Review - Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

[Ripley]

After I sold my 70-200 f2.8 ii, I passed on the 70-300L and picked up the 70-200 F4 IS - better wide open optics and a constant aperture across the focal range won out over 100mm of extra reach.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Re: 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.

I think you got the reviews mixed up. There is an earlier review (excellent) from Craig that was long before the new 100-400L II was released. The new review (by Dustin) that covers the lens with the 100-400L II in mind.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

You must have had a defective copy of the 70-300L. The new 100-400L II's AF is as good, but not better (it actually hunts more in lower light, in my experience). My copy of the 70-300L is as fast as any lens that I've used that I can think of...and I've used a LOT of lenses.

The 100-400L II is a fabulous lens, however, and I am personally torn over whether or not I should sell my 70-300L in order to have it. There's too much overlap between the two lenses, although I'd love to have both (the 70-300L for travel and landscape use, the 100-400L II for wildlife).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

After I sold my 70-200 f2.8 ii, I passed on the 70-300L and picked up the 70-200 F4 IS - better wide open optics and a constant aperture across the focal range won out over 100mm of extra reach.

Interesting. I did the opposite. The 70-200 f/4L IS is an excellent lens, but I traded it for the 70-300L and never regretted it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Hey Dustin,

Great review, as always. I'm on the cusp of buying this lens, but one thing keeps bothering me. I use the Eg-S screen in my 6D for my fast primes and love it, even indoors, but I absolutely hate the idea of having to take it out if I'm switching lenses (I know, I'm lazy). I remember you saying you used the EG-S screen. Have you every used the 70-300 L with the screen installed? I'm going to Iceland in December, and I want a telephoto zoom for landscapes. I'd use the 70-300 outdoors in daylight and never past sunset, so I was wondering if you think I could get away with leaving the darker focusing screen in for those shooting conditions.

I'll probably buy the lens anyway, but I was curious. Thanks!

 

[fragilesi]

fragilesi, good plan renting the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. I bet you won't be disappointed or maybe you will because my guess is you'll be selling the 70-300.

Maybe I can't imagine not wanting it but the ease of use of the 70-300 is just wonderful. I primarily try to shoot sport and BIF, only handhold and am often trying to follow some pretty fast-moving action from unpredictable directions. I sometimes go out for hours at a time.

So while I'd definitely love the extra 100mm I think I'd miss the 70mm end a little and some of the sheer joy of being able to try to react quickly with a light rig might be lost . . .

Oh it's so stressful this hobby ;D

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hey Dustin,

Great review, as always. I'm on the cusp of buying this lens, but one thing keeps bothering me. I use the Eg-S screen in my 6D for my fast primes and love it, even indoors, but I absolutely hate the idea of having to take it out if I'm switching lenses (I know, I'm lazy). I remember you saying you used the EG-S screen. Have you every used the 70-300 L with the screen installed? I'm going to Iceland in December, and I want a telephoto zoom for landscapes. I'd use the 70-300 outdoors in daylight and never past sunset, so I was wondering if you think I could get away with leaving the darker focusing screen in for those shooting conditions.

I'll probably buy the lens anyway, but I was curious. Thanks!

I don't remove the EG-S screen. In decent light you won't notice. After sunset you would definitely notice, but I've found that I'm able to adjust. If the body is doing the autofocus you don't need the same visual confirmation anyway.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

fragilesi, good plan renting the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. I bet you won't be disappointed or maybe you will because my guess is you'll be selling the 70-300.

Maybe I can't imagine not wanting it but the ease of use of the 70-300 is just wonderful. I primarily try to shoot sport and BIF, only handhold and am often trying to follow some pretty fast-moving action from unpredictable directions. I sometimes go out for hours at a time.

So while I'd definitely love the extra 100mm I think I'd miss the 70mm end a little and some of the sheer joy of being able to try to react quickly with a light rig might be lost . . .

Oh it's so stressful this hobby ;D

Exactly. It's challenging because the two lenses definitely overlap, but they both have their strengths. They are also too expensive to justify owning both for most shooters.

 

[fragilesi]

fragilesi, good plan renting the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. I bet you won't be disappointed or maybe you will because my guess is you'll be selling the 70-300.

Maybe I can't imagine not wanting it but the ease of use of the 70-300 is just wonderful. I primarily try to shoot sport and BIF, only handhold and am often trying to follow some pretty fast-moving action from unpredictable directions. I sometimes go out for hours at a time.

So while I'd definitely love the extra 100mm I think I'd miss the 70mm end a little and some of the sheer joy of being able to try to react quickly with a light rig might be lost . . .

Oh it's so stressful this hobby ;D

Exactly. It's challenging because the two lenses definitely overlap, but they both have their strengths. They are also too expensive to justify owning both for most shooters.

That's it in a nutshell. First instinct is that you shouldn't really want both with such overlap but I suspect I'll come to that conclusion which will delay getting the 100-400 II sadly. Then again, the 70-300 is just so good I guess I shouldn't complain too much!

 

[TeT]

Was jazzed to see that this lens worked fully with the Kenko 1.4. I ordered one from Adorama but the YELLOW dot version arrived:

1.4 Yellow Dot works fully with this lens, full zoom range and AF on both my 6D & my SL1...