How's the 70-300L?

[RS2021]

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.

Glad it found a place in your line up.

As for low light performance, one has to remember the zoom's intended use. Given the longer focal length range and the aperture range, this is clearly not a lens intended for typical indoor use even in large venues or super low light outdoors.

What it is intended for is as a walk around medium- to "upper-medium" telephoto zoom that is affordable, light weight, weather-sealed with overall L quality build, and provides crisp images.

It is great for safari from Jeep or elephant or open van tours...with herds and big cats...minimal air show work or racing...visits to your local zoo... photographing urban birds like odd owls, chickadees, cardinals and bluejays that visit backyards... meaning closer range telepho work...but not ideal for really super-tele work with skittish animals at far distances.

Most of what I list is done in daytime typically under adequate light...the lens performs fine even on grey days just not under really low light. Overall a nice zoom.

[sagittariansrock]

I'm surprised Paul hasn't chimed in yet! Must be busy with other stuff...

[pj1974]

I'm surprised Paul hasn't chimed in yet! Must be busy with other stuff...

Who? Me? Or another Paul? 

I have the 70-300mm L USM IS - upgraded from the Canon 100-300mm USM - and the L is night and day a MUCH better lens.  I've also used the Canon 70-300mm nonL, and Tamron 70-300mm.

The 70-300mm L is one of the best all purpose tele zoom lenses out there, portable, great range, awesome IQ.

Go for it!! (if within yr budget).

Paul

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Not to be a nitwit, but how's the Tamron 18-270? 
Thanks.

absolutely horrible and that my nice way of putting it...

Yes, you are being too nice about it.

[twagn]

Probably my next lens, Love my 70-200 f/4 IS and it can hold it's own with a 1.4x tele, but the 70-300L is reasonably priced (for an L) with no tele converter. 70- 300MIL is a great intermediate focal length lens. Other than being a tad slow on the long end...I've heard good things!   

[sdsr]

The statement that the 70-300L isn't so good in low light may be true when the lens is attached to some bodies, but in my experience it works superbly when attached to a 6D (the same is likely true of other FF bodies); focus is fast and accurate, and the results look excellent even when the camera is hand held thanks to the first rate IS (provided your subject isn't moving around, at least).  I would (and did) buy it instead of the 300mm f/4.   

[shtfmeister]

use it on my 7d and find it to focus well in all light

[TAF]

I have the 70-300L IS USM for use with my 5D3, and I find the images it provides excellent.

Build quality is outstanding, it seems to work decently in low light for me (never had any issues), and though I find the forward zoom ring a bit annoying, I adjust quickly enough.

But I will take issue with the folks who think it is "light".  Hardly.  It is sufficiently heavy that it gets used less than it might otherwise, in favor of the 24-105L and some "foot zoom".

However, it is great at air shows and the zoo - places where you can't adjust the framing by walking.

Very glad I didn't get the 28-300L (which I considered), as that lens is substantially heavier still.

[djwave]

and




Good lens on 5d mk3

[RS2021]

@djwave   great shots. The zoom is great for this kind of work. And it is absolutely built like a tank.

[Random Orbits]

I have the 70-300L IS USM for use with my 5D3, and I find the images it provides excellent.

Build quality is outstanding, it seems to work decently in low light for me (never had any issues), and though I find the forward zoom ring a bit annoying, I adjust quickly enough.

But I will take issue with the folks who think it is "light".  Hardly.  It is sufficiently heavy that it gets used less than it might otherwise, in favor of the 24-105L and some "foot zoom".

However, it is great at air shows and the zoo - places where you can't adjust the framing by walking.

Very glad I didn't get the 28-300L (which I considered), as that lens is substantially heavier still.

Light is relative.  It's a bit lighter than the 70-200L II + ext or the 100-400L, which are the some other L zoom options.  It's also more compact than the 70-200 II, which helps because I can stuff in a a small camera bag.

[sagittariansrock]

I'm surprised Paul hasn't chimed in yet! Must be busy with other stuff...

Who? Me? Or another Paul? 

It's you.. someone with real-life experience with the lens and fond of it
My very brief experience reflected the same but isn't as informative.

[RGF]

About a year and a half ago, I got the 70-300L and I use almost all the time when I need something in this focal range.  THough not as sharp as my 70-200F2.8, it is much lighter and sharp enough.

Great lens.

[jhanken]

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.

I agree with this assessment.  I own the non-L 70-300 IS, and while I have enjoyed having and using it, the photos I took on my 5D with the 70-300L (rental) show a significant improvement in contrast, color and overall image quality.  Something about the non-L version, there is almost a color dampening haze compared to images from the L taken at the same event.

[Crocker64]

I have owned the the EF 70-300mm L IS USM for about a year now.
I bought it secondhand at a prize of around €1.000 - hardly used and as good as new.

It´s a fantastic lens. I use it with a 5d Classic for aviation and motorsports. I have even shot a few portraits with this lens, and the results were quite good.
Previously I used a Sigma 50-500mm, and I could not believe the difference I saw in image quality after taking my first pictures with the 70-300mm L lens.
Using focal lengths above 200mm, it´s a good idea to stop the lens down to F/8 - that will give you tack sharp pictures in this range.
Get to know this lens and the image quality will blow you away :-)

As others have said: Worth every penny. Highly recommendable :-)

I have since aquired a 300mm F/2.8 IS USM prime, but I wouldn´t dream of selling the 70-300mm anyway. The zoom is great for travelling: Very compact, light, built like a tank, weather-sealed and not overly expensive.   

A few examples:







Best regards
Bo