70-300L for Outdoors?

[pj1974]

Hi there

I also have the 70-300mm L, and LOVE this lens. It's got great IQ at any setting, great fast / accurate USM focus, and a 4-stop effective IS.

While it's not 'fast' (as in f/2.8 or larger aperture) - I don't need that, as I use the 70-300mm L for outdoors, and usually for wildlife, including birds - and occasionally for candid photography. 

I have travelled with the 70-300mm L - it's very portable.  I actually PREFER the order of the zoom and focus rings that way (as I hold the lens at the zoom ring, and brace/  hold with the other hand on my camera body).

Well matched to APS-C, is often on my Canon 7D, providing a 480mm effective in 35mm format.   Great build quality too.  I got mine for a good price soon after it was released! Winner

Best wishes with that.

Paul

[Ninjajack]

Can't imagine you will regret that purchase.  I love mine and it's size is perfect...lives on my 7D.
Diane

QFT, same for me, I haven't taken it off of my 7D in months

[miah]

By all accounts the 70-300L is a fine lens, but as others have pointed out it's quite big and heavy when mounted on a lightweight Rebel. I use the 70-300 DO on my T3i and find it a better match, especially for travel. IQ on the DO is very good above f/5.6, if not quite as good as the L, provided you always use the accompanying lens hood to improve contrast. In short, both lenses have the same range and reach, but the DO is considerably smaller and lighter (and not as well weather sealed).

[SteveCSmith]

I love the 70-300L (hated the non-L).  My first L glass (and, of course, now I'm addicted), I was, and still am, blown away by the IQ.  I found myself purchasing the 70-200 2.8 IS II a year later when it went on sale because this didn't cut it for low light and/or sports (as should be expected), but still prefer the 70-300 when reaching for one - extra reach, smaller, and lighter.

I just wish I didn't have accessorize with a plethora of filters... polarizers multiply up too fast.

[K-amps]

Every bit as good as the 70-200 mk.ii (except 1 stop slower) in IQ. I sold mine to get the 100-400 because the 100-400 took TC's, but regretted it... the 70-300 is as sharp as the 70-200 mk.ii, with great color and contrast. There is also little to no reported copy variations, i.e. QC is great on them, every owner seems to be very happy with it.

The F2.8 has better Bokeh and is faster and perhaps faster AF, but is pricier, heavier and shorter.

The 70-300 is very underrated (due to f5.6) but otherwise every bit as worth for the red and white paint job 

Go ahead and get one, you will not be disappointed.

[unfocused]

I just want to comment on the IS of this lens. It is fantastic.

A few months ago, I needed to shoot a presentation in a very very poorly lit school library. I found that by bracing myself carefully and waiting for the speakers to pause, I could get usable shots even going down to about 1/8th to 1/15th of a second.

More and more, when I'm packing to go shoot outdoors, I'll put the 15-85 on my 7D, pack this lens in my bag and leave everything else at home.

[papa-razzi]

I have the 70-300L and use it almost exclusively for outdoor sports - football, soccer, cross country and track.

I use it with a 7D.  My exeperience - AF is excellent, rarely misses, very sharp lens, IQ is great, the reach & range is perfect, and it is light enough to hand hold easily.  For what I use it for, this "relatively" affordable lens is perfect.

I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (M1).  The AF can't keep up with the 70-300L - I stopped using it for outdoor sports in favor of the 70-300L, even with lower light situations (cloudy or dusk).  I'd rather use a higher ISO and get in-focus shots than a lower ISO with a lot of misses.

[alan_k]

I have a 60D, and use the 70-300L quite a bit. It is a really great lens given the size/weight. The AF is fast, IS is fantastic. I think the IS makes up a bit for not being as fast as an f/4 or f/2.8, although you miss the control over depth of field, and fast moving sports could be a bit of a problem. Most of my use is with distant wildlife where that isn't as much of a concern. If you are a lot closer to your subjects you might opt for one of the 70-200s.

I bought the kenko 1.4x 300 Pro teleconverter, and I don't think this is a worthwhile purchase (in my case). I did some informal tests and in my experience cropping a bit more on a photo w/o the converter leads to similar IQ as a photo with the kenko on.  I think the only advantage might be in very small subjects that would be missed by the AF at 300mm but would be caught by the AF with the extra magnification.

I did get a 3rd party tripod collar and if you plan to use this on a tripod at all I think it's a good purchase. It's pretty frustrating to frame a shot on a ball-head when you have something so front-heavy. You certainly don't need a tripod though- this lens is very hand-holdable.

Getting a grip for your camera will make the balance a lot better, gives you added battery life, controls for vertical shooting, and makes you look cool! 


Male Greater Sage-grouse  in flight by alankrakauer, on Flickr


super_moon1_50 108 by alankrakauer, on Flickr


glacier_deer 208 by alankrakauer, on Flickr

[Marsu42]

I bought the kenko 1.4x 300 Pro teleconverter, and I don't think this is a worthwhile purchase (in my case). I did some informal tests and in my experience cropping a bit more on a photo w/o the converter leads to similar IQ as a photo with the kenko on.

Are you sure you've got a good copy of the tc and the lens? Everything I've read including my own experience with this combination is that it's better than cropping (though how large the margin is is subjective, I didn't shoot charts).

I think the only advantage might be in very small subjects that would be missed by the AF at 300mm but would be caught by the AF with the extra magnification.

Again, my experience is different - af is more tiresome with the tc on esp. in single point af mode since the af often hunts @f8, esp. in dim light or bad contrast.

[alan_k]

I've certainly had no cause to suspect the lens, so it is possible I have a bad or mis-matched TC. To be honest I just used it a few times, wasn't terribly happy with it, and haven't gone back to it. All I can go by is my experience with this one model.

The AF is definitely slower with the TC, but it's not impossible to use. I felt like this was a case where a focus limiter would be handy, as the slowness was compounded by missing focus a little more often, and having to rack through the range. Even so, I was able to hand-hold 300mm in fairly low light and get ok results.

A bit more perspective, my 70-300L was an upgrade from the older version of the 70-300 IS (non-L). This was the first L lens I had. Perhaps if you already have a stable full of L lenses your perspective might be different, but I think this lens is the bees knees.