Gear Talk > Lenses

How's the 70-300L?

(1/7) > >>

     I have a T1i, Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and Canon 200 2.8 and am very spoiled by the image quality.  Anything less would be a very large fail.
     We're off for our big Alaskan trip and I'm undecided (for my telephoto needs) whether to just stick with the 200 2.8 and deal with the limitations (in exchange for the ridiculously great image quality), add a 300 f4 IS (which could potentially be a hassle) or get a 70-300L (which could serve many purposes to include outdoor sports and events). 
     Another option might be a 70-200 f4 IS or non-IS or one of the consumer grade 70-300's. 
     Any insight would be great.

70-300L is a good lens, not too heavy, highly versatile, and nice image quality. On crop bodies like Ti's you will also have great reach. Contrast is awesome, and the IS is new and fast. It lags just a bit on the longer end at 300mm...but that will be really nit-picking.

300L prime of corse would beat it in image quality, but you will lose the versatility of this nice zoom and ability to frame more or less with wild life. Like everything in life, it is always a compromise.

It has a stable spot in my collection and while I periodically threaten I will get rid of this or that lens, this zoom has never been a candidate for unloading if that says anything. Well behaved, affordable, underrated gem.

Oh...and the 70-300L is fully weather sealed, has rounded diaphragm blades...if that matters to you.

if you go the 300f4L you can get a 1.4TC and get 420mm f5.6 with IS too and retain AF on your rebel
the 300f4L takes both 1.4 and even 2x TC very well

i find if 200mm isnt enough then 300 isnt much better so over about 200 you need to go as long as is practical and affordable

Ellery Sneed:
I use the 70-300L frequently on my 60D and to be honest it's hard to tell this lens apart from the 400/5,6L considering sharpness. Contrast is even better on the zoomlens.
I highly recommend it!


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version