Canon 70-300L, initial thoughts

Love mine. I use it with the Kenko Pro 300 2x TC and find the focus ring being closer to the tripod ring makes it easier to manual focus.

This was shot the other night using the Kenko TC. Tripod mounted, of course.

Overall I would say that is a fair review of the lens Kevin, although I would like to make a few comments. Not in an attempt to de-legitimize your opinion at all, just to add my own views on the subject.

Re: the zoom ring position. Yes it takes a minute to get used to, but I was over it very quickly. I find that even though the positions are reversed of the focus and zoom rings, since the lens is much shorter I believe that the actual location in distance from the body is about where it was on the 70-200 2.8 L that I had (I haven't measured or anything), so my "muscle memory" so-to-speak finds it very easily.

Re: variable aperture. I understand where you are coming from, having a fixed aperture is nice, however generally just shoot the lens in M or Av as an 70-300 F5.6 with an excellent IS system, and if I NEED extra light at a wider MM I have some more to work with.

Re: TC compatibility. I don't know, I am part of the crowd that thinks that any lens that isn't meant to natively use a TC should never be judged with its performance with a TC, but since it seems like every week someone asks which TC to buy for that lens it is a fair point.

Re: Redundancy of the lens. Well sure, if you already have a 70-200 F4 IS and 100-400 IS I can see clearly why it would be redunant. The 70-200 is nice for the fixed aperture, internal zoom, and light weight, and the 100-400 has more length. However when I was choosing between the three to replace my 70-200 2.8 I felt the 70-300 was the all around best lens, being more compact when stored, balancing very well on an ungripped body as you mentioned, having that extra length built in and being sharp at 300 wide open, faster focus speed (IMO) than the 100-400, and definitely a MUCH more superior IS system than the 100-400. I also hate the push-pull on the 100-400, but that is just me. I use it on a 7D though, so maybe that gives it a more versital range than it has on FF. My only nit-picky complaint on the lens is that I wish it had a focus range limiter switch like every other L tele-zoom, not that the AF system isn't super fast, but when shooting action at a distance, it is just nice to tell the lens not to even bother trying to focus close.

To me 300mm on a cropper is JUST long enough to do some decent birding when I want to pack light on a trip or just walk around for the day, whereas 200mm was not, and by the time you put a 1.4x on the 70-200 F4 IS it is a pretty big lens again. The 100-400 was no smaller or lighter than the 70-200 2.8 that I was replacing. So for me wanting a one lens travel telephoto solution, the 70-300 L was the best choice, and I have been pleased as punch with it.

Bill, I actually agree with your points. the reverse ring though annoying is not a huge deal. heck, I am using a nikon 14-24 on my canon which twists the wrong way to zoom (as well as all my nex lenses). It does have a much better IS, and without a doubt faster focusin that 100-400.
Interestingly variable aperture is precisely a problem b/c I shoot manual. It makes a lens a constant f 5.6 for me, b/c I need to set my aperture to 5.6, to maintain constant exposure. not as much of an issue if I am using av.
And as I said in my review, I think the lens makes a little ore sense of 7D for several reasons.
First, 300, 480mm equivalent is ok for shooting wildlife. not so much on full frame. second, the high pixel density of the 7D is very demanding of lens sharpness, and the lens is very sharp at 300 5.6. third, Hand holding 640 mm equivalent on a high pixel density sensor with mediocre IS, is difficult, and need very fast shutter speed (with my 7d, I found I routinely needed 1/800 sec to have very sharp pixel level 100% crops with my 100-400). So all said, this lens may make more sense than the 100-400 on a cropper.

I have been thinking that the 70-300L also made a lot of sense on FF because of its corner sharpness. I have only tried the 100-400 briefly, but I was not impressed. Could have been a bad copy...

got the lens last week and I was having sometimes to test it out at our local zoo. Very sharp lens and light; I was able to carry it for 6 hours without noticed any weight - almost the same weight as 24-70 the brick.

sebr wrote in post #14942206
I have been thinking that the 70-300L also made a lot of sense on FF because of its corner sharpness. I have only tried the 100-400 briefly, but I was not impressed. Could have been a bad copy...

