# 70-300L anyone?



## birdman (Feb 17, 2012)

This lens intrigues me. I don't know why, but it does. I have the 70-300 IS (non-L obviously) and it is a great lens for the price. 

The 70-200/4.0 IS has always been one that I wanted, but with the 70-300L my opinion has since changed. Of course, I have never shot with it, but all the reviews are very positive. My question is, how does the IQ compare to all of the 70-200's? Is the price worth the upgrade vs. 70-300 IS? How does it feel and balance in hand? Thanks


----------



## SteveCSmith (Feb 17, 2012)

I had the 70-300 IS and was looking for a little more reach from a lens. After some research and reading the review here (used in Africa), I went down to a local camera store with my lens to do a comparison photo. Taking a picture of a picture across the store, there was no comparison. The L glass blew away my non-L. Clarity and color were incredible. I decided that with this lens I could crop my photos as my "zoom method" and be quite satisfied.

As to the weight, it depends on what camera you have; I use a 60D and find it comfortable - certainly better than the 70-200 2.8 IS II that I couldn't resist during the December sales. The only reason I can think of for a 70-200 over this lens would be to catch some action shots in lower light. I've only used my new 70-200 a few times in the few months I've had it. If its daylight, I'll grab the 70-300. I think its crisper and its certainly easier to handle.

I'll assume you are interested in birding (based on your login), so here are a few pics I took last fall in Yellowstone and the Tetons with the 70-300L. Keep in mind that I am an amateur with a gear collection fetish and split the time between photos and chasing 3 and 4 year old boys. Both of these shots were handheld at 300mm. If you were to pixel peep the originals, the clarity is phenomenal !

Disclaimer - I do believe I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-300 IS non-L. It was my second lens (18-55 non IS being my first) and I was never happy with it even as a beginner. Never crisp and always hazy.


----------



## vlim (Feb 17, 2012)

I heard a lot of very good comments from friends of mine who use it  One of them has sold his 70-200 f/4 L IS because of the quality of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS but he uses it as a secondary lens, his prime one is a 500 f/4 L IS.

here's a review :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## birdman (Feb 17, 2012)

Wow on that review. The first page has a SCARY young girl trying to smile. HAHA ;D ;D ;D

Anyway, sorry for not staying on topic. It just freaked me out. For a great laugh do open up the review in your browser.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 17, 2012)

I had the opportunity to shoot with this lens (L version) for a week for an Air Race Championship last fall and it was a great lens to work with. It's definitely more bulky than the 70-200 F4 IS, and the zoom lens is kinda reversed so it took a little bit getting used to, but when i got used to it, it went smoothly. Having the extra 100mm i guess made up for it's quirks. I'm not sure if it was the 7D i was shooting with, lens, combination there of, whatever, but from about 700 photos taken, a lot in burst modes, about 20% I would say were in crisp focus where i can see nuts and bolts on the jets themselves flying at speeds near 500 MPH and even reading the painted pilots name on under the window. The next 50-60% were what I would classify as internet safe focus shots... it was in the ballpark, may not be able to read names on the airplane crisply when viewed 100%-400% (flying keep in mind) but after some minor sharpening in post, resizing to screen res for websites/email, the image would look great overall. Then the rest were the occasional misfire which would be in burst modes, planes in distance falling off of AF points, etc... I will try to post a few later tonight when I get home.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 17, 2012)

I use this as a walkabout/general pupose lens - excellent IQ and contrast. Quick AF


----------



## Cardad (Feb 17, 2012)

I rented the 70-300 L last year for a motorsports event. Before I returned it, I did a very un-scientific test to compare it to my non-L 70-300. Let me also say that I am not a professional photographer, nor a pixel peeper. I rarely use a tripod. My test consisted of 9 comparable hand held shots from each lens (various focal lengths) taken from my front yard. I shot four or five frames for each shot and picked the best for the comparison. Of the nine different shots, I judged in seven that the L lens was clearly superior, mostly in terms of off-center sharpness and in color. I judged my 70-300 to be better in one shot, and there was one shot I declared a draw. I have since purchased the L lens.

For the motorsports event, the L lens was remarkable. I would say my results were similar to what Awinphoto reported for the air show....maybe a few more "keepers" as the cars are slower and closer! 

I have not used any of the 70-200 lenses, so I cannot comment on how the 70-300 compares to any of those lenses.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Feb 17, 2012)

I have the 70-300L and I love it. I cant compare it to the 70-200L's because Ihavent used them.

