EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS USM?
- Thread starter Ben_dc2
- Start date
- Messages
- 63
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Ben
I've never owned the L series version, but I had the standard version (same aperture and zoom range).
I used it for about five years, only occasionally, and mainly to shoot white water kayaking. The focus was pretty fast and on bright days it was fast enough, although I did find F5.6 a bit limiting on dull days.
When I upgraded to a 7D in January, I replaced it with a 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS). I have been delighted with it and for me the wider aperture is really important, especially at full zoom. The shorter focal length wasn't a big deal for me because I can always crop if I need to. And I'm very happy with not having IS - being able to hand hold at slower speed is a bit pointless when you need a fast shutter speed to freeze subject movement!
As for the L series, as I'm sure you'll agree, I've got nothing but praise. I can't see me buying a non-L series lens every again. I've only got two lenses in my system (24-70 F2.8 L) until I can save up for another L series lens!
Sorry that I can't provide any useful info about the specific lens you mention, but it all depends on what you want it for. Any more details on that?
HTH
Neil
I've never owned the L series version, but I had the standard version (same aperture and zoom range).
I used it for about five years, only occasionally, and mainly to shoot white water kayaking. The focus was pretty fast and on bright days it was fast enough, although I did find F5.6 a bit limiting on dull days.
When I upgraded to a 7D in January, I replaced it with a 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS). I have been delighted with it and for me the wider aperture is really important, especially at full zoom. The shorter focal length wasn't a big deal for me because I can always crop if I need to. And I'm very happy with not having IS - being able to hand hold at slower speed is a bit pointless when you need a fast shutter speed to freeze subject movement!
As for the L series, as I'm sure you'll agree, I've got nothing but praise. I can't see me buying a non-L series lens every again. I've only got two lenses in my system (24-70 F2.8 L) until I can save up for another L series lens!
Sorry that I can't provide any useful info about the specific lens you mention, but it all depends on what you want it for. Any more details on that?
HTH
Neil
- Messages
- 1,525
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Very useful Neil. Ben asked for feedback on an EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS USM and you give him a review of a 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS). Why?
Ben I have very recently bought the 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS USM but have not had a chance to really use it yet. Waiting till I get back to the UK at the end of the month. Actually I normally only use a 70-300 in zoos, safari parks, wildlife parks, etc and intend to try it out in Dublin Zoo, Edinburgh Zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park.
I did compare it with my 70-300 IS in a shop before ordering it from DigitalRev and certainly based on that limited test it appeared much sharper. Also the build quality is superb although that does make it significantly heavier. Anyway I have high hopes for it.
Ben I have very recently bought the 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS USM but have not had a chance to really use it yet. Waiting till I get back to the UK at the end of the month. Actually I normally only use a 70-300 in zoos, safari parks, wildlife parks, etc and intend to try it out in Dublin Zoo, Edinburgh Zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park.
I did compare it with my 70-300 IS in a shop before ordering it from DigitalRev and certainly based on that limited test it appeared much sharper. Also the build quality is superb although that does make it significantly heavier. Anyway I have high hopes for it.
- Messages
- 63
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry
- Messages
- 17
- Name
- Anders
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You get what you pay for. The EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM isn't as good as the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM, but it's not as expensive either.
The old 70-300 is weakest at the longest range, so you don't loose much by considering a 70-200 mm lens instead.
The old 70-300 is weakest at the longest range, so you don't loose much by considering a 70-200 mm lens instead.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,652
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks again. OP asked about the L version of 70-300mm.
There are some 'scientific' tests here http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff vs 100-400L http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff
- Messages
- 1,525
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I sold my 100-400L, which I didn't particularly like, to help fund the 70-300L.
PS What's drifting?
Thats a good thing then. I have used a 100-400L a lot and not bothered about it not been "fast".
I am a media photographer for the british drift championship. Stuff like this...
Hi,
Review of 70-300 L HERE on a full frame sensor, but check out the one on the 50D HERE which will be a bit closer to your 60D than the first review I linked.
Just as well off with the 100-400 zoom as its cheaper ( s/h anyway ) and pretty versatile, ok the IS might not be as strong on it as the 70-300 L but for moving cars its not needed anyway.
Check out my Supersports and Superbike galleries for shots using a Canon 30D and Canon 100-400 L, bearing in mind I was just starting out with photography in those days, but shows what can be achieved with the 100-400.
Mike.
Review of 70-300 L HERE on a full frame sensor, but check out the one on the 50D HERE which will be a bit closer to your 60D than the first review I linked.
Just as well off with the 100-400 zoom as its cheaper ( s/h anyway ) and pretty versatile, ok the IS might not be as strong on it as the 70-300 L but for moving cars its not needed anyway.
Check out my Supersports and Superbike galleries for shots using a Canon 30D and Canon 100-400 L, bearing in mind I was just starting out with photography in those days, but shows what can be achieved with the 100-400.
Mike.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,525
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you don't need the extra reach of the 100-400 then the 100-300 is lighter (330g), more compact (46mm), has better IS, has very fast almost silent AF, is a new design, doesn't use the annoying push pull zoom method of the 100-400 and if buying new is 80 quid cheaper than the 100-400 (WEX latest prices).
- Messages
- 17
- Name
- Anders
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ouch! I'll have to blame that I just turned 50...
- Messages
- 9,619
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From what I've read, the 70-300 L is similar but better than it's non L cousin, and like mentioned above, if you don't need the reach, it's certainly more compact and lighter than the 100-400.
