# 70-300L for Outdoors?



## Cory (Dec 7, 2012)

After much research I think I'm gonna go with the 70-300L for outdoor sports/school events/etc. to complement my 100 2.0/200 2.8 combo for indoor sports. Before pulling the trigger does anyone have any final advice or insight into that choice? My camera's a T1i. I'll be sticking with that for awhile and probably staying with crop sensors.
Thanks.


----------



## JoeDavid (Dec 7, 2012)

I have one but I use it more for travel than sports. The main advice I'd give it to be careful not to accidentally change the focus. That lens has the zoom and focus rings reversed from the normal Canon placement. When you handhold the camera the hand you cradle it with normally would rest on the zoom ring but for this one that is where the focus ring is. It is annoying but I still like the lens. It's IQ and IS are great!


----------



## DianeK (Dec 7, 2012)

Can't imagine you will regret that purchase. I love mine and it's size is perfect...lives on my 7D.
Diane


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 7, 2012)

One of the underrated zooms from canon with excellent IQ and 'reach' especially on cropped sensors. I have nothing bad to say about it that is significant... A tad 'fat', dun't take extenders that I own, but the IQ and IS are stellar. Good OOF rendition on the tele end.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 7, 2012)

I have both the 70-300 F/4-5.6 & 70-200 f/2.8 L II, and both are great Lenses, but. I lean towards the 70-200 heavily. My reasons are although the 70-200 is longer & heavier, it produces much better IQ than the 70-300, plus you have the versatility on the 70-200 of using the 1.4x & 2.0x Extenders, not something you can do on the 70-300. The only benefit I've seen to date with the 70-300 is a situation where you want to go light on what your carrying but still have 300.


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Dec 7, 2012)

The 70-300L is a great, light weight, compact lens. Great for travel. If weight and ost are not of a concern, the 70-200 is a great lens. But if you need the reach, I'd go for the 70-300L instead of 70-200 plus converter. If you need more reach, the Kenko 1.4x teleplus pro will work with the 79-300L and AF works under good light without taping the pins on my t3i. It is a good choice.


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 7, 2012)

I can only recommend this lens. I use it on a T3i and like it for its IQ, the compact size (retracted) and all the usual L stuff like build quality, AF etc.
The reversed zoom and focus rings are not an issue for me, I just hold the lens in the front and it does not feel unnatural at all, the barrel is not that long. But I might be a little more used to it because my 15-85 is the same way.
I chose it over one of the 70-200 because of the extra reach and the compact size when retracted - it fits vertically in my ThinkTank Urban Disguise with camera and lens hood attached. IQ is supposed to be better than 70-200 + 1.4 converter, according to TDP.
If you want to shoot wildlife/birds often, you might even want to consider the 100-400. 300mm is not very long for that, even on a crop camera. As others have reported, the 70-300L works well with the Kenko TC.

Happy shopping


----------



## M.ST (Dec 7, 2012)

I can recommend the lens for APS-C cameras.

For FF I can recommend the EF 70-200 2.8 II L IS and the EF 300 2.8 II L IS.


----------



## christianronnel (Dec 7, 2012)

You will not regret it. I have both the 70-300L and the 70-200L IS II. I prefer using the 70-300 unless the light is not optimal. They equally sharp at 70mm. The 70-300L is so much easier to carry in the bag and will not rip your wrist off after extended use. Do get the Canon tripod lens collar when using on the tripod on the tele end. The tripod collar will also prevent accidental focus shift.

Here's an example of how sharp this lens is, taken @200mm f11:



Downtown San Diego by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 7, 2012)

christianronnel said:


> You will not regret it. I have both the 70-300L and the 70-200L IS II. I prefer using the 70-300 unless the light is not optimal. They equally sharp at 70mm. The 70-300L is so much easier to carry in the bag.



+1 - I Agree.

As already said. Great lens and so much lighter than the 70-200l IS II. You really notice it after a full day.

But, the 70-200L IS II is f2.8 which can be very important when you upgrade your camera, and you can use extenders on it.

You can use some Kenko extenders on the 70-300L but I have not yet tried them.

Enjoy.


