# Review - Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 1, 2015)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS here.


----------



## Click (Jul 1, 2015)

Excellent review. Thank you very much, Dustin.


----------



## JoeDavid (Jul 1, 2015)

It is a good lens but I haven't carried mine with me since Canon finally updated the 100-400. It costs more but, at least for the two lenses I own, the image quality is a little better and of course there is the extra 100mm which can be a plus when shooting with a full frame sensor.


----------



## Nadav Cassuto (Jul 1, 2015)

I love this lens, I'm using it since the Kenya reports
AF is amazing. Here are few examples:


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2015)

great lens


----------



## RGF (Jul 1, 2015)

Yes the 70-300L is a great lens. Wish it would work with a 1.4 TC. Other than that, no complaints.

I will pick the 70-300 over the 100-400 when I need to hand hold and don't think I will need the extra 100 mm. The lighter weight is a real plus over the 100-400.


----------



## langdonb (Jul 2, 2015)

I love this lens. Have used the Kenko 1.4 TC with it with very good results. BUT you must disable any AFMA, at least with 6D and 5D3 bodies.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RGF said:


> Yes the 70-300L is a great lens. *Wish it would work with a 1.4 TC.* Other than that, no complaints.



At least on a 5D3 (other models might vary), it works well with a Kenko DGX 300 Pro or Kenko DGX MC4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2015)

langdonb said:


> I love this lens. Have used the Kenko 1.4 TC with it with very good results. BUT you must disable any AFMA, at least with 6D and 5D3 bodies.



Hmm works fine with my 5D3 and MFA. I never went to the new firmware though that gave f/8 AF since that ruins Magic Lantern. If you go back to the firmware right before the f/8 AF it works fine with AF and AFAM, at least on my 5D3.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 2, 2015)

RGF said:


> Yes the 70-300L is a great lens. Wish it would work with a 1.4 TC. Other than that, no complaints.
> 
> I will pick the 70-300 over the 100-400 when I need to hand hold and don't think I will need the extra 100 mm. The lighter weight is a real plus over the 100-400.



300 vs 420mm doesn't really look dramatically different. So at least for me incompatibility with 1.4tc is not an issue. 

I love this lens so much I carry it far more often than 70-200 2.8. The size and weight is just right.


----------



## JimS (Jul 2, 2015)

*Did he do this review in 2011? Why are you posting it now?*

The reviewer at one point writes: "The following point is purely conjecture on my part. I can’t call it fact yet……
2011 is the year the 100-400 gets replaced from every indication I’ve received."

1) I had the 70-300 IS L lens, and I agree it is a wonderful lens.

2) Comparisons to the original 100-400 IS L lens are not the most useful comparisons, (allthough that was the only choice in 2011). The comparison should be between the 70-300 and the 100-400 IS L Mk II which shares most of the best attributes of the 70-300 (other than weight). 

3) None of my photographer friends who shoot wildlife would think of using a full-frame camera and a 70-300mm lens. It will work for very large animals up close or habitat shots. Folks wanting wildlife photos -- he was on safari in Africa -- would be much happier with a 7D MkII and the 100-400 IS L Mk II.

4) Going with the 100-400mm Mk II + the Canon 7D Mk II and a 1.4X TC III along will come much closer to eliminating the need to take a huge, heavy and expensive telephoto prime.


----------



## carrboro (Jul 2, 2015)

I tested the 70-300 and the 100-400 II at the same time. While lighter and a nice lens, the 100-400 II was just too hard to pass up. I carry it in a backpack and don't find it too much of a problem as long as i'm not carrying a ton of other lenses.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 2, 2015)

Blimey, how old is this lens now?! Must be quiet on the rumour front.

I bought it when it first came out and must agree that it is a nice lens, but I hardly ever used it and after a while it just stayed in the cupboard until I sold it a few weeks ago.

I prefer the image quality of the 70-200L f/2.8 IS ii and can use Canon converters with that too. For longer than that I use the 400 f/2.8 ii.


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Jul 2, 2015)

A lovely lens.
About the maximum size and weight that one could call a 'travel lens'.


----------



## KevinSch (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm very happy with the results I get from this lens on my 60D - (although we'll see how it works out on my new 6D).

