[Klaus]

Good but the borders/corners could be a little better:[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/611-canon300f4ff"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/611-canon300f4ff[/url]

[netrex]

I wonder how this would stack up against my SMC Pentax-K 300 mm 1:4 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Well, not really, but it would be fun to see a review of the Pentax.

[Guest]

Does the 300F4 L (non IS) a bit better here ?

-

Actually the bokeh looks a lot better than on the 100-400; I suppose this is to be expected. It also seems to be fairly crisp with near focus as well as far focus.

[Klaus]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1303044762' post='7700']

Does the 300F4 L (non IS) a bit better here ?

-

Actually the bokeh looks a lot better than on the 100-400; I suppose this is to be expected. It also seems to be fairly crisp with near focus as well as far focus.

[/quote]



No idea regarding the 300L non-IS.

[Steinar1]

When will we see a test of the equivalent Nikkor on a FF body ? It would be very nice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> and thanks in advance!!

[mst]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1303075250' post='7705']

When will we see a test of the equivalent Nikkor on a FF body ? It would be very nice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> and thanks in advance!!

[/quote]



Not too soon, I'm afraid. It's not on my list at all.



If someone wants to offer a loaner, feel free to contact me, though.



-- Markus

[miro]

Thanks Klaus.

I'm a little disappointed from FF review.

This lens is actually very popular by amateurs at APS-C rather than FF.



Any chance to see APS-C review?



Thanks in advance.

Miro.

[robbert100]

Hi Klaus,



Thank you very much for testing the 100-400, 400-5.6 and 300-4.0L lenses within such a short period. As a satisfied 100-400 user (on both APSC and FF) there was always the feeling that other lenses in the same category (size, price, reach) might be better, esp. if one reads the user reviews on the Internet. Now I know the 100-400, at least for me, is the better lens, far more versatile without sacrificing to much image quality. Only if Canon comes up with a real successor for the 100-400 (better IS, weatherprotection) I will be interested (no, not the new 200-400 4.0L or the 300-2.8L mkII).



Best regards,





Rob

[Klaus]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1303112414' post='7712']

Thanks Klaus.

I'm a little disappointed from FF review.

This lens is actually very popular by amateurs at APS-C rather than FF.



Any chance to see APS-C review?



Thanks in advance.

Miro.

[/quote]



I'm afraid that I'm lacking the time to do so. I've to return the lens tomorrow.

However, the lens has already been tested on APS-C anyway.

[Klaus]

[quote name='robbert100' timestamp='1303114529' post='7714']

Hi Klaus,



Thank you very much for testing the 100-400, 400-5.6 and 300-4.0L lenses within such a short period. As a satisfied 100-400 user (on both APSC and FF) there was always the feeling that other lenses in the same category (size, price, reach) might be better, esp. if one reads the user reviews on the Internet. Now I know the 100-400, at least for me, is the better lens, far more versatile without sacrificing to much image quality. Only if Canon comes up with a real successor for the 100-400 (better IS, weatherprotection) I will be interested (no, not the new 200-400 4.0L or the 300-2.8L mkII).



Best regards,





Rob

[/quote]



I think the primary issue is centering quality. The 400L has, by far, the best quality here so it's more even across the image frame compared to all others. The 300L IS and 100-400L IS show "dips" here and there which is typical for zooms as well as IS/VR lenses.