I use the 70-300L on a Canon T2i so I am using it cropped and so if you are using full frame I cant say what your experience will be at the image edges but for me it is a very sharp lens. 

The IS works very well. Its a great lens to use in the hand. 

I havent had much success with it on a tripod because it does not come with a tripod ring and Canons price for theirs is ridiculous. 

Actually, a quick question of my own for others with this lens... Has anybody found a cheap good quality tripod ring for this lens? I havent looked recently but last I looked on ebay I couldnt find anything that looked good enough quality to function without looking like theyd scratch the lens body.

Here are a few shots I have made with the lens... I have chosen a coupel of them to show non ideal conditions, ie. higher iso, near dark, very distant, high humidity etc

Its a slower lens that the 70-200L f/4 or f/2.8, so this shot of a fox was taken near dark at 2000 ISO.






This next shot is taken from Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The first row of buildings is Brooklyn/Coney Island about 6-8 miles away and the row in the distance includes the Empire State Building which is 20 miles away. Taken in the evening on a day that was 100f (literally... the hottest day of the year) and very humid.





Empire State again... this time from On the Brooklyn Bridge





Heres a shorter range shot in more favorable conditions... shaded area and subject on about 30ft away from what I remember...






Hope that helps...


----------



## vlim (Feb 17, 2012)

I really like the last one, great atmosphere


----------



## unfocused (Feb 17, 2012)

I vote for the Sandy Hook one. Very nice look to it. Excellent separation between the two rows of buildings. Any significant post-processing? 

Back to the thread though, just a question. Do those who own this lens feel it is worth the significant price premium, given that there are lots of other lenses in this range out there? And, if so, why: sharpness, fast focus, weatherproofing, whiteness, other reasons? 

I'm feeling the urge to buy something and this one keeps calling to me, even though I already own the Tamron 70-300mm, which I have to admit is a pretty decent lens for the money, as well as the 100-400 "L."


----------



## DianeK (Feb 17, 2012)

I use this _a lot_ on my 60D.
Below is the original shot unprocessed and the second is cropped and processed.
To unfocused: I chose this over the 100-400L because of the push/pull (just didn't like it). Much as I like my 70-300L, if you already have the 100-400L, I can't see a compelling reason to add the 70-300L to your arsenal.


----------



## Cyclops (Feb 17, 2012)

I rented this lens and fell in love with it! 

I use a 70-200 f2.8 is II - as my normal lens - but it thought this was a great walk around lens. And will be adding it to my kit sometime this year.











Taken with a 5DII


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 17, 2012)

I have this lens, and it's sharp sharp sharp, has great contrast & colour. Is built like a tank. Is actually very useable as a walk-around, hand-holdable lens. It's max aperture is very close to the 70-200mm f/4 lenses at same focal lengths, PLUS you get an extra 100mm.

Definitely worth buying if you want a very convenient, telezoom that can high image quality, and don't need to use it for sports in low light.

Paul


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 17, 2012)

I have a 70-200 f/4 which I like a lot but have been considering 70-300 L too due to the reach. 

Could anyone who used this lens on a 1.4 or 2x extender post some samples? 

Cheers!


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 17, 2012)

I had the 70-200 f4 IS L for a few years. Apart from the initial use to shoot some Badgers (it's legal in the UK  ) the lens never got used. I always found i was looking for a little more reach. When my redundancy found its way into my bank account, i popped to my local camera shop, who also happened to have it on offer.

Their view was that it was a wasted offer cos they could never keep enough in stock 
I am no longer the proud owner of a 70-200 IS L - but i am the proud owner of a 70-300 IS L. Sits on my 5D2 like a glove.

As for that low light need? Check out this link...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/picsfor/6596562887/#sizes/l/in/photostream/

It was night, bucketing down with rain, and hand held at a ridiculous speed. 1/20th sec.

I don't know about you, but i couldn't possibly expect any more from that IS


----------



## Kiboko (Feb 17, 2012)

Canon 5D MkII with Canon 70-300 f.4.5-5.6L lens at 300mm, second image a drastic crop, I'd say!


----------



## SteveCSmith (Feb 17, 2012)

I should have included crops of those photos - doesn't give you much idea without them! Here are 100% crops (with very caveman crop technique).


----------



## rebelphil (Feb 17, 2012)

I purchased the 70-300L IS 4-5.6 over the 70-200’s simply because I wanted the added reach it offers with a crop sensor. Also, for me, it seemed the practical choice; taking cost, quality, and versatility into consideration.
I have been pleased with its performance, and I’ll let the photos posted here speak for the IQ of this lens.
As far as balance in the hand goes, it was a bit front heavy when used with my Rebel T1i. However, after upgrading to a 7D it balances beautifully. Have fun choosing!


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Feb 17, 2012)

The 70-300L doesnt work with the canon extenders... the rear element in the lense sits too far back I think, so there is no room for the extender.

I believe the kenko 1.4 fits but I do not think there is a 2.0 that fits it. Thats the way things were about a year ago when I got the lens. I dont know if anything has changed. Given its F/5.6 at the long end a 2x extender may give you autofocus issues anyway depending on what body you are using.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 17, 2012)

SomeGuyInNewJersey said:


> The 70-300L doesnt work with the canon extenders... the rear element in the lense sits too far back I think, so there is no room for the extender.
> 
> I believe the kenko 1.4 fits but I do not think there is a 2.0 that fits it. Thats the way things were about a year ago when I got the lens. I dont know if anything has changed. Given its F/5.6 at the long end a 2x extender may give you autofocus issues anyway depending on what body you are using.



Thanks!


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Feb 18, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I vote for the Sandy Hook one. Very nice look to it. Excellent separation between the two rows of buildings. Any significant post-processing?



Postprocessing was upped clarity a chunk to get some contrast to bring the building to show through the haze a little, upped saturation a little, wb set to daylight because the auto wb had made the buildings in the fore and the water look yellow and then alot of a spot removal to remove the flies spotted all over the shot. The haze comes from the sheer distance... the Empire state building is 20 miles from where I stood Brooklyn in between about 8 miles away.

I was up on a wooden tower up a sandy trail from the car park where the wife and kids chose to wait. I only managed to stay up on the watchout for about a minute, it was 100f and the flies were swarming and chewing the hell out of me... by the time I got halfway back to the car I was actually running to try and stop the damned things biting me!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 18, 2012)

birdman said:


> This lens intrigues me. I don't know why, but it does. I have the 70-300 IS (non-L obviously) and it is a great lens for the price.
> 
> The 70-200/4.0 IS has always been one that I wanted, but with the 70-300L my opinion has since changed. Of course, I have never shot with it, but all the reviews are very positive. My question is, how does the IQ compare to all of the 70-200's? Is the price worth the upgrade vs. 70-300 IS? How does it feel and balance in hand? Thanks



It has better image quality than the 70-200 f/4, 70-200 2.8 non-IS, and 70-200 2.8 IS.
It seems to be better at 70 and 200mm than the 70-200 f/4 IS but not as good in the middle (and much better than the 70-200 f/4 IS with a TC).
Not quite sure how it fairs against the 70-200 2.8 IS II, perhaps that one beats it across the board.

It has faster and much more accurate AF than the 70-300IS non-L, non-rotating front element, the AF is in the back and since giant elements don't move to focus it doesn't shake around when in AI Servo mode as the 70-300 IS does. It has vastly better build quality. It's larger and heavier though. Image quality is better.


----------



## JTPAIN (Feb 18, 2012)

SomeGuyInNewJersey said:


> Actually, a quick question of my own for others with this lens... Has anybody found a cheap good quality tripod ring for this lens? I havent looked recently but last I looked on ebay I couldnt find anything that looked good enough quality to function without looking like theyd scratch the lens body.



I'll second that; I would really like to know what the best third party tripod ring is for the 70-300mm L IS - canon just have ridiculous pricing!


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 18, 2012)

Mine came from HK at a silly low price


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Mine came from HK at a silly low price


Um, mine what? Lens or ring (Canon or 3rd party)? And what was this silly low price, other people might want to take that offer, too.

Btw: What 3rd party tripod collar do fit on the 70-300L? I am only reading about the ones that do not...



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > This lens intrigues me. I don't know why, but it does. I have the 70-300 IS (non-L obviously) and it is a great lens for the price.
> ...



It really would be helpful if people were citing their sources, because after all I read (see link below) and the replies I got from asking around I think this statment is simply not correct - actually, to me it seems to be exactly the other way around. See for yourself:

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


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Mine came from HK at a silly low price
> ...



Sorry - the ring - cant remember exact details but was under 20 UK pounds through eBay - I bought it in June 2011. As you can see it is not a perfect colour match - but it is functional

Brian


----------



## chaz1113 (Feb 18, 2012)

FWIW: I have hunted for years for the perfect zoom lens in this range. I purchased this lens after reading the review on Dan Carr's website ( http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/17/canon-70-300-f4-5-6-l-is-review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/ ).

