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

0.24L wrote in post #13711084
I have a 70-200 f4 non-IS now and wish to get IS for low light shots aka lower shutter seed without motion.. As the price difference of the the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-300 IS is not much, can anyone advise me which one to get?

I assume the IQ is the same for both lens.. However I read somewhere that the auto focus hunt more than the 70-200..

I had the same 70-200f4 and replaced it with 70-300L never regrets you will be shock to see how fast and accurate focus this lens does.
You wont regret with 70-300L.

I think my search for a good telezoom has finally come to an end.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sth519/67097851​25/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sth519/67300558​43/

Wow is that a wolf?
Excellent pics.

ooh, any post processing done to your photos?

Can I know the EXIF? cheers..

btw amazing wolf, makes me want to cuddle it..

sth_ wrote in post #13714119
I think my search for a good telezoom has finally come to an end.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sth519/67097851​25/
IMG_8674 by sth519, on Flickr

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMG_8622 by sth519, on Flickr

bobobird wrote in post #13715943
Wow is that a wolf?
Excellent pics.

Thanks! Yes it is (not a wild one, though ).

0.24L wrote in post #13716358
ooh, any post processing done to your photos?

Only some slight adjustments to the tone curve to increase the overall contrast a little bit since the light was pretty bad that day – very dark and cloudy. No picture taken below ISO1250 that afternoon.

0.24L wrote in post #13716358
Can I know the EXIF? cheers..

http://www.flickr.com …s/sth519/670978​5125/meta/
http://www.flickr.com …s/sth519/673005​5843/meta/


Here's another one:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sth519/67098200​37/

May I know how does it compare to the tamron 70-300 vc usd? I know that it is a $400 lens but I need to know the reason of paying extra $1k other than weather proofing.

I do need to shoot in low ligting at sometimes Eg concerts.. so IS or VC is important to me, i do pixel creep a bit.. cheers..

apreciate someone can advise me..

0.24L wrote in post #13718135
May I know how does it compare to the tamron 70-300 vc usd? I know that it is a $400 lens but I need to know the reason of paying extra $1k other than weather proofing.

I do need to shoot in low ligting at sometimes Eg concerts.. so IS or VC is important to me, i do pixel creep a bit.. cheers..

apreciate someone can advise me..

I had the Tamron 70-300 VC (as well as the Canon 55-250) before I finally switched to the 70-300L.

The Tamron is a very good lens for the price and it definitely beats the 70-300L is terms of price/performance. But somehow, I wasn't very happy with it. At times, I had a lower-than-usual keeper rate with this lens, especially with moving subjects and in bad lighting, but sometimes even in bright daylight. Sometimes it looked like the lens had misfocused just slightly, ruining the fine detail. I found this pretty frustrating. Microadjustment didn't help either since it was no fixed front- or backfocus.

The 70-300L, so far, was quite the opposite: Even in the miserable lighting conditions described above, it focused perfectly.


BUT none of these two lenses will be good for concerts (unless you're shooting open air festivals at daylight). IS and VC don't help when you need to freeze motion. You need faster lenses for that.
I suggest looking at some prime lenses instead (or the expensive f/2.8 zooms).

I had the 70-200 f/4L IS lens. Great lens, no doubt about it.

I sold it for the 70-300L and have no regrets at all!! It's a fantastic lens.

0.2 what camera are you using?

I am currently using a 60d..

.24

You mentioned in this post that you wanted a zoom for low light use.
https://photography-on-the.net …p=13711084&post​count=1636

While the 70-300L can be used in low light (I have with more then acceptable results up @ iso 1600), it is not really what you would want for regularly working in poor light conditions. The 60D like my 550D will do pretty well at high iso but then you really do not want to go that way if there is a choice of lens that will give you that. So if you have a proper low light useable lens + the camera's pretty good high iso handling you should be able to do what you want with more confidence.

For low light capable zooms your options are the 2.8 series of 70-200s preferable the MkII which has the same excellent IS as the 70-300 or primes also in the 2.8 bracket. Neither are cheap or "light".

0.24L wrote in post #13718135
May I know how does it compare to the tamron 70-300 vc usd? I know that it is a $400 lens but I need to know the reason of paying extra $1k other than weather proofing.

I do need to shoot in low ligting at sometimes Eg concerts.. so IS or VC is important to me, i do pixel creep a bit.. cheers..

apreciate someone can advise me..

I have had the Tamron 70-300 VC for about a year. Got some decent results with it but nothing impressive. Just received my Canon 70-300L IS tonight. Only able to take a few shots but the IQ is amazingly better! Definitely worth the extra $ in my opinion.

Just received mine tonight and as we are still only having about 3 hours of daylight I won't be able to take any outside shots until this weekend. Did open the door (-48 F wind chill) and snapped a couple of quick ones. LOL Did a little PP on LR3. This is my second shot. The white/yellow streak are headlights/taillights.

IMAGE LINK: http://ak3006.smugmug.​com …508670&k=bHvZWN​G&lb=1&s=A

a couple of images from our local Hawk Conservancy - playing with the 70-300 LIS mounted on the front of a 5dmk2. Both are crops of around 50% - 60%

Beautiful shots oldcanon.

-------------
I hate the pic for its low quality and would never post something like this.
But then this is my very very first owl sighting and pic.

It was so dark in the pine forest and they were so high up and almost invisible. And then the battery dies with the spare still in the car. Could not use a flash as that is a huge no no for this species.

Certainly could have done better. Will retry next week weather permitting.

Long Eared Owl