Canon 70-300 L

Bummer that Canon cares more about making a buck than customer service. Now that's out of the way...

Tough call on the tripod ring. I chose not to trust cheap Chinese plastic with my $1400 lens yet refused to shell it out for Canon's. I went with a sturdier ballhead.

phoenixkh thanks for the link and it seems that they've lowered the price to $19.99 and as I see it's made of metal and has the felt lining.

I looked at several and I wouldn't get the plastic one as I wouldn't feel safe using it with this lens.
Again thank you and all the others who have this collar with positive inputs.

Now I have to wait until Thursday to get my 7DmkII and will be very happy until I get the desire to get another L lens.

Nethawked you stated you are using a sturdier ballhead, but everything that I've read on a lens with weight is to use a tripod collar to keep the lens from deforming the mount on the camera?

When I carry my lens I make sure to hold it by the lens body and not allow the lens to put the downward forward weight on the mount.

Love my 70-300L, love it. That's why it will hurt like hell when I end up selling it for a 100-400L II or Sigma 150-600 Sport. For my shooting, I simply need more reach.

But damn she's a fine lens... I call her ELLY

coffee_mon wrote in post #17265481
Just got mine and have used it twice.
It's a stellar lens and I look forward to a long future with it.
Just read about the new 100-400mm but at the price their asking I'm fine with what I spent.
The only issue i have is that it didn't come with a tripod ring as the new 100-400mm does.
Has anybody used one of the non-canon tripod rings and what results have you had?
thanks

I've used both aftermarket and canon tripod ring. the former scratched my lens and the canon works okay. I sold the canon ring tho because I've determined that the 70-300L really doesn't need a tripod ring if you have a good tripod and ballhead -- and L bracket to change orientation.

I sent an email to Canon Technical and asked about the weight of this lens in relation to any damage that might occur due its weight.
Canon stated that the 70-300mm L lens will not distort the camera mount and they stated that any of the Canon lenses that might create a problem comes with a standard tripod collar and if doesn't then it will not not do any damage.
Kind of a bummer that they don't supply one even if it doesn't create a problem as with the cost it would be nice to have without an added extra cost.

Rolex wrote in post #17265641
same as phoenixkh above... just could not justify the astronomical price Canon wanted for their tripod ring so went for a quality alternative for around £30 (uk price)

I love my 70-300L but agreed on the astro price of the tripod mount think it was £120 !!! Disgraceful as it its so heavy it should have come with one, or at least been a reasonable price.
I also dislike the stupid pouch, and immediately ordered the soft case that came with my 70-200 F2.8 L II. - this is padded and fits well with the tripod ring mounted somanother £45 from Amazon. So to ready to go thats £165 of essential extras.

Despite that its a great outdoor lens. Solid , strong, great IQ, weather sealed?? And beautifully compact. Great IS 4 stops, basically I dont need a tripod. And it focuses really very fast - on a 5D3.
A LOT , LOT easier to carry and wield than the 70-200 L F2.8 II.
Quite useful coming from a 1.6 crop, on the 5D3.

Fabulous value - I should now be saying its redundant, as the new 100-400 is out - that should be my defacto complimentary addition to support the 70-200 L II , but at £1069 v £2000 I really cant justify loosing that compact facility and spending 2x as much for an additional 100mm.
Only negative is it can't take a 1.4 tele con. But I guess if you add £1069 and £350 = £1419 thats close enough to the £1800 that I hope the 100-400 L II will soon drop to. Or go Grey :-0

I have used a 70-300L since it came out - as in an early adopter if you like. At the time people said there wouldn't be a market for it, it was too expensive, etc, etc ...I took the plunge and have not looked back.

As many others on this thread have said, it is a superb, super sharp zoom with much going for it and little against it.

I use it on a 5D III and have used it successfully at weddings in low light and for general photography. It sits in the back all the time unless I am using primes.

John57 wrote in post #17275032
I have used a 70-300L since it came out - as in an early adopter if you like. At the time people said there wouldn't be a market for it, it was too expensive, etc, etc ...I took the plunge and have not looked back.

lol me too - back when there were several threads running on two different themes: The 'plastic' new 60D Super Rebel, and the slow, 'ugly' 70-300L IS which some wanted to nickname 'the Turtle' (I got the 60D early too)

of the the new 100-400L II is modeled much the same as the 70-300L but its been received quite well, now that the 70-300L has been proven to be a sharp tested performer

Immaculens wrote in post #17275058
lol me too - back when there were several threads running on two different themes: The 'plastic' new 60D Super Rebel, and the slow, 'ugly' 70-300L IS which some wanted to nickname 'the Turtle' (I got the 60D early too)

of the the new 100-400L II is modeled much the same as the 70-300L but its been received quite well, now that the 70-300L has been proven to be a sharp tested performer

"slow" ! As in F 4.5 or slow to AF?
Think yours must be faulty!
Mines very quick to focus on 5D3.

I wonder if the new 100-400 might be comparable for long range work. I've got one of the old ones and DID NOT get lucky with my copy, so I almost never use it. Don't think I can afford the new one at this time but I sure could use the reach.

Submariner wrote in post #17275156
"slow" ! As in F 4.5 or slow to AF?
Think yours must be faulty!
Mines very quick to focus on 5D3.

boy did you get/read that wrong ... I did not say mine was faulty in any way - I was referring to various threads at the time it was announced/released and the criticisms that is was a 'slow' as in f/4 to f/5.6

I'm not complaining in the least. This lens would not have been financially within my reach if it was a constant f/4 which seems what many were crying/complaining about at the time but I bet many would not have liked that 'out-of-reach' price tag

coffee_mon wrote in post #17272943
I sent an email to Canon Technical and asked about the weight of this lens in relation to any damage that might occur due its weight.
Canon stated that the 70-300mm L lens will not distort the camera mount and they stated that any of the Canon lenses that might create a problem comes with a standard tripod collar and if doesn't then it will not not do any damage.
Kind of a bummer that they don't supply one even if it doesn't create a problem as with the cost it would be nice to have without an added extra cost.

That is good to know. However, the lens does balance better on a tripod with the ring. I have an aftermarket (Fotodiox) ring, but have used it only once or twice. I think if it is used carefully, the ring's padding should keep it from scratching the lens.

I got my 70-300L because several people in the 60D thread recommended it. Will was the most vocal of all of them. For that, I'm grateful. I've had lots of fun with it and have lots of keepers from those fun times.

That said, I might have to sell it to finance the 100-400 2 if I decide to go that way. I think it should be as good as the 70-300L and if so, that is quite good enough for me. Supposedly, it will take telecoverters with ease (1.4X should AF on several camera bodies... 2X will work in live view). I have to pay off my 7D 2 first. That will be easy if I sell off some stuff. I'm a better collector than seller, unfortunately.

I just got mine after debating between it and the 70-200 f4 IS.

For me, the 70-200 f4 IS doesn't really make sense since at 200mm, the 70-300 is only at f5 or so. I'm ok with losing f4 at 200mm and gaining 300mm in a more compact, albeit heavier, package.

Also, the IS on the 70-300 is way quieter and smooth. I hardly sense it at all, as opposed to the 70-200 which constantly makes whirring noises when IS is engaged.

As far as price, the 70-300 is just $150 more. It was a no brainer for me. 70-300 is far more compact, as sharp or sharper, better IS, and 300. The only negative compared to the 70-200 is 200mm at f5 and a bit heavier weight.
The 100-400 is nice but its size puts it out of the realm of portability for me. The 70-300L is touching the limits of what I can use somewhat discreetly in public (as discreetly as a white lens can be anyway).