Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L USM

Having owned and used extensively as a professional wildlife/nature photographer I can say that the non-is version canon 300mm f/4 ef L usm telephoto lens is BY FAR much sharper than the IS version of this lens. It is just flat out a wildlife photographers dream come true telephoto lens! Using the canon eos-1V and canon eos-3 bodies allow me to get incredibly sharp photos with canon's 2x and 1.4x converters attached. Focus is still lightening fast and accurate. The IS lens version was happily sold. PERIOD! I always use a strong monopod but have used lens handheld when bracing against a tree or rock or other items in nature . Tripod is used alot of times when wildlife stay around for sometime. I have thousands of photos to back up what I have said. Thank you for reading this.

Everything about this lens is GREAT!

IS version not even close to the shapness of the non-is lens.

600mm f/4 canon

Very good lens. Much sharper than the IS 300.

Sharp! good af, works well with 1.4x converter

F/4, not IS

EF 300 f/4 IS L, EF 70-200 F/4 L

N/A

Here is another fine piece of glass from Canon. On basic principles I don't think there another lens out there that can touch this one in it's class and as such I'll limit my comparisons between the non-IS and IS versions. Needless to say it is very light and of excellent build qulaity making it a good carry around lens the zoo outdoor sporting events and general tromping around the woods. Unfortunately this particular model (the non IS version) is no longer made by Canon. There has been some banter about the non IS version of the 300 F4 being sharper than the IS version. I now have both versions and I can categorically say that the non-IS version is significantly sharper under most condition with incredible contrast and CA correction. Having said that it may be too much sharpness and contrast. I have found that in high contrast situations with a digital SLR the images almost look unatural. Almost as though they had been shot against a chroma and the background inserted. This is probably not the lens' fault as it may just be me being used to dealing with lenses of a lesser calibur I crank the sharpness and contrast way up in the camera. I find the bokeh to be quit pleasinng though not as nice as some of the other 'L' lenses (eg: 70-200 F4 L) but still better than it's IS brother. Where the IS version starts to excel is in that it is IS. If you're like me and and can't hold a 20mm steady at high noon the IS is a must. This is the main reason I keep both versions of the lens. How useful is the IS. As a wise man once told me IS is wonderful for those of us that quake and shiver and for still or near still subjects. If you want to freeze the action IS won't do it, you need a fast shutter speed to do this. If you want freeze the subject and blur the abckground then IS can help but don't expect it to be perfect. The other big advantage of the IS version over the non is the minimum focsing distance. The IS version focuses down to 1.5 m which when coupled with 1.4X or 2X telconverters gives a decent macro lens. The lens lends itself very well to teleconverters. With the 1.4 X there is no appreciable loss of image quality. There is some loss witht he 2 X but keep in mind both of my TC are version one units. I have not had a chance to use tghe version II units as yet .The non IS version will only focus down to 2.5m. Not a huge difference and if you want a macro you should be using a macro lens.. Right? The lens hood is built in and I have never had any problems with flare as long as I'm using it. The tripod mount was included with the lens as was a hard case. The tripod mount is compatible with the Ef 200 F2.8 USM L II, Ef 70-200 F4L just in case you have one of these as well which do not include a tripod mount. It comes to this.. if you want a light weight 300mm lens that's has been said to rival the 300 f2.8 (see Fred Miranda) then this lens is for you bar none. If you fell you need the optical shock absorber and can sacrific some sharpness then the 300 F4 L USM IS is the lens for you. The non IS version is getting tougher and tougher to find because like myself people are buying both versions and not blithly giving up their old non IS versions. Heck I ended up paying $1300 CDN for a used 300 f4 L USM and only $79 more for my brand new IS version.

- As always super sharp, super contrast
- Light weight
- compact

Only weakneses are when compared to the EF300 F4 L IS USM.

-non IS (but if you want IS you'd buy that)
- Minimum focusing distance of 2.5M (1.5m on IS version)
-Big cumbersome hard case (IS has nice portable soft case)

Canon 300mm F4 L IS USM
Canon 300mm F2.8 L IS USM
Nikon 300mm IF ED AF-S F2.8

None needed yet

An excellent lens. The size is just right for carrying around in the field. Add a 1.4 teleconverter and you still get autofocus. On my Canon 20D I get great magnification. It's faster than the 5.6 I was using. It's perfect for zoos and wildlife farms. I was skeptical about the built in hood but it is very handy. The switches are easy to use. Canon does good work with their L lenses. This is my primary wilflife lens for backpacking.

I.S. works great. Fairly compact size.

For wilflife photography I'd always like more speed, but it's a good compromise. A 2.8 lens is just too big to carry aound easily.

Sigma 500mm f4.5

This is a very sharp lens up front. The Bokeh is similar to silk and the colors are very rich. The built in hood is very handy and I find the lens not to big to carry. I use it normally on a monopod for sports and when the shot is right it's up there with the best lenses in the world.

Sharp, very sharp, built in hood. Sharper than the IS version by 3 elements

All lens could be faster

300L 2.8 400 5.6

none