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 7, 2012)

The Canon Tripod Collar is not included and ridiculously expensive. I got a 3rd party (Fotodiox or something?) which works great - but I never use it. You won't need it much unless you shoot long time exposures 
The lens has a zoom lock, but so far lens creep is not a problem on mine


----------



## Danielle (Dec 7, 2012)

I haven't touched your camera but I've extensively used the 70-300L on my 7D (I borrowed the lens). The only thing it could do better is be faster, but you'll pay a fortune more for that. Otherwise, its damn good and very well worth it.

Great lens, good size, damn sharp, very fast autofocus and not a bad trying to be macro too at its closest focus. If you buy it, you'll have no regrets. The end. Happy shooting.


----------



## candyman (Dec 7, 2012)

@Cory


I am using it every week on my 7D for soccer games. It is an excellent lens. When it is more cloudy or mist, the ISO goes up. But you can still get great images even when you crop as long as your image is max 1280 pixels
I use the lens also for my desert trips every year. Weathersealing is excellent as well.


I use the 70-200 f/2.8 MKII on my 5D MKIII but only when the players are close on the field from where I position myself. It does not have enough reach even when you crop. Though the quality is superb


----------



## Rams_eos (Dec 7, 2012)

Hi,
I have the T3i (600D) with the 70-200 F4L IS and find the weight balance perfect.

I tried the 70-300L but I found it very heavy in comparison and as the camera is light, this is very unbalanced.
May be perfect on 7D.
Image quality is great but i would advise you try it on YOUR body before buying.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2012)

I can only assist the above recommendations, esp. considering the price difference to the 70-200/2.8 or tele primes - the 70-300L has a good is-af-size-weight-reach-iq-price-buildquality tradeoff. But of course the sharpness is not on par with a prime @100% crop, but you wouldn't expect that anyway.

The one drawback (except the non-constant aperture if you want that) is that the af system slows down or might even hunt when the max. open aperture is only f5.6 when the contrast is low and the lighting is mediocre - but these are situations the lens isn't designed for anyway.



Rams_eos said:


> I have the T3i (600D) with the 70-200 F4L IS and find the weight balance perfect.
> I tried the 70-300L but I found it very heavy in comparison and as the camera is light, this is very unbalanced.



Imho it has good balance on the 60d, too - but for a laugh try the 70-200/2.8 lenses, *these* are really unbalanced on crop because they are even heavier and longer which puts greater torque on the wrist.


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 7, 2012)

Hi there

I also have the 70-300mm L, and LOVE this lens. It's got great IQ at any setting, great fast / accurate USM focus, and a 4-stop effective IS.

While it's not 'fast' (as in f/2.8 or larger aperture) - I don't need that, as I use the 70-300mm L for outdoors, and usually for wildlife, including birds - and occasionally for candid photography. 

I have travelled with the 70-300mm L - it's very portable. I actually PREFER the order of the zoom and focus rings that way (as I hold the lens at the zoom ring, and brace/ hold with the other hand on my camera body).

Well matched to APS-C, is often on my Canon 7D, providing a 480mm effective in 35mm format. Great build quality too. I got mine for a good price soon after it was released! Winner 

Best wishes with that.

Paul


----------



## Ninjajack (Dec 7, 2012)

DianeK said:


> Can't imagine you will regret that purchase. I love mine and it's size is perfect...lives on my 7D.
> Diane



QFT, same for me, I haven't taken it off of my 7D in months


----------



## miah (Dec 7, 2012)

By all accounts the 70-300L is a fine lens, but as others have pointed out it's quite big and heavy when mounted on a lightweight Rebel. I use the 70-300 DO on my T3i and find it a better match, especially for travel. IQ on the DO is very good above f/5.6, if not quite as good as the L, provided you always use the accompanying lens hood to improve contrast. In short, both lenses have the same range and reach, but the DO is considerably smaller and lighter (and not as well weather sealed).


----------



## SteveCSmith (Dec 7, 2012)

I love the 70-300L (hated the non-L). My first L glass (and, of course, now I'm addicted), I was, and still am, blown away by the IQ. I found myself purchasing the 70-200 2.8 IS II a year later when it went on sale because this didn't cut it for low light and/or sports (as should be expected), but still prefer the 70-300 when reaching for one - extra reach, smaller, and lighter.

I just wish I didn't have accessorize with a plethora of filters... polarizers multiply up too fast.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 7, 2012)

Every bit as good as the 70-200 mk.ii (except 1 stop slower) in IQ. I sold mine to get the 100-400 because the 100-400 took TC's, but regretted it... the 70-300 is as sharp as the 70-200 mk.ii, with great color and contrast. There is also little to no reported copy variations, i.e. QC is great on them, every owner seems to be very happy with it. 

