70-300L anyone?

[birdman]

This lens intrigues me. I don't know why, but it does. I have the 70-300 IS (non-L obviously) and it is a great lens for the price.

The 70-200/4.0 IS has always been one that I wanted, but with the 70-300L my opinion has since changed. Of course, I have never shot with it, but all the reviews are very positive. My question is, how does the IQ compare to all of the 70-200's? Is the price worth the upgrade vs. 70-300 IS? How does it feel and balance in hand? Thanks

 

[SteveCSmith]

I had the 70-300 IS and was looking for a little more reach from a lens. After some research and reading the review here (used in Africa), I went down to a local camera store with my lens to do a comparison photo. Taking a picture of a picture across the store, there was no comparison. The L glass blew away my non-L. Clarity and color were incredible. I decided that with this lens I could crop my photos as my "zoom method" and be quite satisfied.

As to the weight, it depends on what camera you have; I use a 60D and find it comfortable - certainly better than the 70-200 2.8 IS II that I couldn't resist during the December sales. The only reason I can think of for a 70-200 over this lens would be to catch some action shots in lower light. I've only used my new 70-200 a few times in the few months I've had it. If its daylight, I'll grab the 70-300. I think its crisper and its certainly easier to handle.

I'll assume you are interested in birding (based on your login), so here are a few pics I took last fall in Yellowstone and the Tetons with the 70-300L. Keep in mind that I am an amateur with a gear collection fetish and split the time between photos and chasing 3 and 4 year old boys. Both of these shots were handheld at 300mm. If you were to pixel peep the originals, the clarity is phenomenal !

Disclaimer - I do believe I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-300 IS non-L. It was my second lens (18-55 non IS being my first) and I was never happy with it even as a beginner. Never crisp and always hazy.

 

[vlim]

I heard a lot of very good comments from friends of mine who use it One of them has sold his 70-200 f/4 L IS because of the quality of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS but he uses it as a secondary lens, his prime one is a 500 f/4 L IS.

here's a review :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[birdman]

Wow on that review. The first page has a SCARY young girl trying to smile. HAHA ;D ;D ;D

Anyway, sorry for not staying on topic. It just freaked me out. For a great laugh do open up the review in your browser.

 

[awinphoto]

I had the opportunity to shoot with this lens (L version) for a week for an Air Race Championship last fall and it was a great lens to work with. It's definitely more bulky than the 70-200 F4 IS, and the zoom lens is kinda reversed so it took a little bit getting used to, but when i got used to it, it went smoothly. Having the extra 100mm i guess made up for it's quirks. I'm not sure if it was the 7D i was shooting with, lens, combination there of, whatever, but from about 700 photos taken, a lot in burst modes, about 20% I would say were in crisp focus where i can see nuts and bolts on the jets themselves flying at speeds near 500 MPH and even reading the painted pilots name on under the window. The next 50-60% were what I would classify as internet safe focus shots... it was in the ballpark, may not be able to read names on the airplane crisply when viewed 100%-400% (flying keep in mind) but after some minor sharpening in post, resizing to screen res for websites/email, the image would look great overall. Then the rest were the occasional misfire which would be in burst modes, planes in distance falling off of AF points, etc... I will try to post a few later tonight when I get home.

 

[briansquibb]

I use this as a walkabout/general pupose lens - excellent IQ and contrast. Quick AF

 

[Cardad]

I rented the 70-300 L last year for a motorsports event. Before I returned it, I did a very un-scientific test to compare it to my non-L 70-300. Let me also say that I am not a professional photographer, nor a pixel peeper. I rarely use a tripod. My test consisted of 9 comparable hand held shots from each lens (various focal lengths) taken from my front yard. I shot four or five frames for each shot and picked the best for the comparison. Of the nine different shots, I judged in seven that the L lens was clearly superior, mostly in terms of off-center sharpness and in color. I judged my 70-300 to be better in one shot, and there was one shot I declared a draw. I have since purchased the L lens.

For the motorsports event, the L lens was remarkable. I would say my results were similar to what Awinphoto reported for the air show....maybe a few more "keepers" as the cars are slower and closer!

I have not used any of the 70-200 lenses, so I cannot comment on how the 70-300 compares to any of those lenses.

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

I have the 70-300L and I love it. I cant compare it to the 70-200L's because Ihavent used them.

I use the 70-300L on a Canon T2i so I am using it cropped and so if you are using full frame I cant say what your experience will be at the image edges but for me it is a very sharp lens.

The IS works very well. Its a great lens to use in the hand.

I havent had much success with it on a tripod because it does not come with a tripod ring and Canons price for theirs is ridiculous.

Actually, a quick question of my own for others with this lens... Has anybody found a cheap good quality tripod ring for this lens? I havent looked recently but last I looked on ebay I couldnt find anything that looked good enough quality to function without looking like theyd scratch the lens body.

