70-300mm For my 5DM2

[Chris92673]

Hey everyone,

I'm looking for a new lens for my 5D Mark II and I'm having trouble deciding. I'm in the market for both a wide angle and a telephoto, and I'm trying to figure out whether I can swing to get both or not.

My camera funds are capped at $1,400, so I have two options--get either the 70-300 IS L alone or the 70-300 IS non-L and 24-105.

I currently have the 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 non-IS and the 2X extender. I need an IS telephoto as camera shake has always been an issue for me.

The 70-300L is really attractive to me, but price is one drawback. In addition to price, another drawback to the L series lenses for me is the filter size. In addition to photojournalism work, I enjoy aviation photography--and that entails a lot of photography through chain link fences. I've found that the 56mm filter-sized lenses fit into the openings in the links almost perfectly, but anything larger will not and results in shadows from the wires in the corners of the frame.

I was using the cheap 75-300 III lens, which I recently sold. While it sometimes made terrible images, I was able to get some great shots with it when the stars aligned. My only complaint about it was its lack of sharpness.

Any thoughts on what to do? Has anyone here ever used the 70-300 non-L IS on a 5D?

I'm not interested in the 100-400 (I've used it and wasn't impressed), and can't afford the 24-70.

Thanks!

 

[pierceography]

I just sold my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM to fund my purchase of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. It's a decent lens, but after I acquired my first L lens, it felt really cheap on my 7D and 5Dm3.

Its sharpness is certainly better than the previous lens you had, but won't compare to the L version. Another thing that always bugged me about the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 was that even though Canon claims it has a USM motor, it doesn't share any of the usual benefits of such a classification. You can't fine tune the focus manually when AF is enabled (it's not a true ring motor), and the AF motor itself is very noisy and jerky. The IS is also fairly loud, with noticeable gear noise when IS is locked in.

My $0.02 would be to get the L version of the lens and forego the 24-105mm. If you do a lot of aviation photography, the 24-105mm would stay in your bag. Plus, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L has a 58mm filter thread, not 56. Not sure if the extra 2mm would impact you or not, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[vlim]

I've got a friend who uses a lot that combination of the 5D mark II and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS. He absolutely loves it, the results are beautiful, this lens is pretty sharp, light and can go threw the elements ! Go for it, you won't regret it !!!

 

[SteveCSmith]

I had the 70-300 IS non-L. After trying out the L glass, I upgraded in a heartbeat - wow!

I was using it to shoot some pics at an airshow about a month ago - tack sharp - even the propellers that were "froze" with this lens. Can't say enough good about it.

Get it now on the Canon Refurb while its still in stock... http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03306/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f4-5.6L-IS-USM-price.html and use the "ship712" code to get free shipping. You'll be closer to your 24-105 in the future (or maybe a 17-40? I've seen them for $500 used lately).

Sorry I don't have a pic to share with you - haven't sorted/posted those photos yet. I was even counting the passengers in one of the planes when I zoomed to 100%.

 

[unfocused]

I just realized as I was posting this that Steve Smith said essentially the same thing. Sorry for the redundancy, but that means two recommendations on the "L" from the refurbished store.

If you are in the U.S.: ACT RIGHT NOW. The Canon Refurbished Store is having their 20% off sale and the 70-300 L is just over $1,000. http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_327247_-1?WT.mc_id=C126149

You might even get free shipping with Coupon Code; SHIP712 (see CanonPriceWatch.com). This is a fantastic lens and if you can swing it, buy it.

Now, if you absolutely cannot afford the "L" lens, I would honestly recommend going a cheap route and picking up the new Tamron 70-300 stabilized lens. It is less expensive than the Canon IS lens, but from all accounts it is sharper. I had that lens before I gave in to the desire for the "L." Don't get me wrong, the "L" lens is much better (sharper, weathersealed, built like a tank, etc.) but I really had few complaints about the Tamron. It was as sharp or sharper than the 55-250 mm lens, which is actually quite sharp (although not USM and lacks build quality). I don't have any experience with the 70-300 non "L" IS lens, but from reviews, etc. it doesn't seem to be a stellar performer and is more expensive than the Tamron.

Only problem I ever had with the Tamron was an occasional hangup when it would hunt for a focus point. Although I honestly don't know if that was a problem with the lens or with the 7D center focus point not being able to focus on a subject due to contrast issues.

