Canon 70-300L, initial thoughts

there was a good deal for a new 70-300L, and in a moment of weakness, i ordered on. received the lens yesterday, and have been shooting a little with it.
Initial impressions:
out of the box, the lens is nice and compact, though not very light. built is excellent. It packs well. It is very well built. it extends while zooming, but overall balances well on a 5d3.
The focus and zoom ring are in reverse order. very annoying.
Focus is very fast and very quiet.
Image quality is excellent with good color and contrast, and sharp at 300 mm and 5.6. image stablization is very effective, 3-4 stops.
things I dont like.
1. The reverse order of zoom and focus as mentioned.
2. The lens feels heavy after a while, at least compared to 70-200 f4L IS
3. I did not think i would care about variable aperture, but I do. right now my 100-400L is my only other variable aperture, and thats almost always at 400mm
4. It does not like my taped kenko 300 DG 1.4x extender. even though it does autofocus on the 5d3 its very jittery, hunting back and forth. in comparison, my 100-400L locks confidently and tracks like a champ with the extender.

I am not sure if I am going to keep it. the 70-200 f4L is is stellar for walking around, and I think I prefer it over the 70-300. on full frame, I find that if 200 is not long enough, I would usually like to have 400. I may have felt differently If I was shooting with a cropper.
I may end up doing some comparison shots later.
In the meantime, here are a couple of shots.

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

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

I found the same thing Kevin when I had mine.
Although I used it almost not at all, I was hard pressed to put it on my 5D2 (at the time, now a 5D3 as well), but having the 70-200 f4 IS and the 2.8 Mark II, I didn't see enough to merit keeping it.
But it is 300mm and it is affordble so it is a good option.
Tried the 2X III Extenders as well and I now think that the 400 5.6 is the one I want now for the reach.

It certainly looks like a quality lens. However, if you already own a 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400L, then it's also very redundant, IMO.

70-300L? Never heard of it. Looked at B&H and it doesn't seem to exist.

cdifoto wrote in post #14937324
70-300L? Never heard of it. Looked at B&H and it doesn't seem to exist.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …70_300mm_f_4_5_​6L_IS.html

renfield wrote in post #14937334
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …70_300mm_f_4_5_​6L_IS.html

That's odd. I typed in ef 70-300 and all I got was the consumer and DO versions.

Edit: Never mind. It was on page two...past the covers...which makes no sense whatsoever.

I also ordered on same Adorama deal last week which was excellent deal IMO. I would never pay more than $1300 for this lens.

Got rid of 70-200 f4 IS. Kind of sad, but I think in terms of IQ, it is almost the same. Have to use it more outside to see real differences, if they exist and I doubt they do.

ateet wrote in post #14937618
I also ordered on same Adorama deal last week which was excellent deal IMO. I would never pay more than $1300 for this lens.

Got rid of 70-200 f4 IS. Kind of sad, but I think in terms of IQ, it is almost the same. Have to use it more outside to see real differences, if they exist and I doubt they do.

Yeah, it was the price of average used copy, so I figured its a free test to see how much I like it. I thought the introductory price of 1500 was ridiculous honestly, given the price of 100-400L.
I think when all is said an done, on a full frame, I will favor my 70-200. I think its perfect for portrait and landscape, and lighter. and as I said, on a full frame if 200 is not enough, I usually want the 400. I will however try to get some hummingbird shots with it and play with it a little more before it makes its way to the buy and sell forum.

ateet wrote in post #14937618
I also ordered on same Adorama deal last week which was excellent deal IMO. I would never pay more than $1300 for this lens.

Got rid of 70-200 f4 IS. Kind of sad, but I think in terms of IQ, it is almost the same. Have to use it more outside to see real differences, if they exist and I doubt they do.

I bought on this Adorama deal as well. Great lens, and the 4 stop IS, combined with the light weight of the lens, makes hand holding down to incredible levels possible.

I bought one too. I'm planning on selling my 100-400L. The 70-300L is only slightly sharper than the 100-400, but noticibly so off center at 300mm. I like the 4 stop IS, and it focuses more quickly than the 100-400. I'm not fond of the zoom ring position or width, but hope to adapt. And the slightly lighter weight is nice too when it's in my camera bag. When the 100-400L II comes out, I'll re-evavluate.

I had a 70-200 f4L, now I have the 70-300L, no regrets. Image quality is very similar, and I find I use the 200-300 range a lot. Shorter length is nice too (but offset somewhat by the extra weight).

I had one and loved it with my 7d but then all my gear was stolen... I started over after the insurance settled up and I just bought one back from the canon refurb site when they had the extra 15% off for $1080 plus tax... Great deal since used ones seem to go for around $1200.

I like the range better on the 7d (I replaced it with a 5D3) but due to its compact size, I still love it for travel and for my sons outdoor sports.

I am very happy with my 70-300L. Sharpness, contrast and color rendition are excellent, focus is fast and silent, and it balances really well on the 5D2. IS is very efficient. I also have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 2 lenses have similar IQ. Of course, the 70-200 has an aperture advantages and it is my most used lens for this reason. I am keeping the 70-300 for when I need a smaller lens to carry around, or a bit more reach...

kevindar wrote in post #14937971
Yeah, it was the price of average used copy, so I figured its a free test to see how much I like it. I thought the introductory price of 1500 was ridiculous honestly, given the price of 100-400L.
I think when all is said an done, on a full frame, I will favor my 70-200. I think its perfect for portrait and landscape, and lighter. and as I said, on a full frame if 200 is not enough, I usually want the 400. I will however try to get some hummingbird shots with it and play with it a little more before it makes its way to the buy and sell forum.

gocolts wrote in post #14938177
I bought on this Adorama deal as well. Great lens, and the 4 stop IS, combined with the light weight of the lens, makes hand holding down to incredible levels possible.

Bearmann wrote in post #14938321
I bought one too. I'm planning on selling my 100-400L. The 70-300L is only slightly sharper than the 100-400, but noticibly so off center at 300mm. I like the 4 stop IS, and it focuses more quickly than the 100-400. I'm not fond of the zoom ring position or width, but hope to adapt. And the slightly lighter weight is nice too when it's in my camera bag. When the 100-400L II comes out, I'll re-evavluate.

I guess this is one of the best deals recently on brand new Canon L lens from authorized seller in recent memory. I got some cashback as well, so hopefully I'll be able to cash it all in by end of the year and $1180 after everything said and done for this lens is an amazing deal.

I am no professional by any means and just shoot pictures of my 2 year old daugther. I went to Philadelphia Zoo recently and didn't take my 70-200 f/4L IS. I think due to 70-300L lens size, I should be able to take it to more places more often. I didn't take many pictures yet with this lens, but sure it seems amazing one.

I love mine Its fast, accurate, great IQ (on par with the 70-200 2.8 II - I've owned both, sold the 2.8 II since I didn't need the aperture for the price - and can't tell a difference in IQ between photos of each), the IS is easily 4 stops, and DEAD SILENT (literally, head to press my ear to the barrel of the lens to check it was working the faint clicking sound can only be heard when you put your ear that close).

I don't mind the reversed zoom/focus ring. I figured they designed it that way because of how compact the lens is - on a longer lens, the zoom ring would be roughly where our hand sits now on the 70-300L for the zoom ring - if they had made it come "first" then your hand would be awkwardly close to the camera body, on a lens this compact. That is my theory, anyway.

The focal length is just perfect for what I needed from leaving a crop for FF. It's a sadly overlooked lens, yet delivers so much I'm having fun using it for equestrian sports, and now wildlife and bugs - an area of photography I hadn't really explored until I got this lens