lacking VR though). I saw many results from the Canon lens, and indeed - optically it's very close to the Nikkor 300/4 AFS which I own. This is a terrific lens. You might have gotten a "lemon" for testing.
Your own samples look great - like the door shot for example(although a bit oversharpened). From the old Photodo tests, this lens is less sharp than the older non IS version. Nikon's version is sharper from the images known to me. However, the Minolta one I used once was the worst of all
Regarding websurfer's comment, why should other reviews have any bearing on this one, how you intepret this finding is for you to decide, but wouldn't it defeat the purpose if they weren't independent? Constructive comments based on personal experience are welcomed, but using other reviews as basis is just silly IMO. I'm only commenting on this because I wouldn't like to see photodo's independent views discouraged.
One of the things that I do not do is read other reviews of lenses. Ever!
And that includes any old Photodo ratings! However hard I might try to ignore other opinions, there would always be that niggle in the back of my mind if I did. Therefore, I don't read them, either before or after doing a test. That way you get reported exactly what I find with the lens I am testing. Certainly there are variations in manufacturing quality, as I have proved here and in other places. With new lenses, it is a simple matter of getting one from the manufacturer for review. With older models, some of which have been around for a few years, the optic supplied can be rather battered and suffered from a certain amount of abuse in that time. The results of any test will show that abuse. Whichever is the case, you get an unbiased view of the optic on test without predetermined opinions formed by other people who may or may not have vested interests. Ian A lot of users have discovered that the old version without IS is sharper. There is more glass in the IS lens.
So if sharpness and resolution is very important choose the old one. I owned this lens for about a year,...and I agree...it isn't that stunning of a performer..
I also owned the 300mm f2.8 L, Non-IS for nearly 10 years,...and that was a super performer.. very sharp, very contrasty.. very reliable..the f4 IS version was nice and light, it could certainly focus a LOT closer,..but that's about it.. it didn't come with focus preset, but it was nice and light, and compact... that's where the trade off was.. The images were good.. but they really didn't compare well to it's big brother.. JP This review of the IS version appears when I´m browsing the old "nonIS" version.
Sorry Ian for my first contribution to this debate. I think you are doing the right thing, never looking back and reading old reviews. I have only been reading reviews of this lens, and had just found the result of your review a litte strange compared to others, but according to reactions above something tells me that you are somehow right.
Get the Non-IS! Cheaper and better. "IS" should not be implemented on lens itself, but camera body. Page 1 of 1: 1 Add your messageLogin required
Please login here or if you've not registered, you can register here. Registering is safe, quick and free. |
Specifications
Excellent build quality
AF a little slow for class of lens