Canon EF 300mm f/4L USM vs. EF 300mm f/4L IS USM vs. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM: What I really want is the 100-400, but I'm trying to stick to around $400 or so used. I mostly care...

bleirer

What I really want is the 100-400, but I'm trying to stick to around $400 or so used. I mostly care about sharpness, can live without IS if the price is right.

I read some reviews that the original 300mm f4 is still sharper than the current one with IS. Or is the 70-300 sharper than both?

good2gonc Loc: Greater Raleigh, NC Metro Area

I have no comparison for you but I have the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens and it is really a great lens. I am shooting it on a Canon 6D Mk II. Procewise you won't go wrong.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

bleirer wrote:

What I really want is the 100-400, but I'm trying to stick to around $400 or so used. I mostly care about sharpness, can live without IS if the price is right.

I read some reviews that the original 300mm f4 is still sharper than the current one with IS. Or is the 70-300 sharper than both?

The EF 70-300mm IS Nano USM is as sharp as the 70-300mm L model. It is currently $499 on the Canon website so you may get a better deal elsewhere. Here’s a link to the Canon store for that lens with its description.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/telephoto-zoom/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm/ef-70-300mm-f4-5-6-is-ii-usm

I have that lens and I also have the EF 28-300 3.5-5.6 L IS USM and I think they are comparable for sharpness. I had the original 70-300 lens and it was ok but the Nano beats it hands down.

bleirer

pmorin wrote:

The EF 70-300mm IS Nano USM is as sharp as the 70-... (show quote)

Thanks. I've heard nothing but good things about the version ii 70-300.

bleirer

I see the 300mm lenses are more like $600 and up used, where the 70-300 is more like $400, so I guess I misunderestimated.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

bleirer wrote:

I see the 300mm lenses are more like $600 and up used, where the 70-300 is more like $400, so I guess I misunderestimated.

Knowing now what I did not then, I would have waited and saved up for the 100-400 ver2. It is my most used lens and combined with the 1.4 ver III converter, it is perfect for those really long shots. Now that I have it and the 28-300L, I rarely need anything else.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

bleirer wrote:

What I really want is the 100-400, but I'm trying to stick to around $400 or so used. I mostly care about sharpness, can live without IS if the price is right.

I read some reviews that the original 300mm f4 is still sharper than the current one with IS. Or is the 70-300 sharper than both?

What is the intended usage? If wildlife, you can't extend any of the 70-300 zooms. The 300 f/4 primes are sharper and still have an opportunity to extend. For a general purpose zoom, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is a relative bargain for the image quality delivered.

bleirer

CHG_CANON wrote:

What is the intended usage? If wildlife, you can't extend any of the 70-300 zooms. The 300 f/4 primes are sharper and still have an opportunity to extend. For a general purpose zoom, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is a relative bargain for the image quality delivered.

Mostly it would be to have in the backpack on a trail in a national park, say Yellowstone/GTNP and/or Glacier as examples since we keep returning there. So it might be big wildlife, moose, wolves, bear and such, maybe far off waterfalls, flora and fauna. I rented a 400 last summer and even that didn't have enough reach for how far away many creatures were. I can AF to f11, so the idea of a 300 with an extender is appealing.

Would you say the original 300 f4 is sharper than the current version?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

blb wrote:

eirer Mostly it would be to have in the backpack o... (show quote)

No, I wouldn't say that. Anyone passing around nonsense that Canon L lenses do not improve with each iteration is full of it. The Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens is perhaps best known for its sharpness.

ggab Loc: ?

bleirer wrote:

Mostly it would be to have in the backpack on a tr... (show quote)

First, a question. Which Canon Camera do you have that has AF at f/11? - Never mind, I see the Mirrorless R line will do that with compatible lenses.
Next, the 70-300 nano II can not be used with an extender
Third, the 300 f/4 IS is a wonderful lens. It is not, IMHO, as sharp as my 300 f/2.8 IS but is lightweight and easy to hand hold or pack around all day.

bleirer

ggab wrote:

First, a question. Which Canon Camera do you have that has AF at f/11? - Never mind, I see the Mirrorless R line will do that with compatible lenses.
Next, the 70-300 nano II can not be used with an extender
Third, the 300 f/4 IS is a wonderful lens. It is not, IMHO, as sharp as my 300 f/2.8 IS but is lightweight and easy to hand hold or pack around all day.

I like the idea of an extender. Though I looked at comparison images and the 300 f4 IS with an 1.4 extender, at 400mm, was not quite as sharp as the 100-400 at 400, to my eye. 300 to 300 (300mm f4 IS to 100-400 ii) with no extender they both look quite sharp to me.

I promised myself I would wait and see what the rf 100-500 will cost, but I probably won't want to spend that much.

anotherview Loc: California

You may wish to consider financing in order to get your lens of choice: Canon 100-400mm Mark II. This lens has received raves.

Besides it, you will need only one other lens: 24-105mm.

Some may add a fixed lens like a 50mm.

Let me note that Sigma offers a 100-400mm lens for less. You may wish to look into it, too.

bleirer wrote:

What I really want is the 100-400, but I'm trying to stick to around $400 or so used. I mostly care about sharpness, can live without IS if the price is right.

I read some reviews that the original 300mm f4 is still sharper than the current one with IS. Or is the 70-300 sharper than both?

MountainDave

I have the 300 f/4L IS. It produces exquisite, sharp images including with a 1.4X. However, there are caveats. It is noisy. The AF misses a lot. On crop frames, it misses even more. So, it can be frustrating. I bought mine used and it may be an early production. Perhaps the latest ones address these issues. Read reviews.

Dave

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

MountainDave wrote:

I have the 300 f/4L IS. It produces exquisite, sharp images including with a 1.4X. However, there are caveats. It is noisy. The AF misses a lot. On crop frames, it misses even more. So, it can be frustrating. I bought mine used and it may be an early production. Perhaps the latest ones address these issues. Read reviews.

Dave

Are you shooting in AI Servo? Are you using a vIII extender? Even before looking at focus calibration, it's important the equipment and shooting technique are optimized as well as using Canon's newest releases since the 1DXII / 5DIII models and the updated EOS AF system for vIII extenders and vII L lenses, where 300 f/4L dates back to 1997.

Bryan Stenlund

pmorin wrote:

The EF 70-300mm IS Nano USM is as sharp as the 70-... (show quote)

I am very interested in your take on the canon 28-300 L. When I call BH they say it isn't as clear and sharp as other lenses because of the wide range of telephoto. Are you finding this true. Otherwise the 28-300 seems like the perfect all around lens for many applications.