Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4.0-5.6 IS L USM -opinions anyone?

George

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Messages
3,535
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking about trying one of these, looks like they can be picked up quite reasonably 2nd hand.

It'd be really as a backup/travelling lens when I'm not lugging a heavier prime about. I realise it's aperture is a bit of a limitation, but with the iso performance of the 1 Dx I don't see that as a problem, it's more the IQ I'm interested in.

My current walk about for travel is a 70-200 2.8 L IS mk 2, but looking for something a bit lighter (I won't sell the 70-200) to take on a couple of trips this year, but don't want to suffer image degradation over the 70-200 with a 1.4 x converter, which for me is absolutely superb.

Any thoughts from someone who owns one?

Thanks, George.
 
I've not got one, but it's on my list to get as it's getting very good reviews and has a good following on here.

There are some threads about it and with several members trading in the 100-400 for it - if yo can get one for a decent price, don't think you'd be disapppinted
 
Had the lens on a 5D2, fantastic to use lovely and sharp.
Not too heavy like a 70-200 2.8
It`s certainly an overlooked lens, search for a few threads on TP about it.
 
I love mine and really sharp! I'll try and post a few sample pics up soon.
 
Another vote for this hidden gem of a lens :thumbs: IMHO as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS.

The Canon 1.4 extender is not compatible because of the physical lens protrusion into the end mount, but will operate in the limited range of 250-300mm, but extra reach can be obtained using Kenko extenders if needed which I have found are compatible.
 
lostsoulal2 said:
Another vote for this hidden gem of a lens :thumbs: IMHO as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS.

The Canon 1.4 extender is not compatible because of the physical lens protrusion into the end mount, but will operate in the limited range of 250-300mm, but extra reach can be obtained using Kenko extenders if needed which I have found are compatible.
Click to expand...
Yes the kenko extenders work great with very little loss in IQ.
 
lostsoulal2 said:
Another vote for this hidden gem of a lens :thumbs: IMHO as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a good lens for the money, so is the 55-250mm, which offers similar performance, but as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS that's a bit misleading. Both 70-200mm F4 lenses are a few rungs higher up the quality ladder when compared to the 70-300mm IS. Personally I would stick with your 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII and 1.4xTC which gives you the option of a F2.8 or f4 lens compared to f5.6
 
pete.rush said:
Yes it's a good lens for the money, so is the 55-250mm, which offers similar performance, but as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS that's a bit misleading. Both 70-200mm F4 lenses are a few rungs higher up the quality ladder when compared to the 70-300mm IS. Personally I would stick with your 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII and 1.4xTC which gives you the option of a F2.8 or f4 lens compared to f5.6
Click to expand...
Thanks everyone for the input, excellent as usual.
I'm tempted to go with Pete, however, but as always it's good to get other opinions.
 
lostsoulal2 said: [URL='http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/goto/post?id=5985849#post-5985849' said:
↑[/URL]
Another vote for this hidden gem of a lens :thumbs: IMHO as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS.
Click to expand...

pete.rush said:
Yes it's a good lens for the money, so is the 55-250mm, which offers similar performance, but as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS that's a bit misleading. Both 70-200mm F4 lenses are a few rungs higher up the quality ladder when compared to the 70-300mm IS. Personally I would stick with your 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII and 1.4xTC which gives you the option of a F2.8 or f4 lens compared to f5.6
Click to expand...

Are we both talking about the same lens? - I am referring to the "white" coloured L version of the 70-300mm lens.
 
pete.rush said:
Yes it's a good lens for the money, so is the 55-250mm, which offers similar performance, but as sharp as the 70-200mm F4 IS that's a bit misleading. Both 70-200mm F4 lenses are a few rungs higher up the quality ladder when compared to the 70-300mm IS. Personally I would stick with your 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII and 1.4xTC which gives you the option of a F2.8 or f4 lens compared to f5.6
Click to expand...

Pete, you're talking about a different lens, a much cheaper and inferior lens.

The 70-300L is nothing short of superb. Relatively light and compact, sharp as a tack, super fast silent focusing, great bokeh, etc, etc. I sold my 100-400L to get one and am delighted I did.
 
It's a wonderful lens, and I think more popular than its presence on most forums suggests. In terms of total numbers out there, the 70-300L can't match the squillions of 70-200s and 100-400s sold over decades.
 
lostsoulal2 said:
Are we both talking about the same lens? - I am referring to the "white" coloured L version of the 70-300mm lens.
Click to expand...

Sorry missed the L in the title, blinded by numbers and letters from the day job :-)
Yes the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 L is a very good lens, sharper than the 100-400, better IS system, but does it replace the 70-200mm f2.8 MKII and 1.4x TC probably not to be honest. A lot of money to cover the range you already have
 
pete.rush said:
Sorry missed the L in the title, blinded by numbers and letters from the day job :)
Yes the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 L is a very good lens, sharper than the 100-400, better IS system, but does it replace the 70-200mm f2.8 MKII and 1.4x TC probably not to be honest. A lot of money to cover the range you already have
Click to expand...

70-300L is much lighter and smaller (and cheaper) than either 70-200/2.8 or 100-400. That's what the 70-300L is all about, and what the OP is looking for.
 
Thanks again for all the help, as it's only for travelling, I might well consider it, I'll see if one pops up second hand for a reasonable price. Seems they can be got new around £800-850, so if I get a second hand one I shouldn't lose much if I decide to resell.

George.
 
HoppyUK said:
70-300L is much lighter and smaller (and cheaper) than either 70-200/2.8 or 100-400. That's what the 70-300L is all about, and what the OP is looking for.
Click to expand...

Ain't much cheaper new. £1200 for 70-300 v £1250 for 100-400, uk prices and OP already has the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS MKII so buying another lens to cover a similar focal range when he's keeping the 70-200, well personally I would invest in something else
 
Pete, if you search for the 70-300 on Google, there are some grey imports I suspect at just over £800...and I'd go 2nd hand anyway. Basically I am thinking about a trip I'm on next year in the Brazilian Pantenal, shooting tigers and I may end up with my 70-200 plus extenders as there might just be some light issues where I'll like the 2.8 and also take my 400 DO with a second body.
Really looking to cut down in weight where possible as I'll be in a smallish boat and either hand holding or using a monopod and I'm trying to cut down on changing lenses.
I wouldn't normally be using this lens (I think!!) where transportation isn't such a problem.
 
Well I bought a nice 2nd hand one, initial impressions are very favourable, will be doing some tests over the hols to see how it performs in anger!!
Thanks for the input, everyone!!

George.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top