The day my lens arrived I set up a test involving all 5 zooms (EF 70-200mm f/4 IS; EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L; EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6; Zeiss C/Y 35-70mm (the sharpest lens I have ever used) and one prime, EF 300mm f/4 IS.

My tests were on 5DII body, tripod-based, MLU engaged and manually focused at 70mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm. Happily, in all instances, my results coincided with Dan Carr's. The 70-300 L bested every lens at 70mm, 200mm and 300mm except for the prime in overall sharpness, contrast and clarity. At the middle range (135mm-200mm) the 70-200mm f/4 IS was possibly a bit sharper in the center, but virtually a dead heat. But here's the kicker: the 70-300 L blows away the 70-200 f/4 IS in the corners on full frame. I love my 70-200mm f/4 IS on my 5DII, but the edges have always been a little soft. The 70-300 L is sharp corner to corner. I can now (confidently) replace three lenses (and possibly the prime) with one. ;D


----------



## candyman (Feb 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...




Brian,
Does it have a name?
It is on my list though the Canon original is currently around 159 euro so I like to look for a reliable alternative


----------



## coalman (Feb 18, 2012)

I bought mine from Ebay from 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110733557235&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:GB:1123
Trader name pheobe-e.
Mine was/is very good quality and a dead paint colour and texture match for the 70-300L.
It was about £30 delivered and came in about two weeks (from memory).


----------



## candyman (Feb 18, 2012)

coalman said:


> I bought mine from Ebay from
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110733557235&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:GB:1123
> Trader name pheobe-e.
> Mine was/is very good quality and a dead paint colour and texture match for the 70-300L.
> It was about £30 delivered and came in about two weeks (from memory).




Thanks. Got it


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It has better image quality than the 70-200 f/4, 70-200 2.8 non-IS, and 70-200 2.8 IS.
> ...



From a test that was very carefully carried out (for 70-300 L vs Tamron 70-300 VC vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS).

Indoors, constant lighting, 25' distance to target (so no near MFD garbage messing the test up for normal usage), best of 6-12 manual focusing attempts using 10x zoom liveview for each aperture tested at each focal length tested, edge and mid-frame tests re-focused (doesn't reveal field curvature but on the other hand you don't get weird results because the setup was not parallel to the 0.001cm).

I doubt TDP used so many focusing trials, I don't believe they refocus away from the center so the mid and edge performance they test is a mixture of lens ability, field curvature and how off they were from parallel perfection (and it all it takes is a TINY tweak for results to be altered) and I believe they use a target much, much closer than 25' I think someone said they often use a target just 3-4' away for the lenses that can focus that close (not sure though). I haven't found a single other site that agreed with their claim that it has much worse CA at 300mm than at 70mm. For whatever reason I've found TDP results to not match what I see as often as not, although their newer tests match a bit more often (I believe they use to use AF and best of only 3 tries or something early on). And look at their Tamron 70-300 VC results where the 70-200 f/4 IS + TC blow that away at 300mm to a huge degree. That's not what to many others have seen.

The photozone.de results were much closer to what I saw between the 70-300L, 70-200 f/4 IS, tamron 70-300 VC, even if not exactly matching.

Of course some of it might be copy to copy variation in the lenses. It is possible that it may play a larger role than we think. Look at lensrentals who tested lots of 100 macro and 100L macros and they found the better 100 non-L outperformed the lesser 100L copies! Although the best 100L did better and, on avg, the 100L definitely did better.

It is probably best to use a wide array of sources what with testing and copy to copy variation.

Comparing the 70-300L to the 70-200 2.8 IS and non-IS were based upon how the 70-300L did against the f/4 IS and about how the f/4 IS did against the 2.8 non-IS in a past, and not as carefully carried out test, and how the 2.8 non-IS did compared to the 2.8 IS in yet another test, also not quite as painstakingly carried out as the recent test.

I see lots of reports and test agreeing with 2.8 non-IS doing better than the 2.8 IS and lots also saying that the f/4 IS does better than the 2.8 non-IS. There are also other tests including photozone.de and on some guy's blog, forget his name (EDIT: I see someone else posted the link, Dan Carr), where the 70-300L did better at 70mm than the f/4 IS. Even looking at Canon's simulated MTF charts you can see that this is predicted behavior.

But with copy to copy variation, who knows what your two copies would do for sure.


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 19, 2012)

If you're looking for a travel lens for landscapes then the 70-300L is brilliant.

