July 30, 2014, 04:09:20 AM

Author Topic: How's the 70-300L?  (Read 6986 times)

Cory

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 14, 2013, 03:29:45 PM »
     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.
     Thanks.
Canon 70D, 10-18, 35 2.0 IS, 100 2.0 & 200 2.8 II
Canon EOS M/22 2.0

canon rumors FORUM

How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 14, 2013, 03:29:45 PM »

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2013, 03:42:55 PM »
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.
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2013, 04:05:44 PM »
Oh...and the 70-300L is fully weather sealed, has rounded diaphragm blades...if that matters to you.
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4434
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2013, 12:59:51 AM »
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
APS-H Fanboy

Ellery Sneed

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2013, 01:57:56 AM »
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!

rolsskk

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2013, 02:28:51 AM »
Go for the 70-300L, it's a sharp lens (obviously not as much as a 2.8), and I think the tradeoff for reach and maneuverability was worth it. I had never shot it before and I was impressed with it, as it's really not that much bigger than other 70-300s, but smaller than the 70-200L. Here's a couple examples when I shot the Iditarod:




And downtown Anchorage:

axtstern

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
  • EOS M(ediochre)
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 05:49:46 AM »
The above comment is correct, going over 200mm usually requires more than a mere 100mm more.
My suggestion is to go and check out the Sigma 150-500 OS HSM etc...

Yes it is slow, but so is almost everything shorter with an extender.
I limit myself usualy to just one rocket launcher per trip and always have to decide between the Sigma 120-300 and the 150-500. The IQ of the 150-500 is far above the 120-300 so you would not like the faster lens.

Ah.. and a tip: If you go larger then 300mm with stabilizer than consider some extra battery power. These lenses cost power especialy when they suck on the smaller rebel batteries.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 05:49:46 AM »

Cory

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2013, 05:24:49 PM »
Not to be a nitwit, but how's the Tamron 18-270? 
Thanks.
Canon 70D, 10-18, 35 2.0 IS, 100 2.0 & 200 2.8 II
Canon EOS M/22 2.0

Truffaut

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2013, 06:53:09 PM »
I had the non-L 70-300 and switched to the L-version. In my opinion, the non-L-version is overrated. Of course I can only judge it by the copy I've had and it was pretty soft and had low contrast, not only above 200mm. I am very happy with the 70-300L : It's  sharp, has nice colours and contrast, great AF and IS. It's IQ is much better than my 24-105L.  And I like the way it looks and feels, too. It's not exactly a lightweight, that's the big advantage of the non-L version beside the price. But I bought mine here in switzerland second hand, as good as new for about 1000$. It's worth the money.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 06:56:39 PM by Truffaut »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4434
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2013, 06:55:18 PM »
Not to be a nitwit, but how's the Tamron 18-270? 
Thanks.

absolutely horrible and that my nice way of putting it...
APS-H Fanboy

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2013, 07:43:36 PM »
The 70-300L is a very nice lens. It is light and compact, making it easy to carry around.

It can be a little slow in low light, and while I have used it for sports, I do prefer to use the 70-200 f/2.8 mark ii.

If you want to stick an extender on the 70-300L it should be a Kenko, as the Canon's do not work (though some claim Canon's do work if the lens if fully extended - not something I would every try).

At the end of the day, I am a very strong believer in you get what you pay for. The 70-300L is a great lens, and it is very affordable when compared to the long primes and some of the other whites.
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

Cory

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2013, 08:54:55 PM »
Thanks for the help.  I've got it narrowed down to the 70-300L or the 300 4.0 IS.

 ;D
Canon 70D, 10-18, 35 2.0 IS, 100 2.0 & 200 2.8 II
Canon EOS M/22 2.0

emag

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2013, 09:46:46 PM »
 Took a 70-200/2.8 to AK and found it plenty.  Wish I'd had my Tokina 11-16 back then.  PL won't work that wide, so bracketed and post work is needed.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2013, 09:46:46 PM »

Greatland

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2013, 10:07:57 PM »
I just took my 70-300 to Tanzania and had it on my MK IV most of the time, while I had my 600 II on my 1DX....The 70-300 performed superbly as my wife used it and got some very nice shots at the max aperture.....It is a very fine lens....Oh, and before I forget, the combination of the 1DX and the new 600, WITH THE 1.4 EXT. is as fine a long range camera set up as there is...the pictures that I got with the extender were as good as the ones without using it....THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS FOLKS....If you are contemplating the 1DX and/or the new 600 and doubting either for any reason, STOP THE DOUBTING....unbelievable I all I can say!!

SteveCSmith

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2013, 11:16:33 PM »
I, too, upgraded from the 70-300 IS to the 70-300L.  The upgrade was worth every penny.  The 70-300L was my first L glass and, of course, I'm hooked.  The consumer version I had was horrible - hazy pictures all the time.  I finally got what I expected when I upgraded.

The only time the 70-300L isn't suitable is high speed in moderate light or just low light.  Actually, I thought it was okay until I got my 70-200 2.8 IS v2 - then I saw the low light/focus speed difference.  That said, though, I was able to "stop the prop" on some photos of an airshow last year at high noon with the 70-300L on the 60D.

The 70-300L is certainly more walk-around friendly, hands down, than the 70-200 2.8.

Can't comment on the 300 F4 - never shot one - but I have no desire for one with the 70-300L in the toolkit.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How's the 70-300L?
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2013, 11:16:33 PM »