Review - Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
It is a good lens but I haven't carried mine with me since Canon finally updated the 100-400. It costs more but, at least for the two lenses I own, the image quality is a little better and of course there is the extra 100mm which can be a plus when shooting with a full frame sensor.
Upvote
0
Yes the 70-300L is a great lens. Wish it would work with a 1.4 TC. Other than that, no complaints.
I will pick the 70-300 over the 100-400 when I need to hand hold and don't think I will need the extra 100 mm. The lighter weight is a real plus over the 100-400.
I will pick the 70-300 over the 100-400 when I need to hand hold and don't think I will need the extra 100 mm. The lighter weight is a real plus over the 100-400.
Upvote
0
RGF said:
At least on a 5D3 (other models might vary), it works well with a Kenko DGX 300 Pro or Kenko DGX MC4.
Upvote
0
langdonb said:
Hmm works fine with my 5D3 and MFA. I never went to the new firmware though that gave f/8 AF since that ruins Magic Lantern. If you go back to the firmware right before the f/8 AF it works fine with AF and AFAM, at least on my 5D3.
Upvote
0
Did he do this review in 2011? Why are you posting it now?
The reviewer at one point writes: "The following point is purely conjecture on my part. I can’t call it fact yet……
2011 is the year the 100-400 gets replaced from every indication I’ve received."
1) I had the 70-300 IS L lens, and I agree it is a wonderful lens.
2) Comparisons to the original 100-400 IS L lens are not the most useful comparisons, (allthough that was the only choice in 2011). The comparison should be between the 70-300 and the 100-400 IS L Mk II which shares most of the best attributes of the 70-300 (other than weight).
3) None of my photographer friends who shoot wildlife would think of using a full-frame camera and a 70-300mm lens. It will work for very large animals up close or habitat shots. Folks wanting wildlife photos -- he was on safari in Africa -- would be much happier with a 7D MkII and the 100-400 IS L Mk II.
4) Going with the 100-400mm Mk II + the Canon 7D Mk II and a 1.4X TC III along will come much closer to eliminating the need to take a huge, heavy and expensive telephoto prime.
The reviewer at one point writes: "The following point is purely conjecture on my part. I can’t call it fact yet……
2011 is the year the 100-400 gets replaced from every indication I’ve received."
1) I had the 70-300 IS L lens, and I agree it is a wonderful lens.
2) Comparisons to the original 100-400 IS L lens are not the most useful comparisons, (allthough that was the only choice in 2011). The comparison should be between the 70-300 and the 100-400 IS L Mk II which shares most of the best attributes of the 70-300 (other than weight).
3) None of my photographer friends who shoot wildlife would think of using a full-frame camera and a 70-300mm lens. It will work for very large animals up close or habitat shots. Folks wanting wildlife photos -- he was on safari in Africa -- would be much happier with a 7D MkII and the 100-400 IS L Mk II.
4) Going with the 100-400mm Mk II + the Canon 7D Mk II and a 1.4X TC III along will come much closer to eliminating the need to take a huge, heavy and expensive telephoto prime.
Upvote
0
Blimey, how old is this lens now?! Must be quiet on the rumour front.
I bought it when it first came out and must agree that it is a nice lens, but I hardly ever used it and after a while it just stayed in the cupboard until I sold it a few weeks ago.
I prefer the image quality of the 70-200L f/2.8 IS ii and can use Canon converters with that too. For longer than that I use the 400 f/2.8 ii.
I bought it when it first came out and must agree that it is a nice lens, but I hardly ever used it and after a while it just stayed in the cupboard until I sold it a few weeks ago.
I prefer the image quality of the 70-200L f/2.8 IS ii and can use Canon converters with that too. For longer than that I use the 400 f/2.8 ii.
Upvote
0
I'm very happy with the results I get from this lens on my 60D - (although we'll see how it works out on my new 6D).
One thing that grinds my gears a bit is the scarcity and price of the Canon Tripod mounting ring.
I know they feel this is a "Hand holdable" lens, but I'd like the option of maximizing sharpness without a world wide parts hunt and a massive bill.
