PBase

Considering buying a 300 f4 L IS will be used for some sporting,wildlife and land scape ( main use to compress the scene) any advice would be welcome. Will be using with a Canon 5D.

I use this lens on a 30D & 1D mk III - excellent optics with fast AF, sharp when shot at f/4, early IS that's good for about 2 stops. It takes a 1.4x TC very well, but the aperture is now f5.6. 300mm is somewhat short for wildlife, particularly with full frame, so it depends on the type of wildlife and the lighting. I've only shot a little sports - f/4 may provide a good shutter speed if you're shooting in daylight, I don't know if it will be fast enough with indoor or other reduced light conditions.

Thanks,would not be shooting wildlife from any great distance ,main use would be some landscape work ,from what I have seen so far it appears to be a very sharp lens,just wished I bought one a month ago before all the price rise`s, thanks for your advice.

Hi, I bought said lens earlier this year and I think it's fantastic! Shot a golf day recently and got some really impressive results out of it. I've also used it for wildlife (in my galleries there are some Water Vole pics I took with it) and again been incredibly impressed. Like DougJ said, It takes a 1.4x converter very nicely too with little image degradation. I use it on a 5D and a 20D and it works very well on both (although for wildlife you're better using the "crop" bodies)

Wildlife is more about how close you can get to your subject than just how big your lens is, although you are of course better equipped with a longer focal length. I managed to get a shot of a Water Vole on a 24-105 that was more than passable (albeit using the 20D to get a 170mm "effect") but it meant VERY patiently edging closer and being very quiet....

I've seen comparisons with the 300 f2.8 and the more expensive lens is better, but WAYYY outside of my budget and the f4 version holds it's own very well....

HTH!

As Dave said, the f/4 compares very favorably to the f/2.8. Here is a small gallery with some comparisons mostly of the 300mm f/4 & f/2.8 versions, with and without TCs. I was a bit surprised just how well the f/4 compared as the f/2.8 is one of Canon's legendary lenses in terms of image quality. I use them both, but if I don't need f/2.8, or the 2.0x TC, the f/4 is my first choice as it's smaller, lighter and more compact. I can carry a body, the 300 f/4 and another lens in a shoulder bag, I need a backpack with the f/2.8. The f/4 is easier to handhold, while I need a monopod after awhile with the f/2.8.

http://www.pbase.com/dougj/lens_tests

Here is a selection of shots taken with the 5D plus 300 f/4 L IS.

http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_300_f4l_is_with_5d

Cheers
Sheila

PS Thanks for your nice comments!

The f/2.8, apart from being very expensive, is also quite large and heavy.
That is always worth thinking about - it may not be an issue for you.
On the plus side, you can use the 2.8 with a 2x TC and not lose AF.

I have the f/4 and I'm quite happy with it.