Thinking about springing for a 70-300L IS

[slclick]

My current longest focal length is 200 (200 2.8L ll). I don't have a desire to get much past 300 for my shooting styles but getting there with a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 1.4 TC has only been decent for AF speed and IQ. At my longer focal lengths I usually am shooing stopped down so the variable/higher aperture doesn't bother me much. So, I've been mulling around getting a 300 f/4L IS for the better part of a year but just recently I realized the 70-300L has been off my radar and it might be just the ticket. I travel a fair amount and since I rarely shoot 35-70mm this will make a great 2 lens bag along with my 24-35 F/2.

I guess what I'm asking and posting for is some reassurance about how good this lens is as I've read multiple reviews on it being overlooked (as I did), underrated and very versatile for travel, shooting styles and portability. I believe I have seen it listed on many CR regulars gear lists so I thought this would be a great place to inquire.
Btw, I use a 5D3 and this lens is in my budget (as opposed to the 100-400 mk2)

Thanks!

 

[Random Orbits]

The 70-300L should fit in your kit nicely. Performance-wise, the 70-300L is not the best at any focal length range. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is better and faster at the shorter end, and the 100-400L II is better at the longer end. However, it gives very good (weakest at the short end) to excellent IQ in a package that is lighter than the other Canon zoom options (and also the 300 f/4 IS) and it is more compact and has a reasonable price, which make it a great travel lens and a lens for general use.

It'll be a little bit better than your 200 + 1.4 TC at 300, and you'll gain a large focal length advantage to the prime but lose in aperture size. Outdoor and in good light, losing the aperture advantage is not a big deal while gaining framing freedom is. In low light it is, but you'll always have the option of using your 200 anyway.

 

[jrda2]

The 70-300L is a great lens. I use it on all my hiking and backpacking trips paired with a 16-35. You have a nice range of focal lengths for landscape and some reach for wildlife without too much size and weight. My copy is very sharp all the way to 300mm on my 5D III. I have also used the 70-300 many times at the 70mm end for shooting handheld panos with great results.

 

[nc0b]

I rarely use my Canon 1.4X TC III on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, though I have no complaints about the combo's IQ or focus speed. My Canon 2X TC III has been sold since it was useless for BIF if I ever lost focus. The lens would get lost in the sky and then hunt and never recover. At that point I purchased a 400mm f/5.6, which is excellent for BIF. Either TC combo on the 70-200mm was OK for perched birds, or other static wildlife. I find lack of IS is of no concern for BIF with the 400mm, as one must keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster to keep the bulk of the wings sharp. A little blur in the wing tips can be OK. After that I bought the 300mm f/4 IS, thinking it would be useful for more general photography. As it turned out I rarely used it, as it was too short for even water fowl on a lake and sometimes too long for candid shots of people in the park. I just sold the 300mm F/4 IS and purchased the 100-400mm II from GetItDigital, a gray market reseller at $500 cheaper than Adorama. Since I lost a little money selling the 2X TC, and quite a bit when selling the 300mm f/4, I would recommend either gray market which is cheaper, or saving up for the 100-400mm IS II from an authorized dealer. If 200mm cropped or 280mm with your TC isn't good enough, why take a baby step offered by the 70-300mm L? 2X more reach is significant, and cheaper in the long run than an interim solution. Many times I would like more than 400mm, but a longer Big White isn't going to happen. A UK gentleman I met in Alaska was using a Sigma Sport 150-600mm. I shot a few frames with it, and found it too bulky and heavy for me. On the other hand the whale shots he e-mailed me later were spectacular. When you need reach, 300mm isn't enough.

 

[Sauropod]

Fwiw the 70-300L is my go-to travel lens for roadtrips when others will be shooting images. It rides shotgun with any passenger on my 5D3 or 7D2 in greenbox mode for their convenience. It isn't the best at anything image-wise though it performs admirably. What it does better than other of my other lenses is allow for people to take a variety of shots, from zoomed in trains to landscapes, roadside zooms of family and kinda wide angle scenery shots with no drama, they point and shoot and produce nic images.

This lens goes with me when I am not sure what I will need. It accompanies my 24-70 2.8 ii and serves as an excellent travel lens kit with its lightness, small size and excellent image quality being inaluable. 300mm isn't enough reach when one really wants it, however taking my 150-600 Tamron isn't always an option. As I write this I am in Tokyo and used it at the zoo and for birds, plus wandering the city. Excellent zoo lens (but I did miss longer reach) and a nice combo with my wide lens.

The 70-300L is in my top 3 of most images taken count-wise and provides the majority of my cross-country travel images as it comports itself quite nicely. My 70-200 2.8 ii and 200 2.0 both produce better images at their ranges but neither fit easily in a small travel bag. The 70-300L accepts a Kenko 1.4 but I cant say the images I have produced with it were great, esp with the AF penalty the Kenko incurs. I own the 70-300DOIS which is smaller still but the 70-300L has a definte image advantage. The DOIS I now use as a loaner to friends or when I want to shoot wildlife from a boat. I realized in a watery incident I would be sad if I had to replace my 70-300L while the DOIS' loss would be translated to a cautionary story. In my experience the lens just works, and works well. It isn't a superstar (I sometimes wish for lower light capability), rather it is that rarity, a vanilla lens that works tirelessly without receiving fame or accolades.

 

[slclick]

I rarely use my Canon 1.4X TC III on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, though I have no complaints about the combo's IQ or focus speed. My Canon 2X TC III has been sold since it was useless for BIF if I ever lost focus. The lens would get lost in the sky and then hunt and never recover. At that point I purchased a 400mm f/5.6, which is excellent for BIF. Either TC combo on the 70-200mm was OK for perched birds, or other static wildlife. I find lack of IS is of no concern for BIF with the 400mm, as one must keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster to keep the bulk of the wings sharp. A little blur in the wing tips can be OK. After that I bought the 300mm f/4 IS, thinking it would be useful for more general photography. As it turned out I rarely used it, as it was too short for even water fowl on a lake and sometimes too long for candid shots of people in the park. I just sold the 300mm F/4 IS and purchased the 100-400mm II from GetItDigital, a gray market reseller at $500 cheaper than Adorama. Since I lost a little money selling the 2X TC, and quite a bit when selling the 300mm f/4, I would recommend either gray market which is cheaper, or saving up for the 100-400mm IS II from an authorized dealer. If 200mm cropped or 280mm with your TC isn't good enough, why take a baby step offered by the 70-300mm L? 2X more reach is significant, and cheaper in the long run than an interim solution. Many times I would like more than 400mm, but a longer Big White isn't going to happen. A UK gentleman I met in Alaska was using a Sigma Sport 150-600mm. I shot a few frames with it, and found it too bulky and heavy for me. On the other hand the whale shots he e-mailed me later were spectacular. When you need reach, 300mm isn't enough.

As I wrote, I'm not interested in over 300mm. But thank you anyway for your reply.

 

[Loswr]

Let me explain. No, there is too much – let me sum up. The 70-300L is a great lens, my go-to telezoom for travel and daylight outings (for indoors I grab the 70-200/2.8 II).

The only downside is the reversed position of the focus and zoom rings compared to other L zooms, but you get used to it.

 

[zim]

If you haven't already check out

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-5-6l-is/

I agree with jrda2 and neuro

 

[JumboShrimp]

No doubt it is a stellar performer. It's also really BIG and really HEAVY.
Before you purchase, be sure to actually handle it.

 

[slclick]

No doubt it is a stellar performer. It's also really BIG and really HEAVY.
Before you purchase, be sure to actually handle it.

I own and love the Sigma 24-35, nuff said. Plus I have large hands, use a 5D3 with an L bracket and I'm completely comfortable with big. I think your sentiment would be better used for the 100-400 and larger in my particular situation.

 

[slclick]

Let me explain. No, there is too much – let me sum up. The 70-300L is a great lens, my go-to telezoom for travel and daylight outings (for indoors I grab the 70-200/2.8 II).

The only downside is the reversed position of the focus and zoom rings compared to other L zooms, but you get used to it.