One thing that grinds my gears a bit is the scarcity and price of the Canon Tripod mounting ring.
I know they feel this is a "Hand holdable" lens, but I'd like the option of maximizing sharpness without a world wide parts hunt and a massive bill.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
One of 3 lenses I've used extensively on both crop and FF (the others being the 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 II). Its relative compactness is a plus, and it has strong performance where it matters most (300mm f/5.6). OTOH, the 70mm end can be a bit weak, particularly on crop.
On FF it's a decent general telephoto lens, mainly for outdoor events. With the hood removed, it offers a decent amount of reach without being too overbearing which makes it work well for candids (people). And the sharpness is on a very high level, so no complaints there. The only issue is the f/5.6 at the long end limits its use to mainly outdoors/daytime shooting, which in turn limits versatility. The IS system is pretty good, so if you're shooting still subjects this can be overcome to an extent...but AF accuracy still takes a hit in the dark.
On a crop sensor...I think this is actually where this lens really shines. Despite weaker performance at 70mm wider than 5.6, it offers tremendous reach ability in a very small, relatively lightweight package. In fact, this is what I currently use for animal photography, although 300 is still too short for most birds (looking at a 400/500 for that, perhaps with TCs).
I was going to sell this lens to trade in for the new 100-400 when it was announced, but since I didn't need the money right away I decided to hang on to it for the time being. Glad I did. I think this is Canon's smallest 'white lens' - not sure why they made it a white one to be honest, I'd have preferred if they left it black. I suppose they had to differentiate from the non-L version, but the 24-105s co-exist both in black...shrug...
On FF it's a decent general telephoto lens, mainly for outdoor events. With the hood removed, it offers a decent amount of reach without being too overbearing which makes it work well for candids (people). And the sharpness is on a very high level, so no complaints there. The only issue is the f/5.6 at the long end limits its use to mainly outdoors/daytime shooting, which in turn limits versatility. The IS system is pretty good, so if you're shooting still subjects this can be overcome to an extent...but AF accuracy still takes a hit in the dark.
On a crop sensor...I think this is actually where this lens really shines. Despite weaker performance at 70mm wider than 5.6, it offers tremendous reach ability in a very small, relatively lightweight package. In fact, this is what I currently use for animal photography, although 300 is still too short for most birds (looking at a 400/500 for that, perhaps with TCs).
I was going to sell this lens to trade in for the new 100-400 when it was announced, but since I didn't need the money right away I decided to hang on to it for the time being. Glad I did. I think this is Canon's smallest 'white lens' - not sure why they made it a white one to be honest, I'd have preferred if they left it black. I suppose they had to differentiate from the non-L version, but the 24-105s co-exist both in black...shrug...
Upvote
0
As always Dustin has done a great review but my experience with the 70-300 L wasn't great and I ended up selling it. Image quality was outstanding but I found the AF speed very disappointing. I have owned the 70-200 2.8L II for few years and have recently purchased the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II and find that the AF speed and accuracy on both of those lenses much better than the 70-300 L. If someone is considering the 70-300 L for wildlife I would strongly recommend the 100-400 L II over it for the greater reach, AF speed and IS.
Upvote
0
cycleraw said:
That's interesting you've had that experience, I use it to shoot birds in flight and find the AF pretty damn good. At the moment I'd really like to get the 100-400 II but am determined not to have to sacrifice the 70-300 because it's so compact to use. For me this seems to make tracking that much easier and long sessions out with it a breeze. Maybe I'm just being too greedy . . . if the AF really is that much better on the 100-400 II then maybe my good friend will have to be sacrificed. I sense a rental coming on early next year.
But it would be done with a heavy heart . . . lovely lens in my opinion.
Upvote
0
The AF speed on my 70-300L is exceptionally good. Likely the best of all my lenses. the only issue i had is that the focus ring is not as tight as on my other canon lenses. it has some room. I brought it to Canon and they said it is normal. The image quality is very good and you can easily carry it for the prolonged periods of time.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