The F2.8 has better Bokeh and is faster and perhaps faster AF, but is pricier, heavier and shorter.

The 70-300 is very underrated (due to f5.6) but otherwise every bit as worth for the red and white paint job  

Go ahead and get one, you will not be disappointed.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 7, 2012)

I just want to comment on the IS of this lens. It is fantastic. 

A few months ago, I needed to shoot a presentation in a very very poorly lit school library. I found that by bracing myself carefully and waiting for the speakers to pause, I could get usable shots even going down to about 1/8th to 1/15th of a second. 

More and more, when I'm packing to go shoot outdoors, I'll put the 15-85 on my 7D, pack this lens in my bag and leave everything else at home.


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 7, 2012)

I have the 70-300L and use it almost exclusively for outdoor sports - football, soccer, cross country and track.

I use it with a 7D. My exeperience - AF is excellent, rarely misses, very sharp lens, IQ is great, the reach & range is perfect, and it is light enough to hand hold easily. For what I use it for, this "relatively" affordable lens is perfect.

I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (M1). The AF can't keep up with the 70-300L - I stopped using it for outdoor sports in favor of the 70-300L, even with lower light situations (cloudy or dusk). I'd rather use a higher ISO and get in-focus shots than a lower ISO with a lot of misses.


----------



## alan_k (Dec 7, 2012)

I have a 60D, and use the 70-300L quite a bit. It is a really great lens given the size/weight. The AF is fast, IS is fantastic. I think the IS makes up a bit for not being as fast as an f/4 or f/2.8, although you miss the control over depth of field, and fast moving sports could be a bit of a problem. Most of my use is with distant wildlife where that isn't as much of a concern. If you are a lot closer to your subjects you might opt for one of the 70-200s.

I bought the kenko 1.4x 300 Pro teleconverter, and I *don't* think this is a worthwhile purchase (in my case). I did some informal tests and in my experience cropping a bit more on a photo w/o the converter leads to similar IQ as a photo with the kenko on. I think the only advantage might be in very small subjects that would be missed by the AF at 300mm but would be caught by the AF with the extra magnification.

I did get a 3rd party tripod collar and if you plan to use this on a tripod at all I think it's a good purchase. It's pretty frustrating to frame a shot on a ball-head when you have something so front-heavy. You certainly don't need a tripod though- this lens is very hand-holdable. 

Getting a grip for your camera will make the balance a lot better, gives you added battery life, controls for vertical shooting, and makes you look cool! 8)




Male Greater Sage-grouse in flight by alankrakauer, on Flickr




super_moon1_50 108 by alankrakauer, on Flickr




glacier_deer 208 by alankrakauer, on Flickr


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 8, 2012)

alan_k said:


> I bought the kenko 1.4x 300 Pro teleconverter, and I *don't* think this is a worthwhile purchase (in my case). I did some informal tests and in my experience cropping a bit more on a photo w/o the converter leads to similar IQ as a photo with the kenko on.



Are you sure you've got a good copy of the tc and the lens? Everything I've read including my own experience with this combination is that it's better than cropping (though how large the margin is is subjective, I didn't shoot charts).



alan_k said:


> I think the only advantage might be in very small subjects that would be missed by the AF at 300mm but would be caught by the AF with the extra magnification.



Again, my experience is different - af is more tiresome with the tc on esp. in single point af mode since the af often hunts @f8, esp. in dim light or bad contrast.


----------



## alan_k (Dec 8, 2012)

I've certainly had no cause to suspect the lens, so it is possible I have a bad or mis-matched TC. To be honest I just used it a few times, wasn't terribly happy with it, and haven't gone back to it. All I can go by is my experience with this one model.

The AF is definitely slower with the TC, but it's not impossible to use. I felt like this was a case where a focus limiter would be handy, as the slowness was compounded by missing focus a little more often, and having to rack through the range. Even so, I was able to hand-hold 300mm in fairly low light and get ok results.

A bit more perspective, my 70-300L was an upgrade from the older version of the 70-300 IS (non-L). This was the first L lens I had. Perhaps if you already have a stable full of L lenses your perspective might be different, but I think this lens is the bees knees.


----------

