Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

It states under "pixel peepers" that the Canada Goose was at 420 mm. However, the exif data on the download has it as 309 mm. The others are correctly registered at 420 nm.

Alan - good catch. I overlooked that one although I thought I had checked them all. I just double-checked in LR and you are right. I have replaced that pair with another set. Here are the replacements:

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for the real world review. I find real world reviews to be far more useful than technical reviews and chart shots.

My favorite review of this particular lens was actually the one done here at Canon Rumors and served as my introduction to this great forum: http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/. The beautiful real world images are what helped sell me on the lens. I hoped to add my own voice in a similar way.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I thought I would also include the worse case scenario of the day. A black subject that was in shadow with bright, harsh light in the outer area. I initially grabbed focus pretty fast, but then recomposed as the bird continued to move. The further it got into the shadow, the more hunting the AF did. When I got focus confirmation, I shot, but the picture was NOT focused right, as both the original and the crop show. I jumped to ISO 1600 to get this one (most are at ISO 500 or less) so that should tell you how reduced the original light was for the middle of day. This is pretty ugly...

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the thoughtful review and additional 100% crops. It looks a very good safari lens. I bought a 70-200 f/4 IS for a safari trip just before the f/2.8 II and the 70-300 L. I'm holding on to it because it is so sharp and small. If I was doing it again maybe I would get the 70-300L.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for the thoughtful review and additional 100% crops. It looks a very good safari lens. I bought a 70-200 f/4 IS for a safari trip just before the f/2.8 II and the 70-300 L. I'm holding on to it because it is so sharp and small. If I was doing it again maybe I would get the 70-300L.

My pleasure

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a quick shot taken yesterday of the new spring leaves. The 70-300L continues to surprise me by the quality of the defocused areas. To me this looks like it was taken with a larger aperture lens.


Hello, Spring by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[SpecialGregg]

... me, too, and I bought it back when it had a reputation as being an overpriced version of Canon's non-L lens - but it's interesting to see how it gained much more recognition since then. I esp. like the still handholdable weight for ext. periods of time and walking around vs. the 70-200Lii (ymmv).

Just in case there's anyone still out there wondering if there's a difference between the L and the non-L, here are two similar shots I took of a bee in my backyard with each lens.

 

[tombu]

^So you are telling me L-lenses handle the noise better?

 

[SpecialGregg]

Haha yeah the noise in the non-L picture is ridiculous, and I ran it through noise ninja 2 or 3 times. The images were taken a year apart, and were never intended to be a comparison. I just knew it could be significantly improved upon, and honestly every picture I took with the non-L at 300mm needed a significant amount of noise reduction and masked-sharpening. And they still look subpar. That lens is for soccer moms and dads only, IMO.

The 70-300mm L on the other hand, is spectacular.

 

[nda]

fantastic lens, fast af, light & compact, wonderful is, and sharp, what more can u ask for! oh the zoom and focus rings are reversed which takes a little getting used too and it could be faster but its near perfection, sold my 70-200f4is for it, couldn't be happier and it's a killer on my 1d4(91-390mm)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another nice thing to note about the lens - Canon's modern approach uses the curved aperture blades that means that bokeh highlights stay round even when stopped down. In this shot (f/7.1) you can see some large OOF highlights that are still almost perfectly round. I needed the extra DOF to make sure the whole primary leaf was in focus.


Spring Inferno by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

BTW, check out the 100% crop of the detail from the shot:

 

[Marsu42]

I needed the extra DOF to make sure the whole primary leaf was in focus.

+1 - in my observation people seem to underestimate how very thin the dof is for 70mm@f4 or [email protected] if the subject is near - and I'm even on crop with a larger dof at same object size. What I usually want is a nice bokeh with overlapping light circles and not a smaller dof, and the 70-300L is able to deliver this if the background is a bit away.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I needed the extra DOF to make sure the whole primary leaf was in focus.

+1 - in my observation people seem to underestimate how very thin the dof is for 70mm@f4 or [email protected] if the subject is near - and I'm even on crop with a larger dof at same object size. What I usually want is a nice bokeh with overlapping light circles and not a smaller dof, and the 70-300L is able to deliver this if the background is a bit away.

Absolutely. According to my dof calculator, the DOF at 300mm f/5.6 at or close to minimum focus distance is about .22 inches (5.5 milimeters). That is actually a smaller DOF than my 135L f/2 wide open at the same distance (.39 inches or 9.79mm)

Even for this shot (f/7.1, 200mm), the DOF was only .62 inches (15.83mm).

 

[RLPhoto]

Dustin, When you zoom to 200mm on the 70-300L, is the aperture still F/4? At what focal length does it lose F/4?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, When you zoom to 200mm on the 70-300L, is the aperture still F/4? At what focal length does it lose F/4?

According to Bryan over at the Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ) the 70-300L hits f/5 at 155mm through 224mm before it moves to f/5.6. I wish it was still f/4 at 200mm. Then there would really be no advantage to the 70-20mm f/4 lenses.

 

[Marsu42]

Absolutely. According to my dof calculator, the DOF at 300mm f/5.6 at or close to minimum focus distance is about .22 inches (5.5 milimeters). That is actually a smaller DOF than my 135L f/2 wide open at the same distance (.39 inches or 9.79mm)

Thanks for the calculation, that's really interesting. I recently discovered the severity of the "small dof effect" when I was wondering why so many of my images are just slightly out of focus - and atm I think the reason is that focus & recompose simply doesn't work reliably anymore.

At the moment I have to take multiple shots and then select the sharp(est) one, but I'd be grateful for any hints for circumventing this problem w/o purchasing a 5d3...

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Absolutely. According to my dof calculator, the DOF at 300mm f/5.6 at or close to minimum focus distance is about .22 inches (5.5 milimeters). That is actually a smaller DOF than my 135L f/2 wide open at the same distance (.39 inches or 9.79mm)

Thanks for the calculation, that's really interesting. I recently discovered the severity of the "small dof effect" when I was wondering why so many of my images are just slightly out of focus - and atm I think the reason is that focus & recompose simply doesn't work reliably anymore.

At the moment I have to take multiple shots and then select the sharp(est) one, but I'd be grateful for any hints for circumventing this problem w/o purchasing a 5d3...

Despite reports about the 6D being "center point only", I actually have a pretty close to perfect success rate using the outer points. I don't know that I would try it in really low light, but most of the time it works fine. I can't remember missing a lot with the 60D either, though. One your biggest advantages when you move to a 6D will be the ability to AFMA your lens to the body. On my two bodies, one is a -1W 2T and the other is 2W 2T. That little bit of adjustment can make a big difference.

If you are shooting narrow DOF shots off center for composition and have time, using Live View focus is a pretty sound choice. Slower, but highly accurate.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Absolutely. According to my dof calculator, the DOF at 300mm f/5.6 at or close to minimum focus distance is about .22 inches (5.5 milimeters). That is actually a smaller DOF than my 135L f/2 wide open at the same distance (.39 inches or 9.79mm)

Thanks for the calculation, that's really interesting. I recently discovered the severity of the "small dof effect" when I was wondering why so many of my images are just slightly out of focus - and atm I think the reason is that focus & recompose simply doesn't work reliably anymore.

At the moment I have to take multiple shots and then select the sharp(est) one, but I'd be grateful for any hints for circumventing this problem w/o purchasing a 5d3...

Despite reports about the 6D being "center point only", I actually have a pretty close to perfect success rate using the outer points. I don't know that I would try it in really low light, but most of the time it works fine. I can't remember missing a lot with the 60D either, though. One your biggest advantages when you move to a 6D will be the ability to AFMA your lens to the body. On my two bodies, one is a -1W 2T and the other is 2W 2T. That little bit of adjustment can make a big difference.

If you are shooting narrow DOF shots off center for composition and have time, using Live View focus is a pretty sound choice. Slower, but highly accurate.

P.S. I use a App called DOF Calculator from the Apple App Store. It allows you to enter the focal length, distance to subject, f/stop, and then calculates based on your camera model. It obviously provides highly accurate results and that is my source for the above statistics.

 

[RLPhoto]

Dustin, When you zoom to 200mm on the 70-300L, is the aperture still F/4? At what focal length does it lose F/4?

According to Bryan over at the Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ) the 70-300L hits f/5 at 155mm through 224mm before it moves to f/5.6. I wish it was still f/4 at 200mm. Then there would really be no advantage to the 70-20mm f/4 lenses.

Heh, I knew canon wouldn't want to steal away any business from another lens. ;D I really did consider this option over the 100-400L.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, When you zoom to 200mm on the 70-300L, is the aperture still F/4? At what focal length does it lose F/4?

According to Bryan over at the Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ) the 70-300L hits f/5 at 155mm through 224mm before it moves to f/5.6. I wish it was still f/4 at 200mm. Then there would really be no advantage to the 70-20mm f/4 lenses.

Heh, I knew canon wouldn't want to steal away any business from another lens. ;D I really did consider this option over the 100-400L.

That's the truth, although it's probably true for all lens makers. Still, I have owned two copies each of the 70-200mm f/4L (IS and non IS) and, while they are great lenses, I certainly prefer the 70-300L. That might not be true if I didn't have the 135L for event work. I used to use 70-200 f/4L IS in my event work and it works quite well for that. I rarely use the 70-300L for indoor work, although the truth of the matter is that with the great high ISO of the current FF bodies (I use 6D's), you could.

Actually, one of the best lenses for event work when I shot crop was the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. Pretty sharp wide open (not mindblowingly so), but very nice build quality and a great focal length for event work. It was an excellent size, internal zoom and focus. It was also a very nice portrait lens stopped down a bit.