70-300L IS QUality?

Ah, well then I'm backing your interest in the 70-300mmL again

My version of the Kenko does report, but you can use the scotch tape over the pins trick if necessary...FYI...

Highly unlikely I'd use the TC w/the 70-300L, if I want more distance, then I'll look into the 100-400 or even maybe the newer Sigma 150-600. though I don't care for the variable f stop up to 6.3, but that's for another thread!

My 70-300L on my 60D and 6D WILL auto-focus without problems using the Kenko Pro 1.4X every time. Image quality suffers slightly but normally not noticeable for long distance landscape type use.
Heck my 100-400L II will also autofocus with it on my 6D just not all the time or sometimes needs to be focused manually to get it close then it finishes the final accurate focus. Some kind of magic going on as it isn't supposed to work at all.
Pete

HappyShotz wrote in post #17785020
Highly unlikely I'd use the TC w/the 70-300L, if I want more distance, then I'll look into the 100-400 or even maybe the newer Sigma 150-600. though I don't care for the variable f stop up to 6.3, but that's for another thread!

6.3 is less than 600.

Though I think the 100-400L ii vs the 150-600 will be the second generation debate o of the 70-300L vs the 100-400L i.

I know this is an old thread but I recently purchased a lightly used copy of the EF 70-300L and while I have not used it a lot yet, so far I have been very happy with the images

IMAGE LINK: https://troybracker.sm​ugmug.com/Canon-R6/n-3Shb9d/i-3Jcrpwk/A

This is a great lens, and it was a precursor to the kind of improvements that we saw in the upgraded 100-400mm. For a time, we had decide between the old 100-400mm for that extra 100mm, and this lens with better IS, AF and IQ.

The 70-300L is my most used lens, and I don't use it at all for sports or wildlife. I use it instead of a 70-200.

A 300mm lens is a for-real telephoto lens. I owned a 300 2.8 when I was a sports photographer and I fell in love with everything about that focal length. It collapses the perspective and brings things that are far apart, close together.

And to get that FL in a very sharp, fairly-manageable-sized lens, I can't pass it up. It's pretty big for a walk-around lens, but it goes to 300.

drsilver wrote in post #19402489
The 70-300L is my most used lens, and I don't use it at all for sports or wildlife. I use it instead of a 70-200.

A 300mm lens is a for-real telephoto lens. I owned a 300 2.8 when I was a sports photographer and I fell in love with everything about that focal length. It collapses the perspective and brings things that are far apart, close together.

And to get that FL in a very sharp, fairly-manageable-sized lens, I can't pass it up. It's pretty big for a walk-around lens, but it goes to 300.

Hosted photo: posted by drsilver in
./showthread.php?p=194​02489&i=i154699841
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by drsilver in
./showthread.php?p=194​02489&i=i145979350
forum: Canon Lenses

I can't say my 70-300L is my most used lens but it is my most used "telephoto walk around" lens. My other options for telephoto are the 100-400 mk2 or the Tamron 150-600 G2. Either makes the 70-300L feel tiny and light. IMO it is a keeper for sure.

Rod

The two advantages of the 70-300L that I found significant compared to 70-200Ls are size and reach. The moderate weight, placing it between the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 makes it a very handholdable lens, and the IS is very reliable for me up to now. The 100-400L II has the advantages for better IS and reach, but for the weight alone I'd still pick the 70-300L.