70-300L on 5D Mark III

[lexonio]

There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

 

[briansquibb]

There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

The 70-300L is my favourite walkabout lens. Top IQ, top IS, top contrast.

Totally recommended as an excellent general purpose lens

 

[pwp]

The 5D3 and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L will be a killer combination for you. The 5D3 gives this slightly slow lens a lot more scope than the 5D2 with increased options for bumping up the iso when the need arises, plus the very powerful AF system which will do a far better job working with those smaller f/4-5.6 apertures than the 5D2.

Just be aware that the 5D3 has the same black AF points in the VF as the 7D. Most people don't care but it can be a disruptive disappointment for some photographers. There is a recent thread on CR which discusses this, and may be worth a browse before dropping your Visa card on a 5D3.

PW

 

[wickidwombat]

The 70-300L is my favourite walkabout lens. Top IQ, top IS, top contrast.

Totally recommended as an excellent general purpose lens

hehe its funny how different people have such different shooting styles
my favourite walkabout lens is the 16-35 i love getting right in there and up close
where as you prefer... artillery
not saying its not a good general purpose lens because you are correct , just an observation really

 

[briansquibb]

The 70-300L is my favourite walkabout lens. Top IQ, top IS, top contrast.

Totally recommended as an excellent general purpose lens

hehe its funny how different people have such different shooting styles
my favourite walkabout lens is the 16-35 i love getting right in there and up close
where as you prefer... artillery
not saying its not a good general purpose lens because you are correct , just an observation really

With the short focussing distance of the 70-300 I get right in there and up close too It is pretty reasonable at closeup shooting.

 

[Random Orbits]

It sounds like the 70-300L will be a good fit for you. If you planned on using it indoors a lot in dim situations, then the 70-200 II would be better.

 

[lexonio]

Thank you guys for your help! This community is golden, I am reassured of that
Just got the 70-300 and it's amazing. Shooting indoors with f/4-5.6 at 12800 ISO, after some post images look extremely appealing.

12800 ISO, 300mm, f/5.6, 1/60, IS on, some post in LR4CR2

 

[Act444]

I used to have the 70-200 f4: since I traded up to the f2.8 version I also got the 70-300.

The 70-300, although still big & white (and thus an attention-grabber) is MUCH easier to walk around with than the 70-200 2.8. I don't even mind hiking with it- it's probably at the limit of what I'm willing to carry around all day long on a camera.

As for IQ, compared to the 70-200 f4 I think it holds its own pretty well. The extra 100mm, although not really that much TBH, CAN make a difference in the appropriate situations. I think the 70-300 is weaker at the wide-end though- specifically wide open at f4 it can be soft. But it shines at the most important setting: 300mm at f5.6. No need to stop down at the long end to get sharp shots!

 

[briansquibb]

Taken this morning with the 70-300L @229mm f/8

Two week old kid

 

[lexonio]

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

 

[Kernuak]

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

From someone who has been known to carry around the 300 f/2.8 all day, carrying the 70-200 MkII would be giving me a bit of a rest .

 

[Random Orbits]

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

The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system. Took it with me to the Bronx Zoo with a 1.4x and used it all day. It's a great lens for portraits and sports. It's not ideal for the zoo (a bit short FF and a bit heavy), but the pictures are nice! =)

 

[Marsu42]

The 70-300, although still big & white (and thus an attention-grabber)

I taped mine - less white ("here comes the money") makes me more comfortable, furthermore the white is pure marketing because it doesn't have any fluorite elements.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system.

It certainly might be manageable, but in the local zoo I can see owners of a 70-200/2.8+tc from afar because they use both arms to carry their camera. I just wouldn't have this and a flash hang from my wrist, that's why I've got the 70-300L.

The 5D3 and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L will be a killer combination for you.

I'm puzzled - I've got this lens on aps-c, but I've read that it's noticeably softer in the edges on full frame? Furthermore, the af system of the 5d3 seems to be made for lenses of f2.8 to f4, or you're disabling part of the af points' pattern detection with f5.6?

 

[Act444]

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

Don't get me wrong- the 70-200 2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens and for what it does, there's nothing else like it. It is best for sporting events (if you are close) as well as autograph/book signings, which often take place indoors (and f5.6 just won't cut it- I hate using flash). It is extremely versatile and I like that. But, it is not a lens I would want to sling around my neck and walk around with all day long...even for the couple of hours I use it, it gets tiring. But it is worth it when you view the images afterward!

The 70-300L is the telephoto lens I use when it is not worth lugging the extra weight of the 70-200. Basically, outdoor events in good lighting and animal shots where the variable aperture isn't an issue. Plus, 100mm of extra reach is gained and for animal shots, it can make a BIG difference!

 

[RLPhoto]

Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)

 

[briansquibb]

Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)

I am taking a series of pictures of the kid above to cover a wall - 4 x A3 - these are going to be one week apart (they grow quickly)

The A3 print shows a lot more detail than the one above. The picture was taken with the 1DS3.

I believe the L version of the lens is worth the extra - the contrast and IS work very well. Is it worth trying the cheap one - that is the question? 8)

 

[VirtualRain]

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.

 

[drjlo]

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).

As much as I love my 70-200 II, there is NO WAY I'm getting rid of my 85L and 135L! If Canon re-issues the 70-200 II with at least f/2 or f/1.8 (yeah right!) aperture, perhaps..

 

[Act444]

Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)

I tried the regular 70-300 in-store before settling on the L version eventually. I didn't evaluate its image quality but there is a HUGE difference between the 2 in build quality. You really do get what you pay for.

The regular 70-300 felt like a camera toy in my hand- the 70-300L feels like a serious piece of professional photographic equipment. Ultimately it's about the IQ for me and I've heard that the regular 70-300 is pretty weak at the 300mm end, so that's why I went for the L version.

Best thing is to try both out (if you can), then weigh the pros and cons of each. The regular one IS lighter, and 1/3 the price, so if weight and/or budget is an issue that's probably the way to go. But if you demand the highest in IQ it's probably worth it to save up.

...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.

depends on what you're shooting, and on what environment you will be shooting in. For me, the two lenses are interchangeable depending on what my telephoto needs are, exactly. Sports or indoors? f2.8 wins. Outdoors in daylight or animal photography? 70-300 with extra reach.

As for IQ, the 70-200 wins at the 70mm end, certainly. I'd even say the 70-200 at 70/2.8 outperforms the 70-300 at 70/4! At the 200mm end they seem to be quite close, though. I don't think you'd notice a difference in everyday shots...and in good light, the lighter weight of the 70-300 in that case is certainly appreciated. (Note that at 200mm the 70-300 has you at f5 minimum so it is nearly 2 stops slower here.)

 

[RLPhoto]

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 agree the 70-200mm II is a awesome lens but I'd almost never choose it over the 135mm. The 135mm is lighter, faster, cheaper and sharper than the 70-200mm, and if i need 200mm I'd just use my 7D or a 1.4X TC.

It doesn't really weigh down you hand much and that f/2 aperture is better at stopping action than the slower zoom.

The main reason for the 85mm and 135mm prime lenses is the color, character, rendering and OOF blur they have. Its just personal taste but the 85mm 1.2L and 135mm f/2L have some of the best OOF i've seen.