For the price the 300mm F4 is the best bargain tele on the market.

At 4.0 the 300mm 4.0L is almost as sharp as the 300mm 2.8L IS at 2.8! I think that speaks well about the 2.8 lens. Background blur looks great, imo.

Makes sense I used to shoot the f4 for a few years winter sports. The F4 was very sharp

Thanks for the great comparison!

Thank you for this great comparison!

Thanks for the comparison. It is very helpful

can you do a comparison between the canon ef400 2.8 with 2x convertor and the ef 800 5.6

Thanks for a comprehensive test, for me it would be difficult to justify the 2.8 based on price and weight. Thanks again

@hattrickster33

7 жыл бұрын

Definitely not worth it. There are maybe a few situations where the f/2.8 would actually be meaningful. Extremely low light would be the most obvious one. But for that price, I would rather get the 400mm f/4 DO IS II.

i got the 300mm f4 for 150$ on Ebay. best deal ever

@Leo_Santisteban

2 жыл бұрын

What! That’s an awesome deal. Was it an auction or how did you get it for such a low price?

Well done! Very nice video. Thanks

@TomeRodrigo

4 жыл бұрын

Your welcome.

Can you do a comparison on the Canon 200mm f2 and f1.8

Which Camera did you use?

Super recenze ! Díky moc :-) Opravdu je nestabilizovaná verze ostřejší než stabilizovaná ? Fotím sport na 1/400 a kratší, a upřímně mě překvapuje, že sklo z roku 91 je i dnes OK ... Mám 7dM2 a 5dM4 ... Super by bylo video se srovnáním IS a bez ... :-)

@TomeRodrigo

4 жыл бұрын

Dik, 300mm f4 L IS mi prisla menej ostra ako bez IS ..ale zase 300mm bez IS mala viacej aberacie.

thank you for sharing, good video.

Its not always about buttering the BG, the f/2.8 means faster shots, sharper hand held and it also means you can add 2x and 1.4x extenders and still get AF, you can't get any kind of AF with the 2x with the f/4.

@ilovebohol

6 жыл бұрын

Chuck Norris canon 1d series cameras can AF at f8 on center af point.

How many meters back are the people on the next bench?

Thanks for the information

It's a awesome review. Thank you!!!

Well done. Not much talk and direct to the point. Changing from the full picture to zoom in. I like the review. Thx.

@TomeRodrigo

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks

Ahoj, dobré porovnanie ☺👍 Zvažujem 300mm f/4 IS. Sú s tým po rokoch dáke ťažkosti? Mal som Nikon 300mm f/4, roky fungoval v pohode, ale na diskusných fórach písali, že na tom zvykol odísť zaostrovací motorček... preto ma zaujíma aj Canon.

@TomeRodrigo

5 жыл бұрын

Ahoj, co som vlastnil 300mm f4 L IS zopar rokov tak nikdy som s tym nemal najmensi problem, neviem povedat ako to bude fungovat po 10 rocnom pouzivani..Fotky z toho boli fajn v tej dobe, vacsinou som s tym fotil vtactvo. Hovori sa ze Canon 300mm f4 L IS nie je uplne najostrejsi na plnej diere. Ked som to mal sam moznost vyskusat o par rokov neskor tak sa mi to len potvrdilo. Predtym ked som ten obejktiv vlastnil tak som este nebol taky pixel peeper a pouzival som ho na 20D a 5D mk1. Neskor som ho testoval na 5d mk2 a mal som uz aku taku predstavu ze ako by mal byt ostry na plnej diere. To sa zial nedialo. 300mm f4 bez IS je ostrejsi na plnej diere ale zase ukazuje vacsiu aberaciu.

@MM-zd6wf

5 жыл бұрын

@@TomeRodrigo Vďaka za obšírnu odpoveď 😀 Ono, tieto kusy sú už staršie a nedá sa od nich očakávať to, čo od nových, ale je až neuveriteľné, že aj po toľkých rokoch je kvalita viac, ako slušná. Aspoň na Nikone, ten je dobrý už na f/4, ale predpokladám, že Canon stačí zacloniť o jedno číslo a je to dobré. Novšie objektívy sú super, ale nie natoľko, aby som za ne dal 2 až 3-násobok... Ináč, pozerám sa na recenziu, pozerám a tak si vravím, že tento chlapík mi je dáky povedomý. Keď som videl názov fotografie "porovnanie", pozrel som sa aj na ostatné videá a keď som zbadal to makro, rozsvietilo sa mi. Ty si robieval to super makro skákaviek na ephoto, všakže? Tuším, že to bude už aj zo 10 rokov... 😀👍

@MM-zd6wf

5 жыл бұрын

@@TomeRodrigo Tak zdanenie nie vždy klame... Vďaka ešte raz a čo iné sa dá zaželať, ako dobré svetlo? 📷 ☺

@TomeRodrigo

5 жыл бұрын

@@MM-zd6wf Dakujem ..aj tebe prajem a nech sa dari ..