I did fancy one but have decided to look for a 300/400 prime instead. I had the non L version and always thought it took great pictures.
Steve
I did fancy one but have decided to look for a 300/400 prime instead. I had the non L version and always thought it took great pictures.
Steve
- Messages
- 1,902
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the only advantage the 100-400 L has is reach. If 300mm is enough for you, the 70-300 is better or equal in ever other aspect (IQ, focus speed, weight, weather sealing (which the 100-400 lacks)
However if you feel like the extra reach would be useful, the 100-400L is still a very nice lens.
However if you feel like the extra reach would be useful, the 100-400L is still a very nice lens.
- Messages
- 268
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a 70-300 L which I use on a 550D, having bought it to replace an EF-S 55-250. I use it for wildlife photography in Zoos and safari parks. It's sharp enough to shave a wooly mammoth! I can't reccommend this lens too much!
According to some reviews I've read, it's actually sharper at 300mm than the older 100-400mm lens. It also blows the new Tamron 70-300mm VC lens completely out of the water at 300mm although at 70mm the Tamron apparently has the edge.
The only downside is Canon's perverse decision to charge separately for the tripod mounting ring. This has annoyed a great many people, including myself.
According to some reviews I've read, it's actually sharper at 300mm than the older 100-400mm lens. It also blows the new Tamron 70-300mm VC lens completely out of the water at 300mm although at 70mm the Tamron apparently has the edge.
The only downside is Canon's perverse decision to charge separately for the tripod mounting ring. This has annoyed a great many people, including myself.
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hardly fair comparing it to a lens that on cheapest price at CPB costs nearly 800 quid less, would want to be better at every focal distance I would have thought
- Messages
- 1,811
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've had one for about a month and love it. It is really sharp, really really quick to focus, nice Bokeh, good in low light or at least meets my early morning/evening needs, smaller filter size so cheaper. It is a little heavy but all L lenses are, I have carried it round a Zoo all day on a 500D without complaint but have just got a BlackRapid sling which helps no end, now I take it out with me on nearly every dog walk.
I got it for general outdoor stuff and to get pictures of my dogs and others coursing which I am in no doubt at all that it will be up for the job and looking forward to the next meet.
I tried the 100-400L which is heavier, older and strange zoom imo.
70-200L 2.8 was highly recommended but heavier, longer and 100mm shorter without a xconverter and with xconv its a £1000 more and even bigger.
70-200L 4 IS was ok but 100mm shorter and not as nice to hold, just did not click with me.
There was nothing else that even came close to it in terms of image quality, speed or build.
The 70-300mmL ticked every box for me (apart from price) for outdoor photography and everything about it compared to my Tamron 18-270mm is unbalivable and worth the 3x more easily.
I am saving for a 7D (and 15-85mm) which is supposed to really bring the very best out of this already awsome lens.
Oh the IS is fantastic and 2 stage as well so good for panning, I took this hand held
HAND HELD 1/2 sec f45 @300mm as a test.
Instantly focused on this
And this through a fence
by PINNACLE PHOTO LOG, on Flickr
There is a Flickr group if you want to see more.http://www.flickr.com/groups/ef_70-300mm_f4-56l_is_usm/
I cannot fault this lens in any way and after owning it now for a while I would go as far and say it is worth every penny. If you need 400mm the Kenko x1.4 works with it and you keep auto focus (albeit slower) I have been told. The tripod ring can be found on the net for $28 I think I remember seeing. Canon want £200 or something stupid but coming down seen one for £164.
Amazon were the cheapest when I shopped around and they had stock where as a lot of shops I called didn't.
I got it for general outdoor stuff and to get pictures of my dogs and others coursing which I am in no doubt at all that it will be up for the job and looking forward to the next meet.
I tried the 100-400L which is heavier, older and strange zoom imo.
70-200L 2.8 was highly recommended but heavier, longer and 100mm shorter without a xconverter and with xconv its a £1000 more and even bigger.
70-200L 4 IS was ok but 100mm shorter and not as nice to hold, just did not click with me.
There was nothing else that even came close to it in terms of image quality, speed or build.
The 70-300mmL ticked every box for me (apart from price) for outdoor photography and everything about it compared to my Tamron 18-270mm is unbalivable and worth the 3x more easily.
I am saving for a 7D (and 15-85mm) which is supposed to really bring the very best out of this already awsome lens.
Oh the IS is fantastic and 2 stage as well so good for panning, I took this hand held
HAND HELD 1/2 sec f45 @300mm as a test.
Instantly focused on this
And this through a fence
by PINNACLE PHOTO LOG, on Flickr
There is a Flickr group if you want to see more.http://www.flickr.com/groups/ef_70-300mm_f4-56l_is_usm/
I cannot fault this lens in any way and after owning it now for a while I would go as far and say it is worth every penny. If you need 400mm the Kenko x1.4 works with it and you keep auto focus (albeit slower) I have been told. The tripod ring can be found on the net for $28 I think I remember seeing. Canon want £200 or something stupid but coming down seen one for £164.
Amazon were the cheapest when I shopped around and they had stock where as a lot of shops I called didn't.
- Messages
- 1,896
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi,
Buy ONE for,
1.Size.
2.Build Quality.
3.Sharpness.
4.No Barrel Rotation when Focussing.
5.Fits in the Smallest Canon Bag that is Badged Canon, which I have (The Olive Green and Black type) with the Tripod Ring on.
Only Downside is Price, but it has come down a lot since it was Released.
I LOVE it.
Regards
.
Last edited: