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

typical isn't it, I can find 2800mm at f6.3 - f8 but the only f5.6 comparisons with the 70-200 + 1.4 TC are at 250mm, anyway here's an example for interest - not great photographic merit, just for looking at bokeh with a messy background (canon mk 2 1.4xTC):

http://upload.pbase.co​m/image/130518011/orig​inal.jpg

just to complete my "Bokeh Story" here is a shot from a canon 100-400 LIS I was planning to buy from a friend some time back. He had got great results with it on his 50D but I was never convinced it worked on my 7D (so eventually went for the 70-300 LIS). I am assuming it was not typical of a "good copy" but include it for completeness. F5.6 at 400 mm (I didn't have a 300mm image)
http://upload.pbase.co​m/image/130524423/orig​inal.jpg

Mod note: Read the IMAGE POSTING RULES (READ BEFORE YOU POST!)

oldcanon wrote in post #11322017
typical isn't it, I can find 2800mm at f6.3 - f8 but the only f5.6 comparisons with the 70-200 + 1.4 TC are at 250mm, anyway here's an example for interest - not great photographic merit, just for looking at bokeh with a messy background (canon mk 2 1.4xTC):

funny bird, looks a cross between an American Robin and a Common Nighthawk

Someone needs to present a definition of "Bokeh", being OOF to extreme does not mean good bokeh, to my understanding.
My understanding is that "Good Bokeh" relates to the quality of the background in it's relation to the subject. So as to enhance the subject.
I think these last 2 pics only display the OOF ability of the lens, neither background helps the subject. Maybe they even distract from the subject.
It's hard to tell when the photo is bigger than my screen.

My question about the lens more relates to it's ability for sports. Does it focus fast, does it zoom smoothly, is it too heavy?

DAMphyne wrote in post #11323899
Someone needs to present a definition of "Bokeh", being OOF to extreme does not mean good bokeh, to my understanding.
My understanding is that "Good Bokeh" relates to the quality of the background in it's relation to the subject. So as to enhance the subject.
I think these last 2 pics only display the OOF ability of the lens, neither background helps the subject. Maybe they even distract from the subject.
It's hard to tell when the photo is bigger than my screen.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, but this is often massively mischaracterized. Thus all the 'can an f/5.6 lens even have good bokeh' comments.

If the background is a complete smear, the bokeh of the lens is immaterial. It's when the chips are down, the background is only slightly OOF and full of problems that the lens matters.

And at that moment we often find that even the 'good' bokeh lenses are not up to the challenge.

I'm still trying to figure out who this lens is for. In pretty much any application where size and weight are not critical, the 100-400L has got to be a better pick. The 100-400L is about the same price and offers much better reach.

So the 70-300L is for someone who can live at f/5.6 (like the 100-400) but who demands a medium huge lens over a really big one and will give up reach to get it.

Small market, IMO.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11323941
I'm still trying to figure out who this lens is for. In pretty much any application where size and weight are not critical, the 100-400L has got to be a better pick. The 100-400L is about the same price and offers much better reach.

Comparing this lens to the 100-400, it goes wider, has up-to-date IS and it is much, much sharper.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11323941
So the 70-300L is for someone who can live at f/5.6 (like the 100-400) but who demands a medium huge lens over a really big one and will give up reach to get it.

Small market, IMO.

Actually I believe the market for a compact lens with a lot of reach is actually quite large. That said, pricing it $1600 makes it a bit much IMO (and don't even toss in the collar for you at that).

When I really get serious I always have my 300 2.8.

krb wrote in post #11323997
Comparing this lens to the 100-400, it goes wider, has up-to-date IS and it is much, much sharper.

Actually some people at DPR has been posting some amazingly sharp shots from recent 100-400L copies though, 400mm sharpness that blew away and 300mm samples yet shown for the new lens. (andyes I am talking 100% crops where you actually CAN judge sharpness)

Its a UK bird called a Stonechat (male) about the size of a sparrow

oldcanon wrote in post #11323011
just to complete my "Bokeh Story" here is a shot from a canon 100-400 LIS I was planning to buy from a friend some time back. He had got great results with it on his 50D but I was never convinced it worked on my 7D (so eventually went for the 70-300 LIS). I am assuming it was not typical of a "good copy" but include it for completeness. F5.6 at 400 mm (I didn't have a 300mm image)
http://upload.pbase.co​m/image/130524423/orig​inal.jpghttps://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=194511

That's exactly the sort of shot that makes me dislike the 100-400, regardless of whether you get a copy that is sharper than a nice prime. It's stuff like grass/twigs just OOF that are so harsh looking that they actually draw your eye to them rather than the subject and ruin a shot.

A shot of a bird on grass is actually a really good test. For some people it wont matter a great deal anyway as it does need certain situations to bring it out, but when you get such a shot it can be kind of frustrating.

The 70-300L looks like what I'd like to replace my 70-300 IS. The price tag means it wont happen though.

my apologies to all for uploading wrongly sized images - I'm a newcomer to posting on this site and missed the max size limits - any future pics will be to the correct size

krb wrote in post #11323997
Comparing this lens to the 100-400, it goes wider, has up-to-date IS and it is much, much sharper.

My 100-400L is pretty similar in sharpness to my 70-200/2.8L II. I can't imagine the 70-300L is much better than that, and if it is I don't really need the extra resolution as I do not print bigger than 20x30.

Anyway - I think the new 70-300L looks to be a nice lens, but the pricing is what leaves me nonplussed. Maybe when the 100-400L II is announced at $2500 this will make more sense.

I finally had the chance to shoot in some acceptable light this morning and have confirmed that my copy of this lens is at least as good as my my 300 f4L IS was at resolving distant detail.
One of my current best selling images is a 7ft wide panoramic of our local harbour entrance, shot at 300mm from about a mile away across the harbour. I've just reshot part of this image at 300mm with the 70-300L and the result is spot on, with maybe a little more detail visible (I can read the registration number on a local fishing boat and see individual railings and a fence on the quayside). The distant cliffs in the shot are 2+ miles away.

Not the best of images to show 1000pix wide but here it is for interest (hand-held by the way)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

DAMphyne wrote in post #11323899
My question about the lens more relates to it's ability for sports. Does it focus fast, does it zoom smoothly, is it too heavy?

Yes, yes and yes.

Kidding aside, I had it on my 5DII at a football team banquet the first time out. It focuses very fast and even in low light found focus better than I thought it would (for 5.6). It zooms smoothly but whoever moved the zoom ring to the outside... well, I'd like to speak to them! That is going to take some getting used to. It's heavy for hand holding for a long period of time. I took my grip off the body to try and lighten the load. Lenses ideal for sports tend to be heavy though. I didn't get the collar (yet) but want to try it on my travel tripod without it before spending the $200+(L bracket on camera)
I would think it would be good for outdoor sports only. The indoor sports I shoot include hockey, lacrosse, basketball and soccer. All would require ISO in excess of 6400 to get even 1/400 sec at f5.6. Won't be long before bodies achieve and exceed this ISO though. (it's pretty much the limit for my 1D4, III, and 5DII imho)

JeffreyG wrote in post #11325523
My 100-400L is pretty similar in sharpness to my 70-200/2.8L II.

You either have the absolute best 100-400 on the planet or a defective 70-200.