Would the 70-300 L suit in my lineup?

Hey guys, long time no post but im back hehe

I am pretty happy with what i have, but from time to time i see myself wishing more reach and a lens which is capable of macro. But since i can only buy one thing in near future, im going in for the long lens first.

You can see my lenses in the sig, what do you mean, will the 70-300L fit good into my existing lens park?

Mostly shooting street, portraits, events etc..

Thanks

it's a great lens .. prices are down if u look . I love mine , gave up a 100-400 for it and I like it better .. I purchased an e-bay tripod mount .. not as good as a canon , but the price was better , for as much as I need the mount .. I jumped on a great price when they came out with the lens only to find out it was a grey mrkt. Lens .. I didn't care , it was a great deal at the time .... and I would do it again .. u didn't mention what other lenses u have . if u get it you will enjoy it ..

promod wrote in post #16235707
it's a great lens .. prices are down if u look . I love mine , gave up a 100-400 for it and I like it better .. I purchased an e-bay tripod mount .. not as good as a canon , but the price was better , for as much as I need the mount .. I jumped on a great price when they came out with the lens only to find out it was a grey mrkt. Lens .. I didn't care , it was a great deal at the time .... and I would do it again .. u didn't mention what other lenses u have . if u get it you will enjoy it ..

Yeah many happy owners of this lens. As i said you can see my gear in the sig.

Im just a bit affraid because i dont know if i could handle f/5.6 on the long side. Im very used to f/2.8 and faster lenses so...

I wouldn't fear the 5.6 at 300mm unless you are shooting action/sports with it in low light. The new 4 stop IS system in this lens makes it increbily usable at lower shutter speeds for static targets.

Since you have a 135L I would say yes. Having 70-300 is a great range and as mentioned above the IS is outstanding. I have gotten sharp shots at 1/10 300mm. Not just usable, very sharp.

I think many people don't give this lens a chance because they see the same specs as the non L version but the image quality is right there with the 70-200 2.8 II.

It also packs nice and small, I never think twice to take this lens anywhere.

All that being said for street, portraits and events I would certainly use the 135 a lot more but if you want reach in a small package with good IQ the 70-300L is a great choice.

had it...had to unload it, but ready to add it once again to compliment my 50-150....AF and IS performed SUPER....

promod wrote in post #16235707
it's a great lens .. prices are down if u look . I love mine , gave up a 100-400 for it and I like it better .. I purchased an e-bay tripod mount .. not as good as a canon , but the price was better , for as much as I need the mount .. I jumped on a great price when they came out with the lens only to find out it was a grey mrkt. Lens .. I didn't care , it was a great deal at the time .... and I would do it again .. u didn't mention what other lenses u have . if u get it you will enjoy it ..

i'll say. I went the cheap route and it scratched my lens. now I have the canon tripod mount. I use this lens for landscape so a tripod ring is necessary.

davidfarina wrote in post #16235737
Yeah many happy owners of this lens. As i said you can see my gear in the sig.

Im just a bit affraid because i dont know if i could handle f/5.6 on the long side. Im very used to f/2.8 and faster lenses so...

I don't see a 300mm f2.8 in your signature. did you sell it? this is a compact zoom with the excellent IQ and stabilization.

if you are shooting FF I think this lens makes a lot of sense.

Unless you got deep pockets, F5.6 at the long end is about all you will get. It's a great lens and just as sharp at f4 as my 70-200ii

Looking at your current gear, I think the 70-300L would be a nice fit Everyone knows already what a big advocate I am for this lens, but it really is pretty awesome.

davidfarina wrote in post #16235691
Mostly shooting street, portraits, events etc..

imo no.

The 70-300L excels in none of those and there are better lens for those jobs.

70-300L is a compact lens for daytime sports when 300mm is adequate, nothing more.

it's a great zoo lens for sure. I occassionally lust for it, then I come to my senses and see how often I use my 70-300VC. Basically my zoo lens. If I shot a lot of daytime sports, I would look for this lens, other than that it's not a very useful tool for me. It's more of a tool to have my bases covered.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16235850
I think many people don't give this lens a chance because they see the same specs as the non L version but the image quality is right there with the 70-200 2.8 II.

I am just going to quote this for emphasis.

kin2son wrote in post #16237469
imo no.

The 70-300L excels in none of those and there are better lens for those jobs.

70-300L is a compact lens for daytime sports when 300mm is adequate, nothing more.

Depends on your definition of portrait, street and event. Portraits, I quite like it a lot. I use it for pet (horse, dog, etc) photography often. Events, in my case, Equestrian Events, Dog Agility / Dock Diving, etc, its my go-to lens. And street it lets you not be in the face of your subjects BUT the white lens does stand out - all depends on your level of comfort when shooting street.

kin2son wrote in post #16237469
imo no.

The 70-300L excels in none of those and there are better lens for those jobs.

70-300L is a compact lens for daytime sports when 300mm is adequate, nothing more.

Well i disagree. Why should it not fit into my street photography? I mean its a very versatile focal length, making it perfect for travel, also because its relatively light. And for candid street photog i think it will be great too