Really silly 70-300L questions

Just got my 70-300L today and its a very nice sharp lens. Two questions come to mind for those that have used it:

1. I was under the impression that this lens was "stormtrooper white"...really its off-white kinda beige-y kinda like the 70-200L's(I don't have one to compare side by side). Is this the case?

2. The IS doesn't seem all that effective at 70mm if I want to get a shot at peak sharpness. So far I've been having luck from 1/50th-1/70th a second. It seems pretty decent at 300mm. Any other users notice this?

don't have the lens so i can't say for sure, but i think all canon whites are off white. it's def. not completely white although sometimes i think flash makes it seem that way.

at 70mm you don't really need stabilizer. i feel comfortable shooting at 1/30 with my 24-70 all day long. you'll see the more obvious differences at the longer end. you can shoot at probably 1/8th of a second @ 70mm w/ no problems as long as you hold it relatively still.

Nevermind on the stabilizer...it came from Canon in IS mode 2, IS mode 1 is working much better as can be expected. Still curious on the color, I thought they moved to a true white color starting with this lens.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12749310
Just got my 70-300L today and its a very nice sharp lens. Two questions come to mind for those that have used it:

1. I was under the impression that this lens was "stormtrooper white"...really its off-white kinda beige-y kinda like the 70-200L's(I don't have one to compare side by side). Is this the case?

2. The IS doesn't seem all that effective at 70mm if I want to get a shot at peak sharpness. So far I've been having luck from 1/50th-1/70th a second. It seems pretty decent at 300mm. Any other users notice this?

Yeah the new white white is not as white as they made it sound. That said, I compared it to 70-200 f/4 IS and it is actually is a little bit more pure white and less beige than that, definitely noticeably so, that said quite far from stormtrooper white all the same.

As for the IS at 70mm I didn't test that out. I notice that you are using a 7D and that has a very high density sensor, considerably higher than the film stock when the 1/FL rule was invented and that rule I think was also for like 4x6" prints which is a lot smaller than 100% viewing.

Also once you get into a range around 1/15th or so mirror slap blur can begin to be a major issue, especially on FF with the giant mirror, although I think you were probably just above that range and you were not shooting FF.

No, the lenses are not true white. It's an off-color whitish-beige...that's normal

It's not white. I know people often make remarks about the Canon's "white lenses", but none of them are actually white, they are all beige. The 70-300L is lighter than 70-200's, closer to a light grey, but definitely not white.

I'm blown away by the IS on the 70-300. I haven't noticed it being less effective at 70mm. The first day I had the lens, I tested the IS and found that I could actually get handheld shots at 1/15 and 300mm with a good keeper rate. I even got a 1/8-second shot at 300mm that was sharp. I don't have the steadiest hands, and with the 100-300 I wouldn't have expected a keeper shot at 300mm in anything less than 1/250, certainly not 1/8! A 1/8-second exposure is 5 stops slower than the (1/focal length) rule of thumb.

absplastic wrote in post #12749381
It's not white. I know people often make remarks about the Canon's "white lenses", but none of them are actually white, they are all beige. The 70-300L is lighter than 70-200's, closer to a light grey, but definitely not white.

I'm blown away by the IS on the 70-300. I haven't noticed it being less effective at 70mm. The first day I had the lens, I tested the IS and found that I could actually get handheld shots at 1/15 and 300mm with a good keeper rate. I even got a 1/8-second shot at 300mm that was sharp. I don't have the steadiest hands, and with the 100-300 I wouldn't have expected a keeper shot at 300mm in anything less than 1/250, certainly not 1/8! A 1/8-second exposure is 5 stops slower than the (1/focal length) rule of thumb.

Yes I agree its the most impressive IS I have seen to date...it is absolutely SILENT. I know people often say that, but I can't hear this thing at all. My 100L will make a weird "electronic noise" if I shift it right or left(probably they hybrid IS) but otherwise is quiet. The 17-55mm has the typical "whoosh" IS sound...the 70-300 can't be heard.

I just tried and got a good shot at 300mm with 1/25th a second so I second the remarkable aspect of the IS, leaps and bounds better than the tammy that I tried but just wasn't sold on.

I agree with the previous poster that I would call this lens a light grey...just when it came out I kept hearing comparisons to "stormtrooper white" so I was expecting that and not the light grey color. Silly thing to wonder about but since I got this lens from Canon direct(swap for non-working 24L II) I wanted to make sure I got the latest product and not something thats been sitting on their development table a while

I'll add my cheers for the 70-300L as well, love it so much I got rid of my 100-400L.
I was able to get a 1/20 shot at 300mm and the pic was tack sharp, LOVE IT!

Just adjust the white balance! :P

Great lens, I wish ( and I would expect ) the next generation of mid range zooms to have this kind of quality. I was never much for IS but I have gotten some very sharp photos at 1/10 at 300mm. I can't say enough good things about this lens, those who only look and say its the same stats as the non L are really missing out.