One thing that grinds my gears a bit is the scarcity and price of the Canon Tripod mounting ring. 
I know they feel this is a "Hand holdable" lens, but I'd like the option of maximizing sharpness without a world wide parts hunt and a massive bill.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 2, 2015)

One of 3 lenses I've used extensively on both crop and FF (the others being the 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 II). Its relative compactness is a plus, and it has strong performance where it matters most (300mm f/5.6). OTOH, the 70mm end can be a bit weak, particularly on crop. 

On FF it's a decent general telephoto lens, mainly for outdoor events. With the hood removed, it offers a decent amount of reach without being too overbearing which makes it work well for candids (people). And the sharpness is on a very high level, so no complaints there. The only issue is the f/5.6 at the long end limits its use to mainly outdoors/daytime shooting, which in turn limits versatility. The IS system is pretty good, so if you're shooting still subjects this can be overcome to an extent...but AF accuracy still takes a hit in the dark. 

On a crop sensor...I think this is actually where this lens really shines. Despite weaker performance at 70mm wider than 5.6, it offers tremendous reach ability in a very small, relatively lightweight package. In fact, this is what I currently use for animal photography, although 300 is still too short for most birds (looking at a 400/500 for that, perhaps with TCs).

I was going to sell this lens to trade in for the new 100-400 when it was announced, but since I didn't need the money right away I decided to hang on to it for the time being. Glad I did. I think this is Canon's smallest 'white lens' - not sure why they made it a white one to be honest, I'd have preferred if they left it black. I suppose they had to differentiate from the non-L version, but the 24-105s co-exist both in black...shrug...


----------



## cycleraw (Jul 3, 2015)

As always Dustin has done a great review but my experience with the 70-300 L wasn't great and I ended up selling it. Image quality was outstanding but I found the AF speed very disappointing. I have owned the 70-200 2.8L II for few years and have recently purchased the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II and find that the AF speed and accuracy on both of those lenses much better than the 70-300 L. If someone is considering the 70-300 L for wildlife I would strongly recommend the 100-400 L II over it for the greater reach, AF speed and IS.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 3, 2015)

cycleraw said:


> As always Dustin has done a great review but my experience with the 70-300 L wasn't great and I ended up selling it. Image quality was outstanding but I found the AF speed very disappointing. I have owned the 70-200 2.8L II for few years and have recently purchased the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II and find that the AF speed and accuracy on both of those lenses much better than the 70-300 L. If someone is considering the 70-300 L for wildlife I would strongly recommend the 100-400 L II over it for the greater reach, AF speed and IS.



That's interesting you've had that experience, I use it to shoot birds in flight and find the AF pretty damn good. At the moment I'd really like to get the 100-400 II but am determined not to have to sacrifice the 70-300 because it's so compact to use. For me this seems to make tracking that much easier and long sessions out with it a breeze. Maybe I'm just being too greedy . . . if the AF really is that much better on the 100-400 II then maybe my good friend will have to be sacrificed. I sense a rental coming on early next year.

But it would be done with a heavy heart . . . lovely lens in my opinion.


----------



## cycleraw (Jul 4, 2015)

fragilesi, good plan renting the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. I bet you won't be disappointed or maybe you will because my guess is you'll be selling the 70-300.


----------



## Patak (Jul 4, 2015)

The AF speed on my 70-300L is exceptionally good. Likely the best of all my lenses. the only issue i had is that the focus ring is not as tight as on my other canon lenses. it has some room. I brought it to Canon and they said it is normal. The image quality is very good and you can easily carry it for the prolonged periods of time.


----------



## Ripley (Jul 4, 2015)

After I sold my 70-200 f2.8 ii, I passed on the 70-300L and picked up the 70-200 F4 IS - better wide open optics and a constant aperture across the focal range won out over 100mm of extra reach.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 5, 2015)

*Re: Did he do this review in 2011? Why are you posting it now?*



JimS said:


> The reviewer at one point writes: "The following point is purely conjecture on my part. I can’t call it fact yet……
> 2011 is the year the 100-400 gets replaced from every indication I’ve received."
> 
> 1) I had the 70-300 IS L lens, and I agree it is a wonderful lens.
> ...