Anyway, that's my two-cents.

 

[dhofmann]

If you replace the 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS with the IS version of the lens ($2200 new/$1600 refurb), you won't need the 70-300.

Can you crop out the chain links? Maybe a micro-4/3 system would be a better choice for shooting through fences, because the lenses are smaller. How about a nice 24 megapixel Sony NEX-7?

The 70-300 non-L appears to have very poor image quality.

 

[UrbanImages]

Having had both the 70-300 in both versions, there is a HUGE difference in image quality from the the non-L to L. I recommend the L highly and having used it in shooting airshows it worked flawlessly. I would sell the non IS 70-200 and use that to fund the purchase of a used 24-105 to fill out your range. just my .02 cents.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The non L is just fine, you do gain a lot by going to the "L", but you can also capture good photos with the non L.
It isn't actually necessary to have a lens that is sharp corner to corner for the majority of images.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'm not sure how much you'd gain by getting the 70-300L from the 70-200L and 2x that you already have. You gain IS but you'd lose range or 1-2 stops (depends on comparing bare lens or with extender).

However, if you're willing to part with the 70-200 plus extender, then you would be able to afford both the 24-105L and the 70-300L.

 

[TAF]

I read all the highly laudatory on-line reviews of the 70-300 non-L, and came to realize that all the folks claiming that the lens was of almost L quality had crop sensor bodies. Which if you think about it makes sense, since on those bodies only the middle portion of the image circle is used...the good portion, of course.

I tried one on my 5D3 and while it was nice and reasonably light and easy to handle, I was not overly impressed with the image quality away from the center. So I bought the 70-300L. Which provides spectacular images, but is very heavy and for me almost unpleasant to use. The IS works perfectly, which is good, because it is absolutely essential for me. Although if you are used to the 70-200L with 2x extender, you're probably use to the weight already.

Perhaps if you find that the fence blurs the edges of your images all the time the non-L might be OK for you, as you wouldn't be using the area that is poor nearly as much.

Personally, I find myself using my 24-105L and cropping the photos more than using the longer lens.

If you need a long lens for things like air shows, you will love the 70-300L, and the price is right at your target point. As others have recommended, you can then sell the 70-200 and 2x and buy a 24-105L. You may be surprised at how much use you get out of that lens vs. the longer one.

I hope that was at least slightly useful...

 

[RAKAMRAK]

I cannot comment on the 70-300L.

But I tested both the 70-300 non-L and Tamron 70-300 VC before my purchase. I personally thought the Tamron to be a better lens and so purchased that (and returned the non-L 70-300). I fully realized that what I was buying was not going to be able to compete with 70-300L, but the L was out of reach. With fulltime manual focus (more so with back button focusing), non-rotating front element, and a fantastic VC this Tamron 70-300 has made me pretty happy.

 

[sagittariansrock]

If you are in the U.S.: ACT RIGHT NOW. The Canon Refurbished Store is having their 20% off sale and the 70-300 L is just over $1,000. http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_327247_-1?WT.mc_id=C126149

You might even get free shipping with Coupon Code; SHIP712 (see CanonPriceWatch.com). This is a fantastic lens and if you can swing it, buy it.

Now, if you absolutely cannot afford the "L" lens, I would honestly recommend going a cheap route and picking up the new Tamron 70-300 stabilized lens. It is less expensive than the Canon IS lens, but from all accounts it is sharper. I had that lens before I gave in to the desire for the "L." Don't get me wrong, the "L" lens is much better (sharper, weathersealed, built like a tank, etc.) but I really had few complaints about the Tamron. It was as sharp or sharper than the 55-250 mm lens, which is actually quite sharp (although not USM and lacks build quality). I don't have any experience with the 70-300 non "L" IS lens, but from reviews, etc. it doesn't seem to be a stellar performer and is more expensive than the Tamron.

Only problem I ever had with the Tamron was an occasional hangup when it would hunt for a focus point. Although I honestly don't know if that was a problem with the lens or with the 7D center focus point not being able to focus on a subject due to contrast issues.

Anyway, that's my two-cents.

I cannot comment on the 70-300L.