I dont shoot landscape at 300mm (200 about the longest for me), so corner sharpness is off little consequence at this focal length, and the 70200 f4L is has great corners.

i also got in on the deal last week. so far I am really pleased with it. 200 wasnt long enough for me on a FF and i didnt want to constantly tinker with TCs.

I am trying to decide between the 70-300L and the 300 f4. Has anyone had both?

My favourite lens. Not that I have many... It's just so versatile clamped on to my 7D: landscapes and nature, street stuff, wildlife, even portraits and macro shots if I was into that kind of thing. This lens does it all and does it very well. I'm a pretty big proponent of less is more when it comes to photography so the extra 100mm over the 70-200 family was the clincher for me.

The image quality is fantastic - realistic, naturally saturated colours, very minimal CA - and the IS... Well, the IS; what can I say? It blows my mind. ISO 100 at 300mm and 1/10s? Done.

I take this thing out on walks/hikes all the time and with a sling strap you really don't feel the weight either. Yeah, I approve of this lens.

kevindar wrote in post #14936719
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 picked up the lens last week as well on that deal.

Try un-taping the pins (although it shouldn't matter). I only say that because the 70-300 doesn't have the extra pins on it so even registering TCs should AF. I tried it with my Kenko 1.4x TC on my 5d III and it seemed to focus just fine.

palmor wrote in post #14943449
I picked up the lens last week as well on that deal.

Try un-taping the pins (although it shouldn't matter). I only say that because the 70-300 doesn't have the extra pins on it so even registering TCs should AF. I tried it with my Kenko 1.4x TC on my 5d III and it seemed to focus just fine.

My 70-300 will AF at 70mm with my Kenko Pro 300 2x TC, but once I zoom out and the minimum aperture changes (most likely past f4 (or f8, as the case may be)), the lens just hunts for a bit and then gives up.

Looks like lot of people went on with the Adorama deal. I believe this was an amazing deal for all of us who were on the fence to take the plunge. Kind of sad to let go 70-200 f/4L IS; which is amazing Canon lens, but even more happy to see 70-300L.

This lens is a must if you want all in one zoom lens and don't care much about landscapes on FF. For birders on crop, this thing is like 480mm f/5.6. I personally missed 200-300 range a lot when I am traveling with kids to zoo's and parks since I moved to FF last month. Kind of rainy for past couple of days around Philly, but I am waiting for more sun to take some real fun pictures until winter settles in soon.

friz wrote in post #14942947
I am trying to decide between the 70-300L and the 300 f4. Has anyone had both?

only the 300 f/4 non-IS and not at the same time

300 f/4 non-IS was definitely larger and a little bit heavier

f/4 vs f/5.6 at 300mm is certainly nice

i think it depends what you want to do with it, for wildlife and field sports the 300 f/4 might be better since you have f/4 for sports and for wildlife you have both f/4 and can add a TC (the non-IS 300mm had the AF get a bit too slow with the TC on though for sports IMO) but for general usage for everything 70-300 is way more flexible, it makes a good long walk-around on FF, great for lots of mid to tele landscape and general shots, the prime is obviously very constricted for that and it's much larger and bulkier and can'y be stashed in a pocked out of the way say when running around on vacation all day and not needing to use it at some point

otoh the 70-300L could also work as a wide angle field sports lens to pair with a 300 2.8/300 2.8+TC/400 2.8/etc. and 300 f/4 is just redundant in that case

I find the 70-300L very sharp and usefull, very compact and easy to travel with. It take the same place as a standard lens in the bag. I also find that the bokhe are very nice, really better than the 100-400mm and better sometime than the 70-200mm f4 IS, wich I found the background a bit fuzzy sometime.
Here some sample:

a last one of the serie: