Thoughts about EF 70-300L f/4-5.6 IS USM...

Every now and then I'm in a situation where I say to myself, "well I can't do that because I don't have enough reach." It doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, but I'd be willing to consider a decent tele zoom in the sub $1500 range. This leaves me with the 70-300L IS, or the 70-200/4 IS.

The last itch i got was in anticipation of the recent lunar eclipse. Of course it was rainy and overcast here on the east coast, so a moot point in the end. But still, I'd love to be able to do some compositions with the moon in frame, and getting out to 300mm seems to be the ticket.

How is this lens? How does it fair in practice against the f/4 varieties? I won't shell out the big bucks for the f/2.8 or any of those other excalibur pieces of optics donned in white clad. A reasonable sub $1500 L zoom in the range. What's the skinny on these from those of you with the experience?

The 70-300L is a fantastic lens but beware that 300mm on FF is going to give you the moon at a size of a finger tip on your LCD. You may want something much longer for moon shots unless you plan to have a good amount of landscape in the shot too.

I own both the lenses you're considering (the 70-300L and the 70-200 f4 IS). It's a tough choice!

Some background: I've owned and loved the f4 IS for several years. It's an outstanding lens in every respect, and I have nothing negative to say about it. It's never let me down, and produces wonderful images.

However, I photograph quite a lot of outdoor sports and the F4 IS is a bit short for that. I tried it with a 1.4 extender but it wasn't ideal, so I rented a 70-300L - and was blown away by the quality. On paper it doesn't look like much, but in reality, on the camera, it's a wonderful tool. Sharp, killer IS, fast focusing, and small enough to carry easily. I enjoyed the extra reach, found a great deal on a used copy, and (very reluctantly) sold my f4 IS.

Fast forward a couple of months, and the buyer of my f4 IS contacted me to say she was selling the lens to get a fast prime instead (she's a wedding photographer). I bought it back.

I'm going to use the two lenses through the summer, and will make a decision in the fall because I can't justify keeping both. But it's going to be a hard choice. I love the quality and extra reach of the 70-300L, but there's "something" about the 70-200 and the images it produces. On the other hand, if I choose the 70-200, I'm stuck with the extender.

Having said this, if I were starting from scratch today, I'd have no hesitation in choosing the 70-300L, and this is what I'd do if I were in your shoes. It's a magnificent lens.

After a few recommendations from 60D owners right after I bought my own 60D, I bought a 70-300L as my second lens. I have no experience with any of the excellent 70-200Ls in Canon's lineup but I really enjoy my 70-300L.

It is sort of a sleeper. It doesn't get rave reviews but in my experience, it's a fine lens. In the right light, it can produce magical photographs. We live in Florida so on most days, we have brilliant sunshine during the day and still excellent light at the beginning and ending of the day. In our setting, the lens performs well. As always, your mileage might vary.

I've owned the 70-200 f4 IS a couple times and although the IQ was great, I never really loved it. I've always felt limited by mid-tele zooms of the normal 70-200 variety - not wide enough or long enough to stay on my camera for an extended period of time. And, at only f4 I didn't feel I was getting a significant advantage in terms of shutter speed or DOF control over f5.6. The problem was, none of the 70-300's out before the 70-300L offered the IQ I was looking for.

When the 70-300L was announced, I was excited. Extending the range to 300mm made the lens much more useful to me. I'm not into super-telephoto much but being able to hit 300mm is great when you need it. The lens has fantastic IQ and IS on par with the 70-200 varieties so it was a no-brainer for me...I love it.

I feel like if I needed speed, f4 isnt going to make or break me - I plan to add a 135 L to fit this need soon.

FWIW - I'm mostly a landscape and family snapshot kind of guy. If your needs are similar, I bet the 70-300L would be a great fit.

Don't discard the 70-300 Tamron. It compares quite nicely and saves you a bundle.

DiVo wrote in post #16860981
Don't discard the 70-300 Tamron. It compares quite nicely and saves you a bundle.