But I tested both the 70-300 non-L and Tamron 70-300 VC before my purchase. I personally thought the Tamron to be a better lens and so purchased that (and returned the non-L 70-300). I fully realized that what I was buying was not going to be able to compete with 70-300L, but the L was out of reach. With fulltime manual focus (more so with back button focusing), non-rotating front element, and a fantastic VC this Tamron 70-300 has made me pretty happy.

I owned all three (Canon L, Canon non-L and Tamron) some time or the other, with overlaps. The Canon is the worst of the lot in ergonomics, and it sucks that the AF is not ring USM-based, especially on a 7D with AF servo. However, I had no complaints about IQ. The Tamron is better w.r.t. IQ at longer focal lengths, and ergonomics is very nice due to the VSD. The Canon L is the best as expected, but after a while I felt that the Tamron is sufficient for me and the money was better spent on f/2.8 glass. If you are considering Canon non-L to begin with, I'd consider the Tamron instead and weigh if I want the slight improvement the Canon L offers more (for pros it's a no-brainer, I am sure) or if the 24-105 will be more useful.

 

[Omar H]

you already have a 5D2, do yourself a favor, get the L version, I've used the the 70-300 non L, good lens, but not impressive by any means. I've also used the 100-400L, which you've said you're not interested in, but beats (at least from the copies I used on my 60D) the non L 70-300. You have a great camera, complement it with great glass. just my 2 cents.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

Another point, you already have some part of the 70-300 range covered with your 70-200. But you do not seem to have anything on the wider side of the focal length other than the motley 50 1.8.

I do not know what is your photographic style or interest, but still I believe 24-105 will serve you better over all than spending everything that you have on duplicating a focal length that you have already covered to some extent.

Ok, I just read it, you like aviation photography. What do you mean by that? You photograph flying aeroplanes or static aeroplanes? If it is flying then you will need the 70-300 L. I do not think tamron 70-300's AF will do the trick. But if it is standing planes that you photograph and also want something on the wider side, then go for 24-105 (both wide and general purpose zoom, according to some best general purpose zoom on full frame) and Tamron 70-300.

 

[BrandonKing96]

You could sell your current 70-200 non-is.. and get an IS II. or even shop around for a decent IS mark 1. They're pretty good and usually go for around the $1500 mark.
However if you wouldn't consider that It's say go for a 24-105 IS, as the 70-200 f/2.8L is a beautiful lens. (But the IS versions are just as good)

 

[M.ST]

I like the 70-300 IS (L) on APS-C cameras.

But on FF cameras I prefer the big telephoto lenses.

If you don´t have the money for the big whites look for the EF 70-200 2.8 II with an 1.4X or 2X TC.

 

[shining example]

Having had both the 70-300 in both versions, there is a HUGE difference in image quality from the the non-L to L.

Seconded. I also find the IS far better on the L version.

 

[TheMSCWins]

What about a used 300mm f/4 IS & going for a 24-105. Makes more sense going for good image quality with f/4 at 300mm seeing as you already have the 70-200. I find the 24-105 a really important lens and when I am limited to one or two lenses I usually take the 24-105 & 50 1.4 on the 5D mark ii

 

[Mick]

Hi, I've got the 70-200 2.8 mk2 and the 70-300 f4-5.6L and I can't recommend the latter lens higher. It's the unsung hero in the Canon range. The I.S really is 4 stops, it's pretty light, built like a little tank, weather sealed, silent usm motor . As for image quality,it's as good as the 70-200. I really can't see any difference between the two. I use it on a variety of bodies and its equally at home on any full frame or crop. I do miss a bigger aperture on occasion though but not to often. The iso performance of your camera negates the smaller aperture for the most part. I guarantee you won't be disapointed.

 

[Chris92673]

Thanks for all the responses!

So it seems that I'd be wasting my money buying the 70-300 non-L...

I do really want the 70-300L, but the only thing holding me back is the lens diameter. As I said, I do aviation photography and I need something that can fit through the fence.

I just went and took some photos last week with my 70-200, but they needed some intense post-processing to remove the fence links. Here's an example heavily manipulated to emphasize the problem I have with the wide L lenses:

I know the 70-300 L's diameter isn't as wide as the 70-200, but just how wide is it? Is it so wide that I'll still have these fence problems?