I will be picking up a tripod collar for this ('C' knockoff) Since I already have a RRS L84A plate, will that work? I believe it's similar to the recommended P20.

 

[Loswr]

Let me explain. No, there is too much – let me sum up. The 70-300L is a great lens, my go-to telezoom for travel and daylight outings (for indoors I grab the 70-200/2.8 II).

The only downside is the reversed position of the focus and zoom rings compared to other L zooms, but you get used to it.

I will be picking up a tripod collar for this ('C' knockoff) Since I already have a RRS L84A plate, will that work? I believe it's similar to the recommended P20.

I have the OEM collar with the RRS L84 plate (is there an L84A?). One thing I like is that with the collar/plate, when I support the lens by it my fingers are positioned right at the zoom ring.

 

[slclick]

Let me explain. No, there is too much – let me sum up. The 70-300L is a great lens, my go-to telezoom for travel and daylight outings (for indoors I grab the 70-200/2.8 II).

The only downside is the reversed position of the focus and zoom rings compared to other L zooms, but you get used to it.

I will be picking up a tripod collar for this ('C' knockoff) Since I already have a RRS L84A plate, will that work? I believe it's similar to the recommended P20.

I have the OEM collar with the RRS L84 plate (is there an L84A?). One thing I like is that with the collar/plate, when I support the lens by it my fingers are positioned right at the zoom ring.

Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

Interesting. The RRS site lists only the L84, I presume there was some minor update to the plate (the 5DIII body plate went from B5D3 to B5D3A to fix a design flaw, although in that case the catalog lists it with the -A designation). I'll have to have a look at mine (I have two L84 plates bought at different times) and see how they're stamped.

 

[rlaverty]

The 70-300L is a great lens. I use it on all my hiking and backpacking trips paired with a 16-35. You have a nice range of focal lengths for landscape and some reach for wildlife without too much size and weight. My copy is very sharp all the way to 300mm on my 5D III. I have also used the 70-300 many times at the 70mm end for shooting handheld panos with great results.

+1 Use same hiking setup, great stuff.

 

[unfocused]

Like others, the 70-300 "L" is my preferred travel lens, paired with the 24-105mm or on a crop sensor the 15-85mm. A reasonably light combination that is very flexible. I also own both the 100-400 II and the 70-200 II and while they are excellent lenses for certain purposes, if I'm going on vacation and need a general purpose lens, it's the 70-300 "L," no hesitation.

I would add though, that one should not discount the excellent IS on this lens. With some bracing, I have shot this lens indoors at 1/15th and 1/30th at 300.

 

[nc0b]

I am not knocking the 70-300mm, and it is more compact and less weight than the 100-400mm II. What I don't understand is not wanting more reach at times than 300mm can offer. Just this morning there were 12 antelope north of my back yard, and even 400mm was inadequate. At some point I will obtain a Canon body which will AF at f/8 so I can use my 1.4X TC III on either of my 400mm lenses.

 

[slclick]

I am not knocking the 70-300mm, and it is more compact and less weight than the 100-400mm II. What I don't understand is not wanting more reach at times than 300mm can offer. Just this morning there were 12 antelope north of my back yard, and even 400mm was inadequate. At some point I will obtain a Canon body which will AF at f/8 so I can use my 1.4X TC III on either of my 400mm lenses.

Sometimes less is more, ever heard that?


I shoot particular styles of photography. These have particular focal length needs. To each their own, right? The right tools for the job.... analogies and old adages etc etc.

 

[Loswr]

I am not knocking the 70-300mm, and it is more compact and less weight than the 100-400mm II. What I don't understand is not wanting more reach at times than 300mm can offer.

I don't understand not wanting more reach than 400mm or even 560mm can offer, that's why I have a 600/4 and both 1.4x and 2x TCs. But I don't plan on carrying those, or a 100-400, when I am hiking in the Swiss Alps next month.

 

[zim]

What I don't understand is not wanting more reach at times than 300mm can offer.

That's why I have a 12" reflector. Just this morning Saturn was in the sky :