how do you like your 70-300L on 5d3 and.....

and a specific question .

do you find the distortion greater than with a 70-200L?

I love my 70-200L f4 IS but since I use FF almost exclusively I could use more reach on my travel zoom. I have the 100-400L but I don't always bring it when I go to say Hawaii or Washington on my annual mom visit.

there have been times that I regretted not bringing the 100-400L. like when we ran across a black bear and her cub on hurricane ridge and I had to make due with my 70-200L and no TC!

I had to settle for a heavily cropped, environmental shot of this guy.

1.4 extender would be cheaper for you

Every zoom has distortion especially on FF - I never find the distortion from this lens that noticible, and its easily corrected.

colintf wrote in post #15792974
1.4 extender would be cheaper for you

I agree. I own both the 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400L. I will bring along a 1.4x TC if I decide to take the 70-200 instead of the 100-400L, just in case I need a little extra reach. The TC doesn't get used very much, but it works in a pinch and takes up very little room in the camera bag. The 20mm difference between the 70-200 + TC versus the 70-300L is insignificant.

I loved the 70-300L on FF and never noticed much distortion that couldn't be easily corrected in PP.

It's a great range and the variable aperture was not as much of an issue as I thought it would be. If you have decent light, that lens is tough to beat. The IS is leaps and bounds better than the 100-400 and I found my copy to be extremely sharp wide open at both ends.

I have since parted with it for a 70-200 and a TC, but I still second guess my switch on daily basis.

Have you considered trading your 70-200 for a 70-300? It would still give you f/4 across most of that FL and has IS. Plus, you get an extra 100 mm on the long end. It's a bit wider lens, but shorter.

As a 6D owner; I'm actually in a somewhat similar situation, looking for wildlife/travel tele.

My mental debate is between a prime (Scares me somewhat that I'll rarely use it), 70-200 f/4 is + 1.4tc; 70-300(L or non L), or 100-400. Basically I just want to encourage more people to post their experience/opinions as I subscribe.. I will admit to hesitance in getting a giant white lens also. I'd generally prefer something a bit more low-key (200 f/2.8 prime + 1.4 or 2x tcs?)

w0m wrote in post #15793124
As a 6D owner; I'm actually in a somewhat similar situation, looking for wildlife/travel tele.

My mental debate is between a prime (Scares me somewhat that I'll rarely use it), 70-200 f/4 is + 1.4tc; 70-300(L or non L), or 100-400. Basically I just want to encourage more people to post their experience/opinions as I subscribe.. I will admit to hesitance in getting a giant white lens also. I'd generally prefer something a bit more low-key (200 f/2.8 prime + 1.4 or 2x tcs?)

In my experience, the 70-300 non L is not even worth including in the same group as those other lenses. Maybe i used a bad copy, but I hated the IQ and build.

As far primes go for 200-400 mm range, I much prefer the ability to zoom even if it means taking a hit on IQ. If you are going to use this lens for wildlife, travel, etc, I would recommend sticking with zooms, but that is just my opinion.

IMO, if you want one lens to do it all, get the 70-300L. If you want to cover mostly wildlife, get the 100-400. If you shoot primarily under 200, get the 70-200f4 IS and TC.

I just spent a week with the 6d & 70-300 lens. It is such a great traveling lens. It is so super sharp and the colors are amazing. I really like using this lens for people photos. I think I prefer 70mm as the starting point instead of 100mm.

I also have the 100-400. It too is a great lens. So if I were traveling a lot and could only pick one lens, I'd pick the 70-300 and if I was primarily shooting birds/wildlife, I'd go with the 100-400. I think you have to evaluate what your primary purpose is and then make a purchase. I'd suggest renting both of them if you are on the fence.

It's great.Now I do not have much time for new ideas. I'm hoping the new plan will have to share the results with everyone.Thank for sharing.

w0m wrote in post #15793124
As a 6D owner; I'm actually in a somewhat similar situation, looking for wildlife/travel tele.

My mental debate is between a prime (Scares me somewhat that I'll rarely use it), 70-200 f/4 is + 1.4tc; 70-300(L or non L), or 100-400. Basically I just want to encourage more people to post their experience/opinions as I subscribe.. I will admit to hesitance in getting a giant white lens also. I'd generally prefer something a bit more low-key (200 f/2.8 prime + 1.4 or 2x tcs?)

I agree with pdrober2's comments on the 70-300 IS non-L. That lens is not anywhere near in the class of the others you are considering. I owned one quite a few years ago, and found both the image quality and auto focus performance lacking.

I currently own both the 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400L. I bought the 70-200 long before the 70-300L was available, so that lens was not an option at the time, but I probably would have strongly considered it had it been available.

Giving up the 100-400L is not an option for me, as it has one very important feature lacking in the others -- 400mm of reach. This is my "go to" wildlife lens, and I need the extra reach for that purpose.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is more of a general purpose lens I use when I want to travel lighter, do not need the added reach, or need something a little faster. A 1.4x TC works fine for my purposes with this lens for the few times I may need a little more reach when using it. Since I already owned the lens when the 70-300L hit the market, I couldn't justify upgrading based on my uses.

The 70-200 is a terrific lens -- the best zoom lens I have owned. It's image quality is stellar, and the AF performance is excellent. The 100-400L is quite good in both those areas, too, but just not as good as the 70-200. The image stabilization system on the 70-200 is a major improvement over the very old, outdated IS on the 100-400L.

Here is a sample of how well the 6d tracks focus in difficult situations with the 70-300. It picked the sandhill cranes up on the second shot that I took in this series.

pdrober2 wrote in post #15793157
In my experience, the 70-300 non L is not even worth including in the same group as those other lenses. Maybe i used a bad copy, but I hated the IQ and build.

It's not even the best 70-300 at it's own price point. The Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD is a much better choice in that price range. As far as I can tell the only better choice is the 70-300L.

colintf wrote in post #15792974
1.4 extender would be cheaper for you

I have a TC. cheaper isn't my concern. I want the lens that is more useful to me.

Like others, I find the distortion on the 70-300L easily corrected in post. Out of the lenses I have, I find myself reaching for the 70-300L more often than any other. It's just a fantastically sharp lens with great color. Having not used the 70-200 f4, I can't really comment on comparison.

I presume you have the Canon teleconverter? I think the only one that works with the 70-300L is the Kenko 1.4x (which I have) and I'm anxiously awaiting Canon's 5D3 firmware update to allow f8 auto-focus. Together this will be a killer combo.

pdrober2 wrote in post #15793092
I loved the 70-300L on FF and never noticed much distortion that couldn't be easily corrected in PP.

It's a great range and the variable aperture was not as much of an issue as I thought it would be. If you have decent light, that lens is tough to beat. The IS is leaps and bounds better than the 100-400 and I found my copy to be extremely sharp wide open at both ends.

I have since parted with it for a 70-200 and a TC, but I still second guess my switch on daily basis.

Have you considered trading your 70-200 for a 70-300? It would still give you f/4 across most of that FL and has IS. Plus, you get an extra 100 mm on the long end. It's a bit wider lens, but shorter.

that's exactly what I am doing. i'm wondering now if the 70-300L isn't a more practical solution for me. it's hard to tell from your post but did you also switch to the 70-300L and if you are you second-guessing the switch?