70-300L on 5D Mark III

[briansquibb]

- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

[snip]

Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?

The lightest zoom is a P&S superzoom which you appear to be concerned about

Looked up the review http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc

The build quality is not comparable to e.g. Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS but it's very good nonetheless

- It is 285g lighter than the 70-300L - not exactly a significant weight advantage.
- it is not weather sealed
- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection
- The lens body is made of quite high quality plastics based on a metal mount.

Verdict - The most interesting question is, of course, how it compares to the genuine Canon lenses in this range. The Tamron manages to stay a little ahead of the consumer-grade Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS but it doesn't totally reach the professional-grade Canon L variant (especially in terms of bokeh quality). Even so it represents an excellent value offer in the APS-C market.

So it is a good budget lens which edges ahead of the 70-300 non L

Is it worth the premium for the 70-300L? - well that is a personal opinion

[K-amps]

I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it.  The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L.  The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive.  The build quality difference is night and day better.

However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).  And it's ideal for portraits.  The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

On the other hand, the 70-300L would be much better on a Safari or other wild-life shoot.

I owned both the 70-200m.ii and the 70-300L and now the 100-400L... I still regret selling the 70-300L... it is visibly superior to the nonL version. The only reason I sold it is that it does not work with the 2x Canon tele's...

[Marsu42]

I owned both the 70-200m.ii and the 70-300L and now the 100-400L... I still regret selling the 70-300L... it is visibly superior to the nonL version. The only reason I sold it is that it does not work with the 2x Canon tele's...

Using the 70-300L with a 2x is maybe not such a good idea anyway? I don't have the Kenko 2x, but the 1.4x and it's working fine, but I wouldn't want to push it any further than that because of loosing af completely and iq breakdown.

- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection

... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.

[briansquibb]

... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.

Readily available on eBay for a few dollars

[Harv]

That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end :-)

Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

Have you tried a Black Rapid hsrness - it makes carrying a lot easier than with the strap

For the record, I'm 70 years old, have two arthritic knees and one arthritic shoulder.  I carry a 70-200 2.8L IS II on a 1D Mk IV around a motocross track most of the day without a problem.  If it gets to feeling a little heavy around my neck, I hang it on my shoulder for a while.

The lens delivers spectacular results and rivals my 300 2.8L IS in image quality.

.....just saying.   

No, I haven't, but perhaps I should.  70 year olds are slow to change how they have done stuff all these years. 

[DanielG.]

... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.

Readily available on eBay for a few dollars

Be careful with the cheap ones. Mine scratched the lens while trying it very carefully for the first time. I got rid of it very quickly (trash).

[awinphoto]

... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.

Readily available on eBay for a few dollars

Be careful with the cheap ones. Mine scratched the lens while trying it very carefully for the first time. I got rid of it very quickly (trash).

I got my collar on ebay for my 70-200 F4...  Not nearly as heavy duty or solid and wouldn't trust it unsupervised (with lens on and camera on tripod)... but fits securely, and on a monopod with the neck strap still attached to me, it works ok. 

[dilbert]

- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

[snip]

Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?

The lightest zoom is a P&S superzoom which you appear to be concerned about

That's comparing apples with oranges. so not really helpful.

Looked up the review http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc

The build quality is not comparable to e.g. Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS but it's very good nonetheless

- It is 285g lighter than the 70-300L - not exactly a significant weight advantage.

Let me translate that for you: it's about the weight of a bottle of water.

- it is not weather sealed
- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection
- The lens body is made of quite high quality plastics based on a metal mount.

If you need these then you wouldn't even be asking the question of whether or not to buy the 70-300L, you simply would.

Verdict - The most interesting question is, of course, how it compares to the genuine Canon lenses in this range. The Tamron manages to stay a little ahead of the consumer-grade Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS but it doesn't totally reach the professional-grade Canon L variant (especially in terms of bokeh quality). Even so it represents an excellent value offer in the APS-C market.

You forgot to mention:

Price/performance: 5 out of 5 (for the Tamron lens)

Additionally, the Tamron 70-300 VC is the 70-300 lens of choice for those that use Nikon, including the D800/E.

[briansquibb]

You forgot to mention:

Price/performance: 5 out of 5 (for the Tamron lens)

Additionally, the Tamron 70-300 VC is the 70-300 lens of choice for those that use Nikon, including the D800/E.

Price/performance - of course it did well, a cheap lens with reasonable performance. A bit like saying a Mustang is better than a Ferrari because of better price/performance.