Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
canon ef 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS
#1
Anybody good / bad experience on the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS lense ?

Considering to buy this rather new lense, but some doubts on its aperture (5.6) and DOF (and fact that no Canon converter like 1,4 can be used on it).

Looks to me like good alternative between Canon EF 70 - 200 F4 L IS USM lense and the Canon EF 100 - 400mm F4.5 - 5.6 L IS USM lense.

The Canon 70 - 200mm L F2.8 IS II USM is bit too expensive for my budget. Is the difference with the former non IS really worth de price difference ? Do you need the IS on this lense ?

I am mostly interested in travelling, landscape, nature, animals and sports photography.

Thanks in advance for your advice.
#2
[quote name='Kingcanon' timestamp='1321097184' post='12870']

Anybody good / bad experience on the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS lense ?

Considering to buy this rather new lense, but some doubts on its aperture (5.6) and DOF (and fact that no Canon converter like 1,4 can be used on it).

Looks to me like good alternative between Canon EF 70 - 200 F4 L IS USM lense and the Canon EF 100 - 400mm F4.5 - 5.6 L IS USM lense.

The Canon 70 - 200mm L F2.8 IS II USM is bit too expensive for my budget. Is the difference with the former non IS really worth de price difference ? Do you need the IS on this lense ?

I am mostly interested in travelling, landscape, nature, animals and sports photography.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

[/quote]

I have tested the 70-300 L in store because I was thinking to replace my 70-200 f/4 L IS. I decided agianst it because of weight. The 70-300 L is 300g heavier than the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 2.8 models (with and w/o IS) are double the weight of the f/4 lenses. Unless you really need 300mm I wouldnt want to travel with anything heavier than the 70-200 f/4, in particular if I were to carry additional lenses. Note that 200mm on a 50d are very long and unless you go on a safari you, probably wont need more focal length
#3
First of all, it is "lens", not "lense". "Lense" is a really weird internet forum originated misspelling which oddly enough has found its way in one (only one) american english dictionary. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



200mm is not very long on APS-C, I often find myself lacking in tele reach. But I think that in more than half of those cases 300mm may not cut it either.... I guess it is a personal thing.



The 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II is a super tele zoom, just very good and sharp. Its predecessor has IS too (70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM). There is a version without IS too, which is a decent lens too. As Jenbenn pointed out, the one and a half kilo weight of the f2.8 lenses is their biggest drawback. But sure you can be comfortable with such a heavy lens, before deciding on one.



The 70-300mm L is a fine lens with very fast AF and great IQ. It does a decent job for all your mentioned applications, except when you need more tele reach than 300mm on APS-C and in sports photography.

In sports photography it can easily track movement, that is not a problem. But in sports photography, usually one wants to isolate the subject from the background, especially in field sports... and then f5-5.6 in the longer ranges only does a so-so job. A personal thing, whether you would mind that or not.



An affordable light alternative could be the EF 200mm f2.8 L USM II, a lovely (black) lens.



Another option to the 70-300 L could be the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM with 1.4x extender. Without extender it is noticably more compact and light than the 70-300mm L, with extender you have almost the same tele reach (or more reach when shooting close subjects).



Whether you need IS depends on the application.... with sports usually not, as you need high enough shutter speeds. With wild life and lower light conditions, IS comes in very handy of course.



Personally I would like the 70-300 L It has nice bokeh (but only f5.6 and quite a bit of lens breathing (field of view widening) when using it close up), great build and super FA performance. Combined with a 200mm f2.8 L <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />, for when f2.8 is wanted/needed, or a light lens.
#4
Ken Rockwell has just put up info. on Canon 70-200 and feature comparison table of same, might be of use.
#5
I lean towards urban and captive wildlife, and I went for both the 70-300L and 100-400L. I started with the 100-400L as at the time that was the only choice. The 70-300L did not exist yet. I have taken 10's or even 100's of thousands of shots with the 100-400L now, and do love the lens. It's good enough wide open at 400mm, the push-pull zoom is much better for fast reaction than twist zoom. The weight was a bit much initially but you get used to it quickly.



So why then did I also get the 70-300L? My main reason at the time was water resistance. The 100-400L would have internal moisture problems if you use it unprotected in the rain like I did. The 70-300L is much better in that regard. Although it wasn't a factor at the time, I have found the reduced size compared to the 100-400L to be a benefit. Right now I'm away from home at the end of the 2nd day of 3 day travel. I just didn't have room in my bags to carry the 100-400L, and opted to only take the 70-300L.



The 70-300L did prove a benefit already. The place I went to yesterday had captive birds of prey. They were mostly held indoors with natural lighting only. And it wasn't a sunny day. I found myself even using ISO6400 at times and even then I was getting shutter times of only 1/20s or even longer. At maximum focal length, I still had a good hit rate at 1/20s, and it only really dropped below 50% "acceptably sharp" rate below 1/10s. Hand held. You're never going to pixel peep sharpness at ISO6400 regardless. For comparison, I could not dream of these times with the older IS system of the 100-400L, where I'd say about 1/40s or 1/60s was my 50% rate limit. Even allowing for the extra focal length you do feel the difference when you push the IS to its limits and then some. Obviously this only applies to the cases where the subject does not move. 1/10s is an eternity for some wildlife. There are times I wished I had 400mm instead of 300mm though and I'm still not a fan of the twist zoom for speed of response compared to push-pull.



Personally the 70-200 series are largely uninteresting. The depth of field of the 70-300L and 100-400L are already on the low side for wildlife, so I prefer to stop down even when light allows. The shorter focal length, shorter zoom range, and requirement to add an extender to get the longer focal lengths are all major negatives in this use. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is the only one I'd consider seriously using at 400mm, although the older ones might be acceptable at 280mm.



Of course I'm only writing about my wildlife usage. Other scenarios may vary.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#6
Dear All,



Thanks a lot for your comments.

I'll take all into consideration and make final decision next few weeks. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
#7
When Canon,

Released this lens I was thinking who actually need this lens.

Actually I was wrong. The ware plenty of users who choose Canon 70-300 /4-5,6 IS L.

- it is not as light as canon 70-300 IS non-L

- in terms of aperture settings it doesn’t offer nothing more than 70-300 non l

- it is highly priced. If you want to spend 1500euro, why not buy something real – like old or newest canon 300/2,8.



Just for record – I have chosen tamron 70-300/4-5,6 VC + Canon 300/2,8 IS l + 1,4 Teleconverter. This combined with my 100 and 150mm macros makes my setup complete. If I don’t need superb IQ, speed and shallow DOF I get Tamron. Weight has never been a problem for me since I always care 4,5++kg tripod and ballhead. Actually this tripod is the one of the few tools that improves the quality of my work, nor camera or lenses.



Good look and enjoy of your new lens.

I’m sure that you will be happy with whatever you choose.



PS: lenstip has just reviewed this lens too. http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=ob...est_ob=322
#8
Thanks for the tip of the lenstest.

Very interesting to see the results ! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)