Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Still grey and miserable so I took the chance to test the IS shooting this rose bud. Hand-held at 1/40th sec with 300mm focal length ISO 400 and f5.6, near MFD .

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/130269309/origina​l.jpg

oldcanon wrote in post #11271085
Still grey and miserable so I took the chance to test the IS shooting this rose bud. Hand-held at 1/40th sec with 300mm focal length ISO 400 and f5.6, near MFD .

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/130269309/origina​l.jpg

nice, out of focus areas look very smooth and pleasing to the eye as well

I have been told that the lens stops down to about f/5 at 200mm. That's still pretty damn slow but, about the same as the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L.

I would have considered the new 70-300mm if this lens were a 100-300mm with a constant f/4 along with IS. If they could have made one around the same weight as the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens.

On the other hand, I love my 70-200mm f/4 IS lens because of its weight, IQ. AF and price. I have used it with a 1.4x TC and got very acceptable (but, not stupendous) results with that combo...

Please please forgive me for not scouring each post when I ask this - because of all the negativity to sift through - but can someone point me to tests/posts indicating if 300mm shots are sharp wide open?

If it needs f/8, then my search continues...
Thanks!

Immaculens wrote in post #11274403
Please please forgive me for not scouring each post when I ask this - because of all the negativity to sift through - but can someone point me to tests/posts indicating if 300mm shots are sharp wide open?

If it needs f/8, then my search continues...
Thanks!

If you want sharpness wide open go with the f/2.8 or the f/4.

1click wrote in post #11255038
Ouch! $1749.99 here in Montreal. So much for the dream.

Same price here in Toronto.

.

Immaculens wrote in post #11274403
Please please forgive me for not scouring each post when I ask this - because of all the negativity to sift through - but can someone point me to tests/posts indicating if 300mm shots are sharp wide open?

If it needs f/8, then my search continues...
Thanks!

I haven't any pictures 'online' to point you in the direction of ... but having had this lens for a week I have taken quite a few test shots inside and out - and have been amazed at how sharp the lens is wide open at 300mm !

I have just sold my 200mm f2.8 as a result of the results with this lens. At 200mm F5 it is sharper than the prime lens !! The 4 stop IS is superb and having f2.8 is not sufficient to stop me selling the prime lens as the 70-300 L has amazed me.

FWIW at f5 200mm it is slightly sharper than my 200mm. At 300mm wide open it is still incredibly sharp.

I find it very hard to believe, that this lens is sharper than 200/2.8... At least a properly working one. The review at Lens rentals said that - even though the 70-300L is slightly better - they would rather put the money on 70-300 IS and save the change!
http://www.lensrentals​.com …canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is

based on indoor tests and shooting charts not "real life" shooting to quote their own words. Try one Arn, its the only way you will know, as you don't believe those who already have hands on experience

Tony_Stark wrote in post #11274464
If you want sharpness wide open go with the f/2.8 or the f/4.

For the price , it better be sharp wide open .

arn wrote in post #11281370
I find of very hard to believe, that this lens is sharper than 200/2.8... At least a properly working one. The review at Lens rentals said that - even though the 70-300L is slightly better - they would rather put the money on 70-300 IS and save the change!
http://www.lensrentals​.com …canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is

You don't have to believe me .... I have both ... and have tried another 200 f2.8 which was just like mine. I do not believe my 200 2.8 is a poor copy ...

I had a 70-300IS a few years ago and the 70-300L is in a different league. Sharpness and focus speed.

I can only speak as I find the lenses - I have no interest in buying rubbish ... my wife is a professional photographer with her own business in the UK and given what we shoot if the lens is not up to it then it goes !

arn wrote in post #11281370
I find of very hard to believe, that this lens is sharper than 200/2.8... At least a properly working one. The review at Lens rentals said that - even though the 70-300L is slightly better - they would rather put the money on 70-300 IS and save the change!
http://www.lensrentals​.com …canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is

If you look at the samples they linked to on fredmiranda the L looks vastly better to me though (way more than a slight difference IMO). That said, something appears to have been wrong with their non-L, since the sample they posted looked awful, so I think the test may have been unfair to the non-L.

John57 wrote in post #11282193
You don't have to believe me .... I have both ... and have tried another 200 f2.8 which was just like mine. I do not believe my 200 2.8 is a poor copy ...

I had a 70-300IS a few years ago and the 70-300L is in a different league. Sharpness and focus speed.

I can only speak as I find the lenses - I have no interest in buying rubbish ... my wife is a professional photographer with her own business in the UK and given what we shoot if the lens is not up to it then it goes !

I will try the lens in the future for sure. I've shot to some extent with 70-200/4 and /2.8II and extensively with 200/2.8 and 100-400. The 200/2.8 that I had was very sharp wide open. I find it hard to compare the lenses in everyday shooting, but you know when a lens works for you. To accurately test a lens against another lens, it has to be put on a tripod with similar framing for each lens. I prefer outdoor tests for lenses like this, but it's more important to have the exact same setup for lenses that are compared.

wombatHorror wrote in post #11282397
If you look at the samples they linked to on fredmiranda the L looks vastly better to me though (way more than a slight difference IMO). That said, something appears to have been wrong with their non-L, since the sample they posted looked awful, so I think the test may have been unfair to the non-L.

Yes, the sample images compared to the non-L looked more than slightly better IMO too.

CountryBoy wrote in post #11282086
For the price , it better be sharp wide open .

The f/4L (non-IS) is hailed as one of Canon's sharpest lenses at only $650

The IS f4 L version is hailed as one of Canon's finest for good reason. It's a tad sharper in the corners than it's Non-IS brother. Even with a 1.4x TC it's still remarkable wide open.
There's little point in buying both, but either one will happily surfice if it's specs meet your photographic requirements. Naturally, the 70-200/f4 IS L gains a stop, is a bit lighter and cheaper. It can also be extended by a 1.4x TC and compete on range. Where as the 70-300 f5.6 IS L is a very nice one lens telephoto package. Pop it on a 7D and it's got a huge reach for it's size and weight.