I had two of them before I stopped trying, both had issues with nailing focus at longer distances...AI servo focusing was also disappointing. For the price it's not a bad lens at all but you get what you pay for with the 70-300L.

"This leaves me with the 70-300L IS, or the 70-200/4 IS."

No doubt, the 70-200 is a better lens all around but I have both and I'm not ashamed of my shots with the 70-300 and my 1.4 extender. When you need reach, you need reach. I guess you could go to an xxx-600 or the L if money is no object.

hrblaine wrote in post #16861137
"This leaves me with the 70-300L IS, or the 70-200/4 IS."

No doubt, the 70-200 is a better lens all around but I have both and I'm not ashamed of my shots with the 70-300 and my 1.4 extender. When you need reach, you need reach. I guess you could go to an xxx-600 or the L if money is no object.

It is the L 70-300 I'm referring to here. As far as money, ha! I've spent more on a filter system than most people spend on a lens (not that I'm proud of this irrational behavior). I'm always thinking about my "next move" in gear. With having such amazing equipment as I do right now, the choices are blown wide-open. Just sold my 60D, but now I'm thinking about grabbing another APS-C :/ and some teles to get some reach. Oh hell I dunno what i'll end up doing, I really ought to just be happy with what I have and go shoot. Of course, weather on the east coast has been abysmal the past year with what seems an ungodly amount of precipitation. Planned on going out this evening to get some shots around the Jamestown settlement, and now we're under a tornado watch! it's been a lousy year for photography in this area. I do plan on getting out to the Shenandoah valley one of these weekends and doing some camping, hiking and shooting.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses. Sounds like it's a good lens.

hrblaine wrote in post #16861137
"This leaves me with the 70-300L IS, or the 70-200/4 IS."

No doubt, the 70-200 is a better lens all around but I have both and I'm not ashamed of my shots with the 70-300 and my 1.4 extender. When you need reach, you need reach. I guess you could go to an xxx-600 or the L if money is no object.

How do you AF at 300mm plus 1.4 TC? It will effectively be f/8, and only a couple of Canon cameras can do it.

Lbsimon wrote in post #16861296
How do you AF at 300mm plus 1.4 TC? It will effectively be f/8, and only a couple of Canon cameras can do it.

5d3 and all the 1 series bodies will do it.

If you can catch one on special, the 100-400 would be a great choice

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16859215
The last itch i got was in anticipation of the recent lunar eclipse. Of course it was rainy and overcast here on the east coast, so a moot point in the end. But still, I'd love to be able to do some compositions with the moon in frame, and getting out to 300mm seems to be the ticket.

fyi, even @ 300mm the moon is pretty small. my friend was using the new 150-600 tamron and his shots were far more detailed than mine @ 300 after cropping/enlarging. as the guy above said, 100-400 would be better for that, and the tamron would be even better.

the 70-300l is super sharp and focuses super fast, and is very well made. I don't have the 70-200 f4 but I can't imagine it being significantly better iq-wise at equivalent apertures. I have the 70-200 2.8 is ii and it's still a tough call.

assuming iq is similar, and af is similar, you are comparing mostly four things:

1. do you need the f4 max vs the f5.6 on the long end?
2. do you need the extra 100mm?
3. do you care about the how much bigger the 70-300 is (which is short but really fat)?
4. do you care about the 70-300 having a telescoping body?

that's about it. trust me, iq and af is not a concern here.

one thing to note though--the 70-300l has canon's newest IS system--it is REALLY amazing. not sure if the 70-200 has as good IS. that IS is definitely better than the one on my 70-200 2.8 is ii.

If I was buying from new, I think like Ceegee, I'd go for the 70-300L, although now I have the 70-200 f4 IS which I like too much to sell.

Love my 70-300L ~ lives on my body 90% of the time. It has given me very good moon detail.

The IS is excelent - shooting at 1/20th or even 1/15th is no problem. I've tried IS "mode 2" a few times for panning BIF and I Do Not Like It.

Admittedly, I would likely get the rumoured 100-400 IS replacement or similar because 300mm too often is not long enough for my shooting. But for the money - the 70-300L IS is stellar IQ & performance