@MM-zd6wf

5 жыл бұрын

@@TomeRodrigo Vďaka 👍

does the bokeh effect is same on 300 2.8 at f4 and 300 4 at f4

Ahoj, chci se zeptam...Přemýšlím o koupi Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Má to v dnešní době pořád smysl? Chtěl bych ho na focení wildlife fotky. Mám Canon RP a objektiv 70-200mm f2.8 II IS USM, ale chtěl bych něco delšího. Nebo jsem přemýšlel o extenderu na 70-200, ale trochu se bojím té kvality. Děkuji za odpověď. 🙂

@TomeRodrigo

2 жыл бұрын

Zdravim. Osobne do Canonu 300mm f4 L IS by som nesiel pretoze podla mna to nie je ostry objektiv na plnej diere. Samozrejme kazdy ma ine ocakavania, ale vseobecne je zname ze Canon 300mm f4 L IS je zvlastne ostry na f4 co je podla mna neakceptovatelne od L objektivu ktory nie je zoom. Verzia bez IS je ostrejsia na f4 ale zase ma vcelku dost fialovej aberacie. Osobne by som sa nebal ist do Canon Extender 1,4x alebo 2x mark3 a skombinovat to s tvojim 70-200 mark2. Kvalita mozno jemne klesne ale stale by to malo byt velmi fajn (aj ked som to nikdy nevyskusal) Ale typujem ze to bude ostrejsie aj s telekonvertorom na plnej diere ako 300mm f4 L IS na plnej diere. Keby som ja osobne mal urobit rozhodnutie pre seba tak by som urcite isiel do telekonvertoru (samozrejme mark3) plus ten Canon ktory uz mas. Samozrejme ja ti neviem slubit ze vysledok bude dobry ale vlastnil som mk3 konverter a boli oba peckove. Urcite ovela lepsie a ostrejsie ako mk2 verzia. Osobne by som Canon 300mm f4 L IS obisiel zdaleka a nikdy do neho neinvestoval. Samozrejme ja ti hovorim svoj nazor kedze ja mam vysoke ocakavania od ostrosti.

@MARTIN_VAGNER

2 жыл бұрын

@@TomeRodrigo děkuji moc za tvůj názor. Moc se mi do něj nechce no, bral bych radši verzi f2.8, ale to je bohužel úplně jiná cena, kterou si zrovna nemohu dovolit. Zkusím si před koupí konvertoru od někoho zapůjčit a pokud se mi to bude zdát fajn tak bych zatím šel do této varianty a časem pořídil něco lepšího, ale pro příležitostní focení zvěře se mi 100tis. Dávat nechce.😁 Děkuji za komentář a ať se daří. 🙂☺️

@TomeRodrigo

2 жыл бұрын

@@MARTIN_VAGNER Pre prilezitostne fotenie zvere by som urcite isiel do telekonvertoru. Ja momentalne najdlhsi objektiv ktory vlastnim je Panasonic Leica 100-400 na micro four thirds. Na mojom panasonic gh4 to funguje ako 800mm..ale ma to priserne clony a v tmavsom dni moc toho neodfotis. Ale na video je to peckove. Na full frame pouzivam 85mm sigmu f1.4 Art. Momentalne nevlastnim nijake biele sklo. Ale keby som isiel do niecoho tak by som urcite kupil 70-200 mark2 a TC 2x mk3 alebo keby som bol bohaty tak Canon 400mm f2.8 L IS najnovsi mark. Dik, nech sa aj tebe dari.

What camera?

Thank you for the video

Thank you so much for making this video. i am shooting with an old 300mm f/4 non stabilized. I was looking to upgrade and get the f2.8 but the difference is not strong enough for me justify the leap.

@shaolin95

7 жыл бұрын

Stephen Rogers you can't be serious. the 2.8 creates magic isolation compared to the F4. Is not even close. It's so good that I use it with my Sony A7Rii

@stephenrogers1163

7 жыл бұрын

I use my 300mm exclusively for racing and attached to my 5DS that 2.8 would work wonders but the sharpness is going to attract more attention than the isolation of the car.

