# Canon 70-300 is L vs non



## 4jphotography (Apr 8, 2011)

Anyone here have any experience with both lenses? Is the upgrade to the new L version really that big a jump iq wise? Construction / weatherproofing doesn't really matter to me. I'd be getting one or the other for primarily sports... I do have a 70-200 2.8 and 35-350 but really want the is. Thoughts?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2011)

The L version is a significant jump in IQ, moreso at the long end of the zoom range (a weak area of the non-L verison, and where you'd want better IQ presumably, since you already have a 70-200/2.8). 

Here's a comparison of the two at 300mm f/5.6.

Even though both have USM, the L lens also has better AF performance, which is important for action shots. The IS system in the L lens is also newer, rated for 4 stops of improvement vs. 3 stops for the non-L lens.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm in nearly the same boat.

70-200/2.8+1.4TC Vs. 70-300L Vs. 100-400

70-200/2.8 would be more flexible, but I lose IS.
100-400 has the extra length, but lesser IS.
70-300L looks like a good compromise, but will be too slow indoors.

Given unlimited resources, I'd get the 70-200/2.8IS + 1.4&2TC. But that's not the case.


----------



## SteveCSmith (Apr 8, 2011)

I owned the 70-300 IS and was looking for more reach. Didn't want the cost and physical size, so I started thinking about a better IQ and cropping.

Went down to the local store and tried a 70-200 2.8 with a teleconverter and the new 70-300 L. Low light, indoors, taking a picture of a picture - WOW. I have the new 70-300 L in my bag now. It is tack sharp edge to edge on my crop sensor (60d). I had no idea what the 60d was capable of until I put this lens on.

I was in no ways impressed with the 70-200 II 2.8 with the new 2x converter (didn't try the 1.4x) at roughly 300mm zoom. Handheld, it underperformed my old 70-300 IS (didn't bother trying the tripod because I don't get to shoot with the tripod much which, yes, disqualifies me by the standards of many folks).

I'm just a hobbyist interested in some wildlife and landscape... I had no problem seeing the value in the upgrade. Only problem is now I want more L glass (I think the L stands for Lust).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2011)

SteveCSmith said:


> Didn't want the cost and physical size, so I started thinking about a better IQ and cropping.



A sharper lens means a sharper cropped image, yes. But cropping also increases the noise in your image, and a better lens won't help with that.


----------



## mogud (Apr 8, 2011)

I just got this lens and I'm really impressed. It's very sharp and I would say that it is as sharp as my 70-200 f2.8II. My only complaint is that for an L lens, the zoom/focus rings are reversed. Given it's weight (1045kg), the zoom ring should be closest to the camera. AF is quick and very silent and IQ has good contrast and color saturation. I don't think there is a comparison between the L and non-L version of this lens.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 8, 2011)

mogud said:


> I just got this lens and I'm really impressed. It's very sharp and I would say that it is as sharp as my 70-200 f2.8II. My only complaint is that for an L lens, the zoom/focus rings are reversed. *Given it's weight (1045kg)*, the zoom ring should be closest to the camera. AF is quick and very silent and IQ has good contrast and color saturation. I don't think there is a comparison between the L and non-L version of this lens.



I certainly hope you didn't mean kg


----------



## mogud (Apr 8, 2011)

Sorry...my mistake. It's heavy as it is at 1450g.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 8, 2011)

mogud said:


> Sorry...my mistake. It would be really nice if it actually was kg.



I'm no body builder but I think a 2,303lb lens would probably be too heavy.


----------



## jcoz (Apr 9, 2011)

I got the 70-300 L last month in replacement of my old Sigma 120-400. Quality is as good as a L lens can be (I read it was on par with the best of the best 70-200 2.8 II) and the IS is simply amazing. 
The weight is really, really good for a lens like that, I never use tripods.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Apr 9, 2011)

I own the non L version of this lens and have gotten some amazing photos with it. If the L version isn't in your budget, the non L is a still a great lens and highly recommended. That being said, the comparison over at the Digital Picture website is stunning in how much sharper the new L lens is. It's definitely on my wish list!


----------

