Just bought a new Canon EF 70-300L IS USM lens.

[Richard8971]

Well, I had been wanting a little more reach than my 70-200 f4L IS USM lens could give so I sold it and my EF-s 60mm macro (I really liked that little lens) and bought a new EF 70-300L lens from Adorama.

I replaced my 60mm macro with the EF 100mm USM (non IS, already had one but the ex wife got that one in the seperation...) I thought about getting the 100-400 but I really wanted a nice walk around zoom so the 70-300L seemed perfect.

I have spoken to people who have one and they love it. What are your experiances? Good? Bad?

 

[RS2021]

Highly underrated lens...excellent IS.... Great IQ ...congrats.

 

[Richard8971]

Highly underrated lens...excellent IS.... Great IQ ...congrats.

Thanks Ray, that is almost exactly what I have heard. I ran into a lady a week ago who had one on her 5D2 and she said she never takes it off. She remarked how fast the AF is and how super sharp the photos were. She showed me a few pics on her camera and I was pretty impressed. I believe I made a great choice.

D

 

[Renegade Runner]

Highly underrated lens...excellent IS.... Great IQ ...congrats.

Thanks Ray, that is almost exactly what I have heard. I ran into a lady a week ago who had one on her 5D2 and she said she never takes it off. She remarked how fast the AF is and how super sharp the photos were. She showed me a few pics on her camera and I was pretty impressed. I believe I made a great choice.

D

Congratulations. Excellent high end, affordable lens. You did make a great choice. Enjoy it.

 

[nickorando]

I much prefer it in every way to the 70-200 f4 L IS - it's better made, has (slightly) better IQ, and much better reach. The only advantage the 100-400 has is the 300-400 range. I personally think the 70-300 L is one of Canon's very best lenses, and certainly one of their best-kept secrets.

 

[pj1974]

I much prefer it in every way to the 70-200 f4 L IS - it's better made, has (slightly) better IQ, and much better reach. The only advantage the 100-400 has is the 300-400 range. I personally think the 70-300 L is one of Canon's very best lenses, and certainly one of their best-kept secrets.

+1

I bought the Canon 70-300mm L a short while after it was released (and thankfully I got a great deal from a local, Australian bricks and mortar retailer). Initially I was looking at the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD (and even bought a 62mm filter for it) to replace my Canon 100-300mm USM (non IS). But then the L was announced and in store too.

So I went and tried the 70-300mm L out. I was very impressed with the quality wide open (f/5.6) at 300mm - which is the setting I would use it most at. Also, though it's an L and solid, it was remarkable how transportable the 70-300mm L still is (being 'short' and stubby).

Therefore I bought it, and have NEVER looked back. It's IQ is so good, very close to the best of any of Canon's zooms.. and with USM focussing is awesome for BIF which I do a lot of (using my 7D, effective reach of 480mm. The 4 stop effective IS helps so much too.

All the best with it... I can highly recommend this lens. Matched with my Canon 15-85mm, a great 'travel duo'!

Paul

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Well, I had been wanting a little more reach than my 70-200 f4L IS USM lens could give so I sold it and my EF-s 60mm macro (I really liked that little lens) and bought a new EF 70-300L lens from Adorama.

I replaced my 60mm macro with the EF 100mm USM (non IS, already had one but the ex wife got that one in the seperation...) I thought about getting the 100-400 but I really wanted a nice walk around zoom so the 70-300L seemed perfect.

I have spoken to people who have one and they love it. What are your experiances? Good? Bad?

awesome lens, comparable to the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS for image quality (better at the extremes (near 70mm and 200mm), worse (not because it is bad but because the 70-200 f/4 IS becomes like a 135 prime there just about, so it's more really good vs ridiculously good than decent vs great) in the middle when comparing them over 70-200 range and better than the 70-200+1.4x TC for 201-280mm part of the range) (copy variation may swap things around a bit, this is how it was with my copies and I get the feeling with most copies on average but I have seen results that seemed to be reliable where it came out a bit differently)

you give up constant f/4 which isn't ideal for action (it does maintain f/4.5 for a good chunk of the 70-200 range though for stills), but you gain a higher quality 200-300 without the super hassle of swapping TC on and off and maintain a nice travel/walk-around size and weight

it is probably my single most used lens, although the new 24-70 II may bring it to a draw

for pure wildlife focus the 100-400 is better since you get a lot more reach but otherwise the 70-300 has a much nicer range on the wide end on FF for general usage and it's much smaller and lighter (the 100-400, 70-200 2.8, sigma 100-300 4 and such are really different lenses in that they are not also nice little travel lenses too as the 70-200 4 and 70-300s are) and has better image quality over the shared range plus better AF and IS

 

[JPAZ]

First, congrats on your new acquisition. Use it well!

Ah, you've re-sparked my dilemma. I love my 70-200 f4 IS for its IQ and utility. But, now that I've got a FF, I miss the reach. The 1.4x helps but I keep looking at the 70-300 L. I'd have to sell the 70-200 to help "fund" a 70-300 L, and that's what's got me nervous. I don't want to look back and wish I'd kept it. It is reassuring to see the comments about the 70-300 vs a 70-200 with a TC above. Just "thinking aloud" but I would say my very improved high iso performance on the 5diii could more than offset the loss of the constant f4 I've got now, but I keep debating with myself.

Anyone want to put themselves into my shoes and think what they'd do?

JP :-\

 

[pp77]

You might already know the CR guy's review of the lens:

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

 

[Richard8971]

In a little more detail, here is what happened. I sent my 70-200 f4L IS USM and my 60mm macro to Adoramda after they sent me an email stating that they were interested in making a deal on my equipment. I have bought several things from them and they have always been professional and honest.

