Canon 70-300 f4-5.6L IS USM wow!

[Mcthecat]

After selling the two big primes, old extenders and some other gear and making a very tidy profit, i re examined what i shoot and what gear i need. A deposit for the new 500f4 has been done, a bargain used 70-200f2.8 mk2 has just arrived, the new extenders arrive tomorrow and all is well in my world (be better when the 24-70 is launched) but i missed one lens, a nice, universal light lens that was in the 100-400 range when i slap it on the MK4. Decided on the 70-300 and one arrived a couple of days ago, mint used. All i can say is im astonished at it. It kicks my old 70-200's backside. Its pretty small, light handles really well. The motor is silent, im getting sharp images at 1/25th hand held due to the new IS. The colors and tones are excellent and its very sharp. Yes its not a very fast lens but hey, for the price i got it at and for what i use it for its a gem. The autofocus is very rapid to. Im going to do a field test tomorrow afternoon and see if the new 70-200 is any sharper which i serious doubt it will be at sizes i print A2/3 (who crops %100 anyway?).

Just wanted to big up this little gem in the Canon range.

Mick

[johnkiv]

Dan Carr has an extensive blog post on it.  I've read comparisons where it comes out better than the 300mm F4L.  It seems to be a sleeper in the canon line.  I've been tempted.

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/17/canon-70-300-f4-5-6-l-is-review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/

[Mcthecat]

John, I studied my metadata and whilst I loved my 300 f2.8 how many of us need that extra light? I shoot a lot of Motorsport, outside, no need for the extra light. Pixel peepers like to carry around a nice big lens but is it really needed outside the pose value. Pros and serious sports dudes in poor light yes.With the performance and quality of new cameras, ISo performance, photoshop etc very few need the prime. Nice bokeh but people create the same bokeh using photoshop although the ancients think that's impossible. This is a gem of a lens. Tomorrow well see if the worlds top zoom is any better, not at 100 percent crop as I don't print at 100 percent crop.

Mick

[indusphoto]

I don't know how much you paid for it, but for its focal length this lens ies expensive. Three times more than non-L version, about 30% more than 300m f/4 prime, and about 5-10% more than 100-400L

That said the IQ is fantastic and really rivals the most expensive lenses at 300mm. However this will work only if all you need is 300mm. The reason to go for 300mm prime or even 100-400 is not because they offer better IQ, but because they allow you to extend the reach (400, 420mm, and 600mm) without losing AF.

[Marlyn]

Its not a bad lens all,   however personally,  I just use a 70-200 mk II (Stunning),  with a 1.4x III on it if I want longer.  (So thats constant F4)

This is my main setup when shooting Eagles inflight in Alaska, and I can say it is superb for resolution, clarity etc etc.
The MTF and pixel peeping watchers don't like teleconverters at all I know (and I'm a geek at heart), but I can say from experience and resultant A2 prints, that the combination is stunning.

I also use the 70-200 2.8 II with the 2x III extensivley as well, and the results are equally as good.  Is it slightly softer at 100%?, yes.   Noticeably so in a print out to A2?  nope.

I agonized for months (years ?) of the "perfect" setup, and either own or have tried a number of 300mm lens (I have the 300 2.8,  tried the 120-300 2.8 of Sigma, etc etc) and settled on this for the midrange tele-zoom for flight and general photography.  I occasionally want for that extra stop at 300mm, but pretty rarely.

The flexibility of the 70-200 mk II, with a 1.4x III and 2.0x III is an unbelievably good combination as is my standard 'over the shoulder' setup.

Note: I'm shooting this setup with either a  Canon 1dIV or 1dsIII.
 
Regards

Mark Farnan.

[Mcthecat]

" That said the IQ is fantastic and really rivals the most expensive lenses at 300mm. However this will work only if all you need is 300mm. The reason to go for 300mm prime or even 100-400 is not because they offer better IQ, but because they allow you to extend the reach (400, 420mm, and 600mm) without losing AF"


Although you miss one point in extending the range, I have three cameras full frame H and APSC.And the reason i bought the L? Because i trade in lens's on ocassion. l will be able to sell the lens in 5 years for what i paid for it, i can drop it in water and it will work, it focus's as fast as my ex prime, its weather sealed as well as anything etc etc. Thats why i buy L lens's.

Mick

[indusphoto]

Although you miss one point in extending the range, I have three cameras full frame H and APSC.

Sure you can get more pixels in lens center going from Full Frame to APS-C. But the same applies to other lenses. You can put 300m+1.4x on APS-C, can't you?

I don't mean to deride this lens. I am just saying that with all the advantages of this lens, there is one disadvantage, which is the reason I don't own this lens.