You are at netAirspace : Forum : Spotting and Photography Forums : Aviation Photography

Lens Test - Canon 300mm F4L (non-IS)

Discuss with fellow aviation photographers, and share your latest shots here.
 

vikkyvik 09 Oct 12, 16:16Post
I've been pondering acquiring the Canon 300 F4L IS as my next lens purchase for a little while now, as my 70-200 is a bit too short in some cases, and performs very inconsistently with the 1.4 extender.

So yesterday, I found myself right by the local camera shop, so figured I would see what lenses they had for rent. Never mind the fact that I drive by said camera shop every day.

Anyway, they only rent lenses if they have used copies, and they happened to have a used copy of the 300 F4L non-IS. So, what the hell, I'm used to shooting without IS anyway.

Took it up to Imperial Hill about an hour before sunset. First impressions:

1.) I am NOT used to following objects at 300mm.
2.) Have to pay attention and plan framing in advance (which is not a bad thing), since you can't zoom in/zoom out. This is especially important, because....
3.) The focus ring is located where the zoom ring typically is. So if, by complete habit, I try and zoom, then I screw up the focus. Dammit.
4.) I was surprised how small and light it is. About the same as my 70-200.
5.) Built-in lens hood is pretty cool.

Now for zee images:









I was really helped out by relatively heat-haze-free conditions. Image impressions (after viewing the images on my computer):

1.) Focusing accuracy was not the best. I'd say worse than my 70-200. 3/5
2.) Focusing speed was also not the best. 3/5
5.) When focusing, my panning, and conditions were all on, the lens was quite sharp. Maybe slightly sharper than the 70-200, but nothing hugely noticeable. Didn't notice any soft spots, even near the edges. 5/5
3.) Color/contrast seemed fine. No complaints. 4/5
4.) I shot at apertures between F4 and F7.1. Lens was plenty sharp at all apertures. 5/5

Averaging my scores, it gets a 4/5. Given the relatively small price difference, I'd still opt for the IS version, methinks.

Hopefully I'll be able to try it again today or tomorrow, a little earlier so the light is better. It's also worth noting that on a lot of days, the shots I posted would be heat-hazed to all hell.
mr chips (Photo Quality Screener) 10 Oct 12, 18:16Post
I didn't even realise there was a non-IS 300mm F4 prime. I had the IS version for several months back in 2009 and the quality was pretty good. Sharp and fast focus at F4 and the IS was relatively good as well. However the inability to zoom in or out didn't appeal to me, especially for aviation, so I sold it and returned to using a Canon 100-400mm.

Now though, as mentioned previously, I'm using the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 OS. It's like a 70-200 F2.8 and 300mm prime, all rolled into one, well on paper anyway. :)
vikkyvik 10 Oct 12, 19:44Post
The lack of zoom is a bit difficult for me to come to terms with, but I wouldn't be looking at purchasing that lens if I didn't think I handle that aspect.

The alternative is, of course, the 70-300L, but that one isn't compatible with the 1.4 extender. {grumpy}

I uploaded some full-size shots taken with the 300 prime. They only have RAW tweaks (exposure, contrast, white balance), and the RAW sharpness setting I use for all my shots. Ignore all the noise....that's operator error:

http://www.vksphoto.com/Other/Full-Size ... 039_zgxtGQ

Click on "O"/"Original" size to see the full 15MP shot.
vikkyvik 13 Oct 12, 07:18Post
Played around a bit with the 300 F4L plus the 1.4 teleconverter:





That 2nd one doesn't have any cropping. Goddamn, it's freaking hard to get that tight a fit centered in the frame at 420mm with no IS!

I uploaded couple full-size photos as well. Same deal as before - only WB, exposure, and contrast edits:

http://www.vksphoto.com/Other/Full-Size ... 039_zgxtGQ

The last two (the UA 753 and the EVA 773) are with the 300 + 1.4.

Overall, shooting at 420mm is....difficult, at least for someone who hadn't done it before. Keeping the aircraft in the center of the frame and trying to cut down on lens shake was a handful. Focus also wasn't as good - I have many more missed-focus shots (though quite a bit of that was probably due to the photographer's inexperience).

Had to return the lens yesterday, and it took an awful lot of willpower not to buy it then and there. {cry}
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT