EF 70-300/4-5.6 L IS impressions?

<p>I use a 70-200/4 L IS on my 5DI and 50D, but sometimes find that I need more reach. I have an opportunity to get a used 70-300/4-5.6 L IS in excellent condition, and would like to hear from people who have experience with it. I'm particularly interested in its resolution, contrast, and the effectiveness of its IS system. It would be good to hear about comparisons between the 70-200 and 70-300 as well.</p>

<p>I went for the even longer solution the EF 100-400mm IS L. If you can live with f/4, maybe you can live with f/4.5-5.6. It really gives you 'reach' and then some.</p>

<p>I find it worth every penny. I even bought a 50D to use it on as well as on my 35mm sensor body.</p><div></div>

<p>Have you considered adding to your mix-and-match wardrobe a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II? You will be getting a Canon EF 98-280mm f/5.6L IS USM. I used to use that combination until I sold the lens and got the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. IQ is still very good for both zoom variants with the Extender.</p>

<p>I have the lens and enjoy using it on a full frame camera. <br>

I have used it at events such as balloon festivals, parades, rodeos, at the zoo, etc. The zoom range is very useful and at the types of events I mentioned, the minimum focal length of 70mm worked well. Focus is fast and accurate. I like using the longer focal lengths for tighter shots at parades. I used to shoot a 300mm lens on my OM4 with 400 ISO film and never achieved sharp crisp images because I was shaking too much. The IS is great and worth the money. Image quality is better than my 24-105 and on par with my 100mm macro L. The lens is fast enough because with a full frame sensor using an ISO of 400 or 800 compensates for the slow speed of the lens without a noticeable effect on image quality. <br>

I don't use the lens as much as my 24-105 or the macro lens, but for the events I referenced, the lens is very good. I thought hard about purchasing the lens because of the price. However, like most purchases, once you begin using it and view the results, you don't think about the money you spent. <br>

As you likely know, the 300mm focal length is too short for birds or wildlife, but that wasn't my intended use. <br>

Jerry</p><div></div>

<p>+1 to Peter's suggestion of getting a Canon 1.4x to go with your 70-200 f/4 IS. I'd go one further and say to get the Canon 1.4x III. The III is a bit more expensive than the II (and likely more expensive than the 70-300 you are looking at), but the IQ improvement is noticeable. And a converter is a lot smaller and lighter than a second lens!</p>

<p>Here is a <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0">comparison </a>of the IQ between the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 and the 70-200 f4L IS using the 1.4III converter... (mouse out of the image sees the 70-300, mouse in the image sees the 70-200+1.4xIII)</p>

<p>Larry, that link shows the 70-300 non-L. The 70-300 L is much better at 300. But the 70-200/4 IS plus 1.4x is still remarkably good. Link:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback, guys. I must say that I'm stunned with the comparisons between the 70-300 and 70-200 w/ 1.4x III. They're like night and day.</p>

<p>My 70-200 is my most used lens for walking about, and just getting an extender would be a more practical solution than getting another telephoto zoom.</p>

<p>Addendum: Yes, I thought the comparison was too good to be true, and went and confirmed myself that it was the 70-300 non-L.</p>

<p>(Sorry, not that it really matters, but I meant to say I use a 5DII in my original post).</p>

<p>Oh, I'm so sorry! I completely missed the "L" in your original post.</p>

<p>Yes, the 70-300 "L" is a lot better than the non-L...</p>

<p>I find it to be an outstanding lens. IMO, The IQ is on par with the 70-200 2.8 IS II at similar apertures. I actually sold my 70-200 2.8 IS II when I got the 70-300L. The big advantage to me is the size. Its actually shorter than all of the 70-200's and it makes for a great travel lens.<br>

<br /> The IS is outstanding, I have gotten sharp photos at 1/10 at 300mm.</p>

<p>Few photos with it <br /> /> />

<p>I have both lens and I second the posting that the 70-300 L is an excellent performer. </p>

<p>I was not interested in it at first until a friend started raving about it. I find the results consistently impressive in spite of my abilities... I still have the 70-200/4 L IS and use it when I want something lighter to carry around or to keep the overseas travel kit light and simple, but I thoroughly enjoy the 70 - 300 L and prefer the output from it most of the time.</p>

<p>I have both and use the 70-300 for the additional reach. I find IQ similar in terms of contrast, colours, sharpness, but the 70-300 clearly suffers from more vignetting, particularly noticeable on a full frame camera.</p>

<p>Slight thread hijack - I just got a 70-300L and the IS makes a really loud 'buzz' when it fires up and shuts down, although when actually running it makes a nice subdued 'hiss' that's barely audible, as normal.<br>

I have used (and sold) a 100/400 IS and still own a 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 and none of those make this noise.<br>

When using the video function on my 5D3 it certainly picks up the start/stop IS noise if using a top mic.<br>

Anyone else got this or have I got a duff IS unit?</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>It's a great lens. I have the 70-200 f4 IS and if I was in the market today I would probably get the 70-300L instead, I think that to all intents and purposes for landscape/tripod work you cannot tell them apart and yet you have greater reach easily on tap with great quality, and only a slight increase in weight. Obviously it is slower which could be a disadvantage for you when handheld. The IS is good but I tend not to rely on IS for most of the time to get me out of a spot as I am frequently slightly disappointed when I do.</p>

<p>I had the cheaper 70-300 IS, and the 70-300 DO. The 70-300 L is much better than either of them, especially at f5.6 at 300mm. The image stabilisation is remarkable. I have had an image in exhibition recently that was hand-held at 1/6th of a second at 260mm.<br>

Resolution is high, contrast is better than the 100-400 at longer focal lengths. The only problem I have had is veiling flare when pointed almost directly at the setting sun, even with the (supplied) lens hood on.</p>

<p>I got rid of my EF 70-200mm f/4 IS after getting the EF 70-300mm L. Contrast was better at all focal lengths. Color was identical. Center sharpness was better at the extreme ends and comparable from 135-165mm; edge sharpness was better at every focal length. It packs better and surprisingly, doesn't feel significantly heavier because the weight is closer to the camera body. The build is much better, AF is possibly better (how can you gauge instantaneous on either) and the IS is quieter and quicker. Maybe I had a sub-stellar 70-200mm, but I can't find one area where I would rather have the 70-200mm. The OOF background blur at 300mm is very impressionistic. Not super smooth at f/8, but pleasing nonethelesss. Don't even think about image quality with a 1.4x TC — not even close at 280mm, I tested. One thing, though to keep in mind, the 70-300mm comes up quite a bit shy of 300mm, especially at MFD. So, it's not really much longer than the 70-200mm with TC. But infinitely faster AF and much better IQ.</p>