Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
I was just wondering if anyone here has experience with the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS in aviation photography? I recently saw some detail shots of taxiing aircraft which looked razor-sharp, but how is the result with faster moving objects?
Also, does the image stabilizer still work when panning or is it an earlier IS which is mainly made for standing objects?
At the moment I have the Canon 70-200/F4 L USM and am very happy with it, have also thought of buying the 100-400/3.5-5.6 L IS USM, but maybe a 300mm would be a better choice, even if it does not offer the flexibility of a zoom?
Sorry if this has already been posted, but the search function didn't bring any result.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
I am in exactly the same boat as you Tom, but after testing both lenses i have chosen on the 100-400! Although it is not as fast or as sharp, it is much more flexible and alot better suited to aviation photography!!! The 100-400 can produce some amazing images, just have a look at Ryan Hemmings for proof!!!
If you get this lens you will not be dissapointed!!!
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Fireguy274 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 299 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3455 times:
You loose the AF with the 1.4 Staffan I have the 100-400L IS USM and the 1.4. I do loose the AF with it. This is a great lens Tom and I can highly suggest it. I have both the 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. I like the 70-200 a little better but you cant beat the reach with the 100-400. I think the lens is more versatile than the 300 fixed and you will be happier with it...Artie.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3446 times:
AF - 2x gives an effective aperture of f8 - AF will work only on top end Canon bodies (EOS 1,3 1D 1Ds). AF will work with the 1.4 (effective aperture is 5.6 when used with the 300).
Chris - fact is I use 2 bodies, and usually have the 70-200 on one body, the 300 (usually with a convertor) on the other. If I was using 1 body, I probably would have kept my 100-400, though in practice I don't find fixed focal lengths particularly problematic.
As with all things its a tradeoff - convenience against quality, though don't overlook the fact that with convertors, the 300 can give you more reach than the 100-400
Fireguy274 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 299 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
I have the Canon 10D and the 1.4X extender. The 100-400L USM IS will not work on auto focus with the 1.4X extender. If you read the manual for the extender it tells you this and I have tried it. Stay safe....Artie
Lyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
The 100-400L AF with a converter will not work with anything above f/5.6. So at 400mm, it becomes something like an f/11 as the 2x will add 2 stops. I recently purchased a Canon 2x MkII extender and was quite disappointed with the overall results. I think it will be best suited to something like a 70-200 f/2.8 where AF is still available. You're definitely in tripod country if u add that converter on a 100-400L.
I did attempt a couple of shots on moving subjects. Imagine trying to focus, zoom in/out with a setup that long and heavy. Results improved greatly with the cam on a tripod.
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3372 times:
Thanks guys for the interesting discussion. I only have one body (speaking of my camera), so probably the 100-400 is the more practical solution....
Even though the fixed length 300mm sounds tempting, especially with the 2-mode IS.... Ah well, I still have some time before I get the right... mood ($$$) to buy a third lense, and next month I have the opportunity to try the 100-400. I am still a bit sceptical whether I would like the push/pull zoom though.
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3269 times:
As a first step I have now ordered the Canon 1.4 EF extender to go with my 70-200/F4 L lens. Should give me 280mm (440mm eff.) at F5.6. And the price of 300EUR (US import, incl. customs duty, shipping, VAT) vs 415EUR (Germany) was too tempting....
Regarding the difference between the 300/F4 and the 100-400/4.5-5.6, I was surprised to read in a test that the fixed length 300 with IS actually scored not as good as the 100-400.... the old 300/F4 without IS got better results.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
I've seen many photodo results queried in the past - and none more so than this one. Having had both lenses, I have no hesitation in saying that the 300 is better than the 100-400 at any aperture - hell, the 300 & 1.4 is better than the 100-400 at 400mm.
Not just my view - I've seen this result queried many times in various forums.
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3205 times:
Argh.. Colin, now it was all just so nicely set up (Zoom = greater flexibility + better test results = BUY!!) and then you just let this nice bubble burst
I will use the next weeks to play with my 1.4 extender and test the usual locations at my home airport to see whether a fixed length 300 would be practical there or whether it would guarantee to get the windsocks and lamp posts in the way all the time. Next month I'll test the 100-400 myself and after that I will - hopefully - be much wiser (and probably much poorer....) than now.