Jump to content

New life of Canon EF 300mm f/4 L


Langstrum
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm the owner of some good Canon and legacy manual lenses, so my main purpose of using Sony A7ii is for adapting those lenses, especially the telephoto ones. With the IBIS, the telephoto lenses really shine and I don't have to replace them with much more expensve IS versions. In the case the EF 300mm f/4 L, the IS version is even not as sharp.

I really love this lens, it's among the best lenses Canon ever made (beside the EF 200mm f/1.8 L that I also have), and while it's a 300mm lens, I still can manage to carry it for walking around (which I can't with the f/2.8 version). I use the Viltrox adapter and the autofocus sucks, but I don't need anyway since taking photos from distance allowed me to manually focus more slowly and carefully. Once the focus point is reached, it's really sharp, and very little CA was shown even at the most contrast part of the image. All the photos here I shot during my visit to Philadelphia and Washington. They were shot handholding at wide open all the time, and of course, with the help of IBIS. If you want to see better resolution, click to each photo to go to its Flick link. 

Thank you Sony, that's the whole new life for my lenses.

20995765608_14a2f5af14_b.jpg

 

20995556550_ea2f4f1552_b.jpg

 

20994459190_b494f2c9a5_b.jpg

21172297272_507a02a94b_b.jpg

 

21157436136_18fee7c12a_b.jpg

21191522981_4f080fc61f_b.jpg

21173386812_aba2c11ee4_b.jpg

21191523701_3c4057852b_b.jpg

21157435306_a37da74bf6_b.jpg

21191521051_76046d096b_b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi have you noticed any improvements in af with the lastest firmware updates?

Yes, big improvement, now A7ii can work with most of my adapters, even the cheap ones. However some old lenses are still not fast and the accuracy is adapter-dependent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hmm that's pretty dreadful indeed... My 18-105 for sure is sharper than that. If I have time tomorrow I'll shoot an example with mine at 40mm f/8 side by side with the 16-55. Sold my kit lens when I bought the 18-105 so can't compare those anymore.
    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...