70-300L on 5D Mark III

[lexonio]

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!

Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that

 

[Marsu42]

Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that

Well, use for what screen- or print size is the question. Of course you can at least use the 70mm f4 end indoors - if there's no fast movement, or it isn't pitch black. People are said to use flashes, too, or so I've heard

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.

You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too: The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.

 

[briansquibb]

The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L

The difference in sharpness is very small - certainly I dont see it.

The big benefit of the 70-200 f/2.8 is the f/2.8.

The big benefits of the 70-300L is the extra 100mm and light weight.

IS is the same on both


PS For weddings the 24-105 is my most used. Ultra shallow DOF has to be carefully used in order to ensure both eyes are in focus. By default I use f/5.6.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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!

Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that

I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

 

[Marsu42]

I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

It's good you're saying what your comparison basis is - because I think iso3200 w/ the current 18mp sensor is like turning on a noise generator, I usually stay at 800 and maybe 1000 for some shots... the real question is how many stops better the 5d3 is, I guess it's 3 (2 for ff sensor + 1 over the 5d2)?!

 

[RLPhoto]

I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

It's good you're saying what your comparison basis is - because I think iso3200 w/ the current 18mp sensor is like turning on a noise generator, I usually stay at 800 and maybe 1000 for some shots... the real question is how many stops better the 5d3 is, I guess it's 3 (2 for ff sensor + 1 over the 5d2)?!

+1, I've also shot at ISO 3200 and sometimes even 6400 on my 7D. Alittle grain never hurt anyone, plus its no worse than the ISO 800 B&W film I'd be shooting years ago. Modern software can take the noise well as long as you do your job and nail perfect exposures in RAW.

 

[lexonio]

12800 ISO is fine at 5d mkIII, even 25600 is quite okay.

 

[VirtualRain]

You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too: The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.

There are plenty of threads on "other forums" where a lot of folks sold their 135L in particular after acquiring a 70-200 II and some even parted ways with their 85L II. The Bokeh of the 70-200 with rounded blades is apparently nicer than the 135 and not many people have use for the razor thin depth of field that results from f2 at 135mm. That's the kind of territory where an eye is in focus while the nose and ear are not. But that's getting off-topic.

I think everyone has summarized the 70-300L pros and cons nicely... it's a nice set of glass in a very convenient package and the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 make up for it's otherwise unappealing max apertures.

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

Actually i've gone the other way since getting my 85 f1.4 sigma I hardly use the 70 200 anymore unless i specifically need 200mm, at f2 the sigma 85 is considerably sharper than the 70-200 at f2.8 anywhere
perhaps i should do what brian did and get the 200 f2L (I am not sure i could get that approved by the wife though)

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

LOL! I carry it on a strap or mostly one-handed because the other is pushing a stroller or holding a kid's hand. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is about a pound heavier (without the tripod ring) than the 70-300L. I've never used the 70-300L, but the images from it look great and I'm sure the torque on the wrist is a lot less because its shorter (esp. at 70mm). I was thinking about looking into the 300 f/4, but I like using zooms outside if the target distance is variable (like the zoo). Instead, I got the 1.4x TC when it went on sale, and there isn't that much of a difference between 200 and 280 most of the time. The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable." I'm hoping that the 100-400L replacement will be lighter than the current version because, right now, it only weighs a couple ounces less than the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

 

[briansquibb]

The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."

Do you mean physically long or long as in reach?

Either way I handshoot the 600mm for wildlife, but I would say the 500 f/4 II is probably the longest in both areas that I would consider truly portable

I dont consider the 70-200 f/2.8 to be very large or heavy.

 

[Random Orbits]

The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."

Do you mean physically long or long as in reach?

Either way I handshoot the 600mm for wildlife, but I would say the 500 f/4 II is probably the longest in both areas that I would consider truly portable

I dont consider the 70-200 f/2.8 to be very large or heavy.

LOL! I knew writing that sentence would bring you into the fray.

I meant long in reach. According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood. Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier. The 500, 600 and 800 are 7, 8.5 and 10 lb. The 70-200 is also about 8 inches long, but the three telephoto primes are almost 2x as long or longer.

It's too bad that Canon does not offer smaller aperture options at the longest focal lengths like they do up to 400mm. The Canon 300 f/4 is about $1400 and weighs about 2.5 lb while the Canon 300 f/2.8 is about $7300 and weighs about 5 lb. What if they were to design smaller aperture lenses for 500 and 600mm? They would be a lot more appealing at half the weight and less than 1/3 the price (300mm comparison is unfair because the 300 f/4 is a much older design)! Imagine a 600mm lens at f/5.6 and 4.5 lb for $4000-5000!

 

[Marsu42]

According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood. Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier.

Since I don't use a strap, for me the torsion on the wrist is the most important thing - I guess someone could calculate it, and one result would be that the 70-300L is the most portable tele L since it's physically short, and even extended the bulk of the weight is near the camera body.

 

[awinphoto]

During my testing of the lens last year (pre 5d3) with my 7d, it's highly recommended. One of the rings, i think zoom, is backwards than the other telephoto zooms that I've tested so there's a minimal amount of getting used to it, but it's a fine lens. Weight wise it's not much lighter than the 70-200 2.8 II so be prepared, it is a hefty lens, but does offer a nice compromise in range and sealing.

 

[dstppy]

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

The Non-L is garbage IMO. Worst lens purchase I've ever made I've honestly used my 200mm f2.8 more than the 70-300 I have and I've only had it a few months.

IQ was a major letdown.

 

[briansquibb]

Sorry to hear you had a bad one. You are the first to complain - and a lot of my friends have this lens and are very happy with it.

Here is another image taken with the 70-300L, this time on the 1DS3

 

[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

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.

 

[briansquibb]

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.

 

[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.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:
- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC
- 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.

So which zoom in your experience has the IQ, contrast and IS to match the 70-300L.

If weight is a problem then perhaps a P&S superzoom would suit?

 

[Nancy Goodenough]

I have the 5D3 with the 70-300L and it's a great walk-around combination. I was surprised how I can walk around with it all day. I'm a 60-something woman and moved up from a mirrorless Pany G2.

Here's an image from the weekend using the 70-300L @229mm, f/5.6, 1/750, ISO 100. It's a crop with a bit of PP in ACR and Nik. Just a quick bit of PP to see what could be done. I think I was off a bit in ACR, so will go back and adjust.