Here are a few shots I have made with the lens... I have chosen a coupel of them to show non ideal conditions, ie. higher iso, near dark, very distant, high humidity etc

Its a slower lens that the 70-200L f/4 or f/2.8, so this shot of a fox was taken near dark at 2000 ISO.

This next shot is taken from Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The first row of buildings is Brooklyn/Coney Island about 6-8 miles away and the row in the distance includes the Empire State Building which is 20 miles away. Taken in the evening on a day that was 100f (literally... the hottest day of the year) and very humid.

Empire State again... this time from On the Brooklyn Bridge

Heres a shorter range shot in more favorable conditions... shaded area and subject on about 30ft away from what I remember...

Hope that helps...

 

[vlim]

I really like the last one, great atmosphere

 

[unfocused]

I vote for the Sandy Hook one. Very nice look to it. Excellent separation between the two rows of buildings. Any significant post-processing?

Back to the thread though, just a question. Do those who own this lens feel it is worth the significant price premium, given that there are lots of other lenses in this range out there? And, if so, why: sharpness, fast focus, weatherproofing, whiteness, other reasons?

I'm feeling the urge to buy something and this one keeps calling to me, even though I already own the Tamron 70-300mm, which I have to admit is a pretty decent lens for the money, as well as the 100-400 "L."

 

[DianeK]

I use this a lot on my 60D.
Below is the original shot unprocessed and the second is cropped and processed.
To unfocused: I chose this over the 100-400L because of the push/pull (just didn't like it). Much as I like my 70-300L, if you already have the 100-400L, I can't see a compelling reason to add the 70-300L to your arsenal.

 

[Cyclops]

I rented this lens and fell in love with it!

I use a 70-200 f2.8 is II - as my normal lens - but it thought this was a great walk around lens. And will be adding it to my kit sometime this year.

Taken with a 5DII

 

[pj1974]

I have this lens, and it's sharp sharp sharp, has great contrast & colour. Is built like a tank. Is actually very useable as a walk-around, hand-holdable lens. It's max aperture is very close to the 70-200mm f/4 lenses at same focal lengths, PLUS you get an extra 100mm.

Definitely worth buying if you want a very convenient, telezoom that can high image quality, and don't need to use it for sports in low light.

Paul

 

[well_dunno]

I have a 70-200 f/4 which I like a lot but have been considering 70-300 L too due to the reach.

Could anyone who used this lens on a 1.4 or 2x extender post some samples?

Cheers!

 

[Picsfor]

I had the 70-200 f4 IS L for a few years. Apart from the initial use to shoot some Badgers (it's legal in the UK ) the lens never got used. I always found i was looking for a little more reach. When my redundancy found its way into my bank account, i popped to my local camera shop, who also happened to have it on offer.

Their view was that it was a wasted offer cos they could never keep enough in stock
I am no longer the proud owner of a 70-200 IS L - but i am the proud owner of a 70-300 IS L. Sits on my 5D2 like a glove.

As for that low light need? Check out this link...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/picsfor/6596562887/#sizes/l/in/photostream/

It was night, bucketing down with rain, and hand held at a ridiculous speed. 1/20th sec.

I don't know about you, but i couldn't possibly expect any more from that IS

 

[Kiboko]

Canon 5D MkII with Canon 70-300 f.4.5-5.6L lens at 300mm, second image a drastic crop, I'd say!

 

[SteveCSmith]

I should have included crops of those photos - doesn't give you much idea without them! Here are 100% crops (with very caveman crop technique).

 

[rebelphil]

I purchased the 70-300L IS 4-5.6 over the 70-200’s simply because I wanted the added reach it offers with a crop sensor. Also, for me, it seemed the practical choice; taking cost, quality, and versatility into consideration.
I have been pleased with its performance, and I’ll let the photos posted here speak for the IQ of this lens.
As far as balance in the hand goes, it was a bit front heavy when used with my Rebel T1i. However, after upgrading to a 7D it balances beautifully. Have fun choosing!

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

The 70-300L doesnt work with the canon extenders... the rear element in the lense sits too far back I think, so there is no room for the extender.

I believe the kenko 1.4 fits but I do not think there is a 2.0 that fits it. Thats the way things were about a year ago when I got the lens. I dont know if anything has changed. Given its F/5.6 at the long end a 2x extender may give you autofocus issues anyway depending on what body you are using.

 

[well_dunno]

The 70-300L doesnt work with the canon extenders... the rear element in the lense sits too far back I think, so there is no room for the extender.

I believe the kenko 1.4 fits but I do not think there is a 2.0 that fits it. Thats the way things were about a year ago when I got the lens. I dont know if anything has changed. Given its F/5.6 at the long end a 2x extender may give you autofocus issues anyway depending on what body you are using.

Thanks!