70-300L SAMPLE SHOTS RECOVERED!!!

CountryBoy wrote in post #10867648
Shooting sports with even a f/4 lens can be trying on cloudy or overcast days . Nothing to do but crank the ISO up . An 5.6 lens would even make it worse .

I don't know what age you're shooting , but most of the fields i've seen for youth sports have bad lighting . Most would not support using a 2.8 lens , less alone a f/4 lens , forget about a 5.6 lens

Right now it's a 9 year old and 6 year old twins and they play mostly during the day. However as they get older there will be night games that I will have to deal with. Fall sports are challenging as well because what may be a day game at the beginning of the season becomes a twilight game by the end of the season. You are absolutely right about f/5.6 essentially being worthless for anything other than sunny day games to get the SS that I need for baseball, soccer, and football. The FL of this lens is what I really want, everything else leaves something to be desired for my needs. I have thought of some different alternatives to get that FL but the ones that fit my budget are not ideal. Such is life I guess. Maybe some long-lost uncle of mine with a 300mm f/2.8 will meet his maker and leave it to me.....his sole living relative. Yeah right!

CountryBoy wrote in post #10867648
I don't know what age you're shooting , but most of the fields i've seen for youth sports have bad lighting . Most would not support using a 2.8 lens , less alone a f/4 lens , forget about a 5.6 lens

Agree with this -- but based on the f stop ranges measured, this lens is an f4 lens through 100mm, an f4.5 through 135mm, and a 5.0 through 200mm. It becomes an f5.6 only when you run out of mm on a 70-200 f4 lens

The 70-300L has better IS for stationary subjects. In some situations 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop difference could matter in that 101-200 range, but I would suspect it won't be a big deal normally -- for me that isn't a deal breaker on this lens. Lack of price discounts or poor test results could be though. I'm still interested.

MDJAK wrote in post #10855647
Nice job, Omar. Now put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest.

I don't know why so many people are slamming this lens. It looks very sweet to me. I want one.

me

They're slamming it because there's already a lens on the market that's less than 1/2 the price that pumps out decent results. The funny thing is that prior to this release, the 70-300 non-DO was similarly hated on or completely ignored. Go figure.

dnauer wrote in post #10869134
Agree with this -- but based on the f stop ranges measured, this lens is an f4 lens through 100mm, an f4.5 through 135mm, and a 5.0 through 200mm. It becomes an f5.6 only when you run out of mm on a 70-200 f4 lens

The 70-300L has better IS for stationary subjects. In some situations 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop difference could matter in that 101-200 range, but I would suspect it won't be a big deal normally -- for me that isn't a deal breaker on this lens. Lack of price discounts or poor test results could be though. I'm still interested.

Yes but I have f/4 until 300mm . Since I was talking mainly for sports , I don't miss the OS/IS.

But why does this lens have better IS then the 70-200mm f/4 IS ? Don't both have the same IS system ?

CountryBoy wrote in post #10869211
Yes but I have f/4 until 300mm . Since I was talking mainly for sports , I don't miss the OS/IS.

But why does this lens have better IS then the 70-200mm f/4 IS ? Don't both have the same IS system ?

Hmm not sure but it does seem that canon has improved thier IS.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10869174
They're slamming it because there's already a lens on the market that's less than 1/2 the price that pumps out decent results. The funny thing is that prior to this release, the 70-300 non-DO was similarly hated on or completely ignored. Go figure.

Could it be that the original will be loved now

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10869174
They're slamming it because there's already a lens on the market that's less than 1/2 the price that pumps out decent results. The funny thing is that prior to this release, the 70-300 non-DO was similarly hated on or completely ignored. Go figure.

When I first joined this forum it was not ignored at all. Plenty of posts talking about how sharp it was and what a good deal it was. Since then, the lens has faded into relative obscurity because the truth is that it does not deliver. You could get better "300mm" results using a 70-200/4 L and cropping.

Maybe you classify the above comment as "hating on" the lens but it is an honest opinion formed from using the 70-300 IS for 6 months and comparing the results to a 70-200/4 that I borrowed for a weekend. That's one sample of each lens but my results matched what others have also stated.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10869211
But why does this lens have better IS then the 70-200mm f/4 IS ? Don't both have the same IS system ?

Good question. I assumed the 70-200 f4L IS had an older version of the IS (less than 4 stop), but since you asked I looked this up on Canon's web site -- per that site the 70-200 f4 also has 4 stop IS -- so maybe it isn't an improvement! Still going to wait until my budget supports a 70-200, 100-400, or this new lens, see what the test results are, and what the price points settle in to be.

All I'm gonna say is...
OH MY GAWD!!!

Thx for the pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xD
now.... to actually graduate and get a job to fund this babies.............
wahahahaha i hate this forum already xD