300F4 IS vs 300F4 non IS

[Hardrock]

Is there a difference in sharpness between the 2? I found the non IS used for about $600 and was wondering if it may be worth it to just go that route. I think IS would be nice but it isnt a deal breaker I would mostly use a monopod while shooting with either lens.

 

[gsgary]

The non IS is sharper i used to have one but i only used it for sports so didn't need IS, it all depends what you shoot if its wildlife i would get IS

 

[Hardrock]

The non IS is sharper i used to have one but i only used it for sports so didn't need IS, it all depends what you shoot if its wildlife i would get IS

Thanks!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Is there a difference in sharpness between the 2? I found the non IS used for about $600 and was wondering if it may be worth it to just go that route. I think IS would be nice but it isnt a deal breaker I would mostly use a monopod while shooting with either lens.

Anti-shake technology makes lenses somewhat less crisp.

 

[icassell]

How are you going to be using it? If you are usually on a tripod, the IS may not make much difference to you. I have the 400 f/5.6L which does not have IS and I hand hold it most of the time with no issues. IS often adds significant weight to the lens in addition to the cost (I don't know about that particular lens). Here's a discussion of the sharpness issue. The MFD of the IS lens is a bit shorter, too.

Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L USM Reviews

 

[Hardrock]

How are you going to be using it? If you are usually on a tripod, the IS may not make much difference to you. I have the 400 f/5.6L which does not have IS and I hand hold it most of the time with no issues. IS often adds significant weight to the lens in addition to the cost (I don't know about that particular lens). Here's a discussion of the sharpness issue. The MFD of the IS lens is a bit shorter, too.

Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L USM Reviews

The 300 f2.8 is out of the question totally. So I would bascially use it for anything ie: sports , wildlife, kids, and what ever else. I would also most likey use it with a 1.4tc. I dont have anything decent above 200mm and I dont like my 75-300 (not sharp at all). I had already decided I was going to get the 300 F4 IS but I found the non IS for pretty cheap and I would prefer the extra sharpness over anything else. After using my 50mm and 100mm primes Im just not happy with anything else (except for my 17-40 its very sharp) my 70-200mm 2.8 IS even irritates me at 200mm f2.8 its looses alot of quality. Thanks for the review though!

 

[icassell]

In addition to my Canon 400 f/5.6L, I own the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. It's a great lens. It's sharp and fast-focus. I got mine on e-bay for a bit over $500.

 

[Hardrock]

In addition to my Canon 400 f/5.6L, I own the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. It's a great lens. It's sharp and fast-focus. I got mine on e-bay for a bit over $500.

Yeah Im real skeptical about zooms(except the Nikon 200-400) I would rather a sharper prime than a zoom. But as far as sharpness how does the 400 compare to the 100-300?

 

[gsgary]

Here's a few 300F4 non IS + 1.4X on an old 10D may put a spanner in the works

300F4 non IS on 1D

 

[icassell]

Well, the 400 prime runs circles around the 100-300 in terms of sharpness and focus speed. I agree with your feeling about zooms. All things being equal, I'd rather have a prime and that's why I bought my 400. It is razor sharp - even wide open - and the focus speed is amazing. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the versatility of a zoom and the Sigma is excellent quality as zooms go.