@michael2gen

4 жыл бұрын

Agree!

Helpful

hi, thanks for the comparison, what camera did you use for the tests?

@TomeRodrigo

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks..5d mark II

@bensslightnature

7 жыл бұрын

Tome Rodrigo not good enough. thats why the f4 was as sharp as the f2.8. for real sharpness comparisons, a camera without low pass filter and a new sensor that can resolve all the detail that a lens can transmit should be used. :)

@rodrigojds

7 жыл бұрын

so the 5DS would be ok?

@dengor45hd48

6 жыл бұрын

And next year, and the year after?

nice

end of the day if you need a tripod it's no use to me, half of my shots are taken standing on a wall, climbing up a tree or in a Forrest with very uneven ground. the sigma 100-400 at 1850g with os is just about useable but even then it can still be a pain in the ass.

The bokeh is what your paying for beautiful on the f/2.8

Thank you for this

@TomeRodrigo

2 жыл бұрын

You're welcome.

thanks

Surprisingly, f/4.0 a little more sharp and with a little less chromatic aberrations than f/2.8. ;)

wow the 300 2.8 renders amazing. i absolutely saw better micro contrast with the 2.8. Maybe not resolution, but there is more tone range with the 2.8

Aren't you comparing them in good light? Wouldn't the real difference show up in low light conditions when wildlife photographers need good morning and evening shots?

@sigmaoctantis_nz

7 жыл бұрын

I think most wildlife photographers wouldn't shoot in those times, but they may require fast shutter speeds exposed for the shadows or under foliage and that is where a wide aperture helps.

@MidsierramusingBlogspot

7 жыл бұрын

I disagree, most wildlife are active in the morning and evening and sleep during the day.Additionally, Wildlife, unlike "Landscape" move which requires a faster lens. Finally, the 300mm lens is really short for wildlife in many cases. The 2.8 at least allows for extenders. I have found that the Canon 400 f4 DO is an even better lens for wildlife and is much sharper than the critics claim it to be.

@dengor45hd48

6 жыл бұрын

From my experience, unless it is a fairly small subject at a good distancd, I think I would be using f5.6 on eithe lens to get more of the subject in focus. I xhoot grizzlies, and at f2.8 you would only get the face, or snout and eyes, so f4 or f5.6 would be more appropriate, maaybe even f8. In the field, I don’ see many situations that call for f2.8, so size, weight, and price are why I have the f4 IS. Btw, that old IS system makes all the difference in the world, only 2stops, but it works, unlike the other brand. This is my fav wildlife lens of all time, all things considered.

@DanWS100

6 жыл бұрын

@dengor45 HD: The Grizzly would be in complete focus with either lens wide open since I would be at least a quarter mile away.... Seriously though, I have the F:4 and love it. With today's high-iso cameras (and a little Lightroom noise reduction), it works just fine for a non-pro like me to shoot my sons' HS football game.

Why do you have a pair of old jockey shorts wrapped around the F2.8 lens?

pixel peeping porn. thanks for that!

Im a wildlife/sport photographer. Truthfully no one uses a 300 at f2.8. It is all about the versatility with converters. F8 is where we mostly shoot.

@TomeRodrigo

2 жыл бұрын

Who is we? I've been doing photography over 18 years and had many super sharp L lenses from Canon. I would never invest into an f2.8 lens to be using it mostly on f8. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever, even I understand that you want to have deeper depth of field. I've been having amazing results wide open plus a lovely bokeh.

Barcelona no toros

The constant clicking, moving, and zooming is really annoying. We don't have enough time to even look at something before you move the image around.

The 300mm f/4L is an unreliable buy. For some reason many come new with focus problems. Whether you buy new or used make sure the seller accepts returns. I've returned both new and used because the focus was off - especially at f/4. www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/172-canon-ef-300mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review "Nonetheless the variations in quality are disappointing for a designated L class lens. Assuming you can get a good one the EF 300mm f/4 USM L IS is a highly recommended lens."

@noelcamilleri519

3 жыл бұрын

I brought mine in 2013 at 1300 euros with no issues whatsoever. Very sharp and beautiful colours rendered especially on full frame. We love this lens.

so basically if you don't know what you are doing and just take dumb photos of trees with terrible composition then get the F4 as you won't benefit for all the 2.8 can offer

Get rid of that horrible piano music PLEASE