70-300 L OWNERS - post pics and discuss here

Seems like in most the threads on this lens people get to complaining about the price. I'd like those who actually OWN the lens to meet here, post pictures, and discuss what I think will be a great lens.

I picked mine up yesterday and will post pics soon.

There is a thread for that already
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=922485

Hi ecka! Thanks for being the 2nd post in my very first thread!

I have looked at the thread you linked and it is the one I'm trying to get away from. By the fifth post there is talk about price and many never really got over it. I'm not saying everybody can afford this lens, but for those of us who can, and have purchased it, I'd like to hear from them and learn from their experiences.

Thanks again...

Just to kick things off, here's an earlier post I made to the other thread, pointing to collections of early shots by two UK purchasers

http://www.pbase.com/m​jlamoon/canon70300l
http://www.pbase.com …n/canon_...f56_​l_is_tests

I have also been running a blog on my early experiences with it here http://imagesfromnatur​e.foliopic.com/article​s/blog-38

Agree. The question is - why those people who have purchased the lens don't post any images?

str8six wrote in post #11299768
Hi ecka! Thanks for being the 2nd post in my very first thread!

I have looked at the thread you linked and it is the one I'm trying to get away from. By the fifth post there is talk about price and many never really got over it. I'm not saying everybody can afford this lens, but for those of us who can, and have purchased it, I'd like to hear from them and learn from their experiences.

Thanks again...

I don't think those complaining about price are those who cannot afford it. I think it's probably a nice lens, but overpriced. I opted for a 100-400 IS L lens, and I believe the lens may be overpriced ... but then everything recently released has been so, but they may be worth it.

If I had no lens in this range, I would look at it. I like some of the images it produces, they are almost as good as those from my 100-400mm.


Good luck with your new lens ..... now show us what you can do with it!

When 70-200 IS f/2.8 II with Tripod collar went for $2069 USD with Canon Rebate the choice was easy. Since 70-300 L with collar cost $1850. $219 more for F/2.8. I will get the new canon 1.4X III for the extra reach for 280mm F/4. Both have new Canon 4 stop IS that 100-400L needs.

I have done a full review here on my sitewith a comparison to the 70-200 f4 L IS.

The people that keep saying "oh it doesnt have f2.8" or "you can get a 70-200 f2.8 for a bit more" have really missed the point of this one I think. This lens is not a competitor to the f2.8 lenses. If you need f2.8 then you are saying you need a wide aperture. So you should never consider a f4-f5.6 lens for you. It just won't cut it. BUT many people seem to think they need an f2.8 lens just because that is seen a "pro feature". I used to have a 70-200 f2.8 and I sold it because I never shot it at f2.8 anyway. Guess what, I'm a professional photographer! Who would have thought it

If you have no need for a faster shutter speed in low light, or the subject isolating ability of f2.8 then do take a look at this 70-300. Its a fantastic lens.

snoop99 wrote in post #11300235
When 70-200 IS f/2.8 II with Tripod collar went for $2069 USD with Canon Rebate the choice was easy. Since 70-300 L with collar cost $1850. $219 more for F/2.8. I will get the new canon 1.4X III for the extra reach for 280mm F/4. Both have new Canon 4 stop IS that 100-400L needs.

The 1.4 TC III is going to be about $500 so your solution will end up being $600 more. Thats a significant increase which really puts it outside the realms of direct comparison.

By the way....

Dandig....thanks for your great review on your site.....quick question since you have both the 70-200 F/4 and the 300 F/4........have you tried fitting either of those tripod collars on your 70-300? The "cheap" in me came out and since I hardly use the 70-200 f/4 collar wanted to know.
Thanks...Mike

Tripod collar from my f4 IS is way too small. I was kind of hoping the same thing..... but I think maybe the collar for the 70-300 is actually a new one ? You'll see the color of the 70-300 is slightly different to other L Whites. Just like the new 300 and 400 2.8. SO it would make sense to make a new matching collar too. I actually have sold the 300 f4 when I got the 300 2.8 so I can't speak for that on.

On the Canon page it says it takes collar "C" which I could not find on the B&H website.

its the same collar size as the collar on the 28-300 LIS. I've been looking for one on the web but haven't seen anything so I guess it will have to be the proper one, when its available and the price drops (or a Chinese knock-off when enough 70-300 Ls have sold enough to make it worth their while making a copy )

dandig wrote in post #11302118
I have done a full review here on my sitewith a comparison to the 70-200 f4 L IS.

The people that keep saying "oh it doesnt have f2.8" or "you can get a 70-200 f2.8 for a bit more" have really missed the point of this one I think. This lens is not a competitor to the f2.8 lenses. If you need f2.8 then you are saying you need a wide aperture. So you should never consider a f4-f5.6 lens for you. It just won't cut it. BUT many people seem to think they need an f2.8 lens just because that is seen a "pro feature". I used to have a 70-200 f2.8 and I sold it because I never shot it at f2.8 anyway. Guess what, I'm a professional photographer! Who would have thought it

If you have no need for a faster shutter speed in low light, or the subject isolating ability of f2.8 then do take a look at this 70-300. Its a fantastic lens.

The 1.4 TC III is going to be about $500 so your solution will end up being $600 more. Thats a significant increase which really puts it outside the realms of direct comparison.

But the 1.4x III TC can be used with all sorts of other lenses too. And if the 70-200 f/4 IS already beats it with the 1.4x II then ith the 1.4x III....

And maybe the f/2.8 is another thing entirely, and it is, but it does go to show the over-pricing on the 70-300L.

All the same your tests show amazing promise 70-200!!, not much fear of selling the 70-200 than a bit of weight and 2/3 at 200mm. Although I wonder how close the bill was. The 70-200 f/4 IS tends to not really, really come to life until you start getting 15'plus away.

Depending how it all sorts out, if the price comes down I could perhaps sell off my 70-200 f/4 IS. I just hope it does better at 280mm than your tests suggests (and as well 70-200 when shooting far off subjects). I may get the MkIII TC for my super-tele anyway. Granted it is a real pain on the 70-200, on-off-on-off-on-off yuck!

dandig wrote in post #11304868
Tripod collar from my f4 IS is way too small. I was kind of hoping the same thing..... but I think maybe the collar for the 70-300 is actually a new one ? You'll see the color of the 70-300 is slightly different to other L Whites. Just like the new 300 and 400 2.8. SO it would make sense to make a new matching collar too. I actually have sold the 300 f4 when I got the 300 2.8 so I can't speak for that on.

On the Canon page it says it takes collar "C" which I could not find on the B&H website.

so the 300 2.8 collar can't be made to fit it either?

Thanks for the reply...appreciate it.

Mike