How is the Canon 70-300mm Lens?

Hello all,

I shoot minor league baseball and was wondering what everyone thought about how the 70-300mm would perform in baseball like conditions?

Thank you very much,
Justin

It's not to bad, I use to use it for football... And did a couple of basketball games with it, it wasn't too bad. But if you can get a 70-200mm 1:2.8 Ultrasonic Lens. Works great!!

It's a bit steeper in cost but I'd highly recommend the 100-400L instead in that range. I had a 70-300 and never used it because I was never satisfied with the sharpness, but that said it wasn't bad for the money, just not good enough for my tastes.

What body do you use?
If you want to stay in that price range I would seriously consider the 70-200 f/4 L (non IS)
But if you can spend the money check out the 70-200 f/2.8, 2.8 IS or f/4 IS. Or even as stated the 100-400.

Also what conditions do you usually shoot in (indoor (if you shoot anything other the baseball), outdoor, good light, bad light)?

For day games, that shouldn't be a problem.

Kiddo wrote in post #5601606
It's not to bad, I use to use it for football...

I used to use my 18-55 for that, until it went over the fence one day.

dont buy it , it is overpriced , unless you have a film , it is almost uselss lens by now.

get a small and light EF-S55-250IS, which has more effective IS than the one in the EF70-300IS.

if sharpness is something you really care for, this cheap lens is really unbeatable.

there are many people who are more interested in collecting Ls than shooting real world or finding a good practical lens for their real needs.

don't get into this to waste your money really, the IQ difference between Ls and non-Ls are not that big(some might want to exaggerated it) , especially in terms of resolution.

what differentiate between Ls and nonLs actually is the color aside from these AF , speed .etc.

but color is created in your PC these days not in your lens, and now DPP3.3 has lens distortion correcting tool so the EF-S55-250IS can compete against these Ls very well in terms of IQ, I am not saying that lens can AF as fast as Ls , but at least almost as sharp.

some people just show off what they 've got and want to say how huge difference their expensive Ls make , but in reality , the real difference is created in yourPC and now distortion and color are the least important characteristic of making a good lens, the DXO pro does fix them all.

DerekI wrote in post #5602996
dont buy it , it is overpriced , unless you have a film , it is almost uselss lens by now.

get a small and light EF-S55-250IS, which has more effective IS than the one in the EF70-300IS.

if sharpness is something you really care for, this cheap lens is really unbeatable.

there are many people who are more interested in collecting Ls than shooting real world or finding a good practical lens for their real needs.

don't get into this to waste your money really, the IQ difference between Ls and non-Ls are not that big(some might want to exaggerated it) , especially in terms of resolution.

what differentiate between Ls and nonLs actually is the color aside from these AF , speed .etc.

but color is created in your PC these days not in your lens, and now DPP3.3 has lens distortion correcting tool so the EF-S55-250IS can compete against these Ls very well in terms of IQ, I am not saying that lens can AF as fast as Ls , but at least almost as sharp.

some people just show off what they 've got and want to say how huge difference their expensive Ls make , but in reality , the real difference is created in yourPC and now distortion and color are the least important characteristic of making a good lens, the DXO pro does fix them all.

That 70-300 is not an L

But it uses L components. And I find I'm using it far more than my 100-400 these days.
IMO, it's one of Canon's most under-rated lenses.

My 70-300 IS is as sharp as my 100-400.

Photozone actually rates the 70-300 sharper than the 100-400.

It is as sharp, if not a touch sharper (centre), lighter and has newer IS....bargain!

Go prime. You won't like this lens for sport.

I had one.

First, image quality - nothing to worry about. Absolutely superb, tack sharp, and the IS was great.

BUT. Autofocus. The AF on this lens SUCKS. No FTM, reasonably smooth, but slow, and when it decides to hunt...forget about getting the shot. And it's slow at f/5.6 at 300mm.

I ditched this lens after a month, thought about the 70-200 f/4, went for the 200 f/2.8L instead at roughly the same price, and never looked back. Faster, sharper, ridiculously fast AF, takes T-Cons like a champ.

I have the lens and like it very much, but for what you're looking at shooting, I doubt that it will work for you. You're going to most likely need something with f/2.8 or faster to shoot sports at night. I agree with Perry that you may want to look at a fast prime. Or if you want the flexibility of a zoom, take a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

Agreed this lens isn't for shooting sport. Not that it's overly slow, but it's not fast enough IMO for sports. I tried shooting a soccer match once, and it was difficult. When I got it right, the images worked well. But I had far too many losses for it to be used as a sports lens.
The 70-200 2.8 IS or non IS would be a better choice. Even the Siggy 70-200 2.8 I hear is reasonable.

I must have had a lemon - I checked the 70-300 out before I brought it and read reviews saying it was very sharp. I can't say I was tremendously disappointed with it - I never bothered to send it back for example, but it just never got used much unless I absolutely needed the long end of it. I wasn't trying to use it wide open all the time either - my copy just sucked I suppose. Either way, I am also much happier with the build of the 100-400 I have now, but if people who have both are saying they are equally sharp, or the 70-300 is better, the it would seem softness is not a concern in most copies.