I think you got the reviews mixed up. There is an earlier review (excellent) from Craig that was long before the new 100-400L II was released. The new review (by Dustin) that covers the lens with the 100-400L II in mind.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 5, 2015)

cycleraw said:


> As always Dustin has done a great review but my experience with the 70-300 L wasn't great and I ended up selling it. Image quality was outstanding but I found the AF speed very disappointing. I have owned the 70-200 2.8L II for few years and have recently purchased the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II and find that the AF speed and accuracy on both of those lenses much better than the 70-300 L. If someone is considering the 70-300 L for wildlife I would strongly recommend the 100-400 L II over it for the greater reach, AF speed and IS.



You must have had a defective copy of the 70-300L. The new 100-400L II's AF is as good, but not better (it actually hunts more in lower light, in my experience). My copy of the 70-300L is as fast as any lens that I've used that I can think of...and I've used a LOT of lenses.

The 100-400L II is a fabulous lens, however, and I am personally torn over whether or not I should sell my 70-300L in order to have it. There's too much overlap between the two lenses, although I'd love to have both (the 70-300L for travel and landscape use, the 100-400L II for wildlife).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 5, 2015)

Ripley said:


> After I sold my 70-200 f2.8 ii, I passed on the 70-300L and picked up the 70-200 F4 IS - better wide open optics and a constant aperture across the focal range won out over 100mm of extra reach.



Interesting. I did the opposite. The 70-200 f/4L IS is an excellent lens, but I traded it for the 70-300L and never regretted it.


----------



## Sarpedon (Jul 5, 2015)

Hey Dustin,

Great review, as always. I'm on the cusp of buying this lens, but one thing keeps bothering me. I use the Eg-S screen in my 6D for my fast primes and love it, even indoors, but I absolutely hate the idea of having to take it out if I'm switching lenses (I know, I'm lazy). I remember you saying you used the EG-S screen. Have you every used the 70-300 L with the screen installed? I'm going to Iceland in December, and I want a telephoto zoom for landscapes. I'd use the 70-300 outdoors in daylight and never past sunset, so I was wondering if you think I could get away with leaving the darker focusing screen in for those shooting conditions. 

I'll probably buy the lens anyway, but I was curious. Thanks!


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 5, 2015)

cycleraw said:


> fragilesi, good plan renting the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. I bet you won't be disappointed or maybe you will because my guess is you'll be selling the 70-300.



Maybe  I can't imagine not wanting it but the ease of use of the 70-300 is just wonderful. I primarily try to shoot sport and BIF, only handhold and am often trying to follow some pretty fast-moving action from unpredictable directions. I sometimes go out for hours at a time. 

So while I'd definitely love the extra 100mm I think I'd miss the 70mm end a little and some of the sheer joy of being able to try to react quickly with a light rig might be lost . . . 

Oh it's so stressful this hobby ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 5, 2015)

Sarpedon said:


> Hey Dustin,
> 
> Great review, as always. I'm on the cusp of buying this lens, but one thing keeps bothering me. I use the Eg-S screen in my 6D for my fast primes and love it, even indoors, but I absolutely hate the idea of having to take it out if I'm switching lenses (I know, I'm lazy). I remember you saying you used the EG-S screen. Have you every used the 70-300 L with the screen installed? I'm going to Iceland in December, and I want a telephoto zoom for landscapes. I'd use the 70-300 outdoors in daylight and never past sunset, so I was wondering if you think I could get away with leaving the darker focusing screen in for those shooting conditions.
> 
> I'll probably buy the lens anyway, but I was curious. Thanks!



I don't remove the EG-S screen. In decent light you won't notice. After sunset you would definitely notice, but I've found that I'm able to adjust. If the body is doing the autofocus you don't need the same visual confirmation anyway.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 5, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> cycleraw said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi, good plan renting the 100-400 4.5-5.6L II. I bet you won't be disappointed or maybe you will because my guess is you'll be selling the 70-300.
> ...



Exactly. It's challenging because the two lenses definitely overlap, but they both have their strengths. They are also too expensive to justify owning both for most shooters.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 5, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > cycleraw said:
> ...



That's it in a nutshell. First instinct is that you shouldn't really want both with such overlap but I suspect I'll come to that conclusion which will delay getting the 100-400 II sadly. Then again, the 70-300 is just so good I guess I shouldn't complain too much!


----------



## TeT (Jul 8, 2015)

Was jazzed to see that this lens worked fully with the Kenko 1.4. I ordered one from Adorama but the YELLOW dot version arrived:

1.4 Yellow Dot works fully with this lens, full zoom range and AF on both my 6D & my SL1...


----------