They examined my equipment and told me that they would give me $750.00. I know they are in the market to make money so I didn't complain too much about the price they offered me. I told them I wanted to trade those lenses for a EF 70-300L. The gentleman I spoke with offered me the USA (not grey market) 70-300L for the same price as the grey market version. ($1250.00 vs $1600) The lens included the case, hood, front and rear caps.

Well, it cost me 500 bucks to seal the deal but I agreed. I spent a little more than I was hoping for but I got the lens I really wanted at a great price. It shipped today and I can't wait to take it out and use it.

Thanks everyone for the input. Now I am regreting not getting 2 day air shipping on the thing!

D

 

[alan_k]

Great lens. If you don't need the extra stop and/or canon TC, I think you'll be happy with it. The IS is fantastic.

 

[Richard8971]

Great lens. If you don't need the extra stop and/or canon TC, I think you'll be happy with it. The IS is fantastic.

I rarely shoot under f8. And the loss of being able to use a TC isn't that big of a deal. I should get it this coming Tuesday via UPS.

D

 

[tome223]

Ugh. I'm jealous. Bh and adorama had 70-300l on sale for $1099 a few days ago. Sale only lasted several hours before they want back up to 1250 / 1300

 

[Drizzt321]

I've considered this lens, but I've developed an addiction to f/2.8 or faster. That and I love to shoot in crazy lighting, which means the >= f/4 just doesn't do it for me. Unfortunately, it's got great range, and otherwise would win out for me even that it's not quite up to the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 for sharpness/IQ I'd still take it if it was wider than f/4.

 

[Richard8971]

I just got my 70-300L from Adorama. This thing is a beast. Heavy and solid but nice and compact when the barrel is retracted. I can't wait to try this thing this weekend.

That doesn't mean I didn't crack off a couple of test shots and let me tell you what... this thing is razor sharp (indoors, poor lighting, on camera flash) at even 300mm. This sucker was made for some serious shooting. I will keep you posted and post some sample shots from this coming weekend.

D

 

[Marsu42]

I have spoken to people who have one and they love it. What are your experiances? Good? Bad?

Good/Bad is relative, for me the 70-300L has a very good price-weight-size-reach-iq-build-is combination, on ff is still ok as a longer walkaround, the one problem is that af @f5.6 is not optimal making this an "outdoor" lens in contrast to the 70-200/2.8. And the 70-300L doesn't work with Canon tc (but with Kenko).

Imho its really funny how the reputation of this lens rises, when I bought it a year ago most reviews basically said that its overpriced and the iq is not good enough, esp. in comparison to the non-L model. But now that the new Canon "double the price" strategy is in effect, the 70-300L esp. in combination with a rebate is a good choice. But of course I'd switch it for the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 for free ;-)

 

[GaryJ]

Have one for over a year now,must agree with Marsu42 about the reputation.On my 7D it works fine,not a patch on the 70-200 L IS II whose image IQ is outstanding.I find the 70-300 to be sharp,colour good,really only a daylight lens as it is let down by the apertures available,a touch more contrasty than I would prefer,lack of money means this will have to me.All in all ,not a bad lens by any means,hunts for focus in less than well lit conditions but can be lived with.your experience may different to mine,I live in Queensland Australia and have no lack of sunshine,41 degrees celcius here today,so the lens performs to my satisfaction.

 

[expatinasia]

I have the 70-300L IS USM and the 70-200 Mk II IS USM and the difference in weight is considerable, albeit not on paper. The 70-300L is an excellent lens for outdoor, travel etc but it can be slow and in low light, or why I need more speed, I always prefer the 70-200.

Both excellent lenses, but unless you need 2.8 then the major considerations should be the price, the weight and the ease of portability.

 

[Steb]

I also own the 70-300L and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I rate the IQ of the 70-200 slightly better and of course the 2.8 is awesome. But it is more of a special purpose lens. You think twice before you take it with you. I would carry the 70-300 with me at any time. It is very compact and light compared to the other zoom. Enjoy it!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

First, congrats on your new acquisition. Use it well!

Ah, you've re-sparked my dilemma. I love my 70-200 f4 IS for its IQ and utility. But, now that I've got a FF, I miss the reach. The 1.4x helps but I keep looking at the 70-300 L. I'd have to sell the 70-200 to help "fund" a 70-300 L, and that's what's got me nervous. I don't want to look back and wish I'd kept it. It is reassuring to see the comments about the 70-300 vs a 70-200 with a TC above. Just "thinking aloud" but I would say my very improved high iso performance on the 5diii could more than offset the loss of the constant f4 I've got now, but I keep debating with myself.

Anyone want to put themselves into my shoes and think what they'd do?

JP :-\

I think it's good enough to give up the 70-200 f/4 IS (a lens I never though to give up). Tried a Tamron 70-300VC too. That was very good for that sort of lens but just no way I could give up my amazing 70-200 f/4 IS for that. With the 70-300L I was able to sell off my 70-200 f/4 IS (I did delay the sale for six months ;D it's a hard lens to let go, but it was virtually never getting used and that was way to much money on the shelf).

I'd stick with the 70-200 f/4 IS is if it is to be both your main walk-around long lens and primary wide field sports lens paired with a long prime and you consider that shooting to be quite important (although not quite enough to get a bulky 70-200 f/2.8 for that alone). Otherwise I'd seriously consider the swap.

I think it's f/4.5 to 155mm, so so long as you don't need M mode for action the constant f/4 isn't quite as much of a loss as you'd think, although f/5 200mm certainly isn't f/4.