But, I sold mine and got the 100-400L instead.

You can't put Canon extenders on the 70-300L but Kenko ones do.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 19, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> If you're looking for a travel lens for landscapes then the 70-300L is brilliant.
> 
> But, I sold mine and got the 100-400L instead.
> 
> You can't put Canon extenders on the 70-300L but Kenko ones do.



It also works as a portrait lens on a ff - it is at f/4 at the lower end which is ideal for portraits (rather than studio images)


----------



## birdman (Feb 20, 2012)

I am OP. Thank you so much everyone. It looks like I will rent first, compare with my other lens that cover this FL, and probably buy. 

I am amazed by the IQ on some of the shots posted here. It appears I have found a potential long-term solution.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 20, 2012)

chaz1113 said:


> FWIW: I have hunted for years for the perfect zoom lens in this range. I purchased this lens after reading the review on Dan Carr's website ( http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/17/canon-70-300-f4-5-6-l-is-review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/ ).
> 
> The day my lens arrived I set up a test involving all 5 zooms (EF 70-200mm f/4 IS; EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L; EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6; Zeiss C/Y 35-70mm (the sharpest lens I have ever used) and one prime, EF 300mm f/4 IS.
> 
> My tests were on 5DII body, tripod-based, MLU engaged and manually focused at 70mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm. Happily, in all instances, my results coincided with Dan Carr's. The 70-300 L bested every lens at 70mm, 200mm and 300mm except for the prime in overall sharpness, contrast and clarity. At the middle range (135mm-200mm) the 70-200mm f/4 IS was possibly a bit sharper in the center, but virtually a dead heat. But here's the kicker: the 70-300 L blows away the 70-200 f/4 IS in the corners on full frame. I love my 70-200mm f/4 IS on my 5DII, but the edges have always been a little soft. The 70-300 L is sharp corner to corner. I can now (confidently) replace three lenses (and possibly the prime) with one. ;D



I own both. Infact I got the 70-200 mk.II after I used the 70-300L for a few months and tried 2 copies of the mk.ii one refurbed and one new. 

I can categorically tell you the 70-300L was sharper at 100mm (I didnt do more tests... didnt have the patience). 

Many owners of 70-200mk.II get a bit unhappy when I say this but, it's true, I have posted results of my tests, you might find areas wher ethe mk.II is better but for the price, the 70-300l is very very good!

Usually the people that don't recommend are the ones who have not used it and are passing judgement based on it's specs/ reviews, not personal useage. 

Again I have both so I *like* them both... the mk.ii has a special quality in that for portriats, I can get nicer/ dreamier pics also for lower light applications it is better, but for everything else, I pick up the 70-300L. It is lighter, sharper and has great clarity. 

Took this shot walking about a lake with my 5Dc, I was about 25 feet away from this guy, with the 70-300L handheld at 300mm. (cropped )


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 20, 2012)

birdman said:


> I am OP. Thank you so much everyone. It looks like I will rent first, compare with my other lens that cover this FL, and probably buy.
> 
> I am amazed by the IQ on some of the shots posted here. It appears I have found a potential long-term solution.



here are some more samples around to have a look at:

100% crop, wide-open, near center frame, 300mm, 5D2:
(make sure to click this one to see 100% and scroll over to see the right part of the top image)






200% (nearest neighbor) crops:
70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm, wide open f/4, center frame, 5D2, constant lighting:




70-300L at 72mm (70-300L is wider at 70mm than the 70-200 f/4 IS so 72mm makes the dollar bill look the same size for direct comparison), wide open f/4, center frame, 5D2, constant lighting:





The differences really jump out at you if you save the two images above and then flip back and forth in a viewer.

The 70-300l also wins that contest at 200mm, although by a smaller margin and it loses at 135mm by arguably an even larger margin and loses at 100mm and 165mm as well, although by a much, much smaller and smaller margins respectively. At 280mm it wins by an even larger margin.


----------



## JoeBoe19 (Feb 20, 2012)

why don't people like it when you say you think the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200?


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 20, 2012)

I think it depends on the aperture.
Is the 70-300L sharper than the 70-200L MkII 2.8?

Probably not at the same apertures as the mkII gets sharper when you stop it down. And I'm a pixel peeping mofo on a full frame body.

Sharper than the 70-200 F4? I can believe that as it's a much older lens.

Sharper than the 70-200L mkI yes indeed.

As for why does it annoy people when sharpness gets discussed, well it's because it's difficult to compare lenses with different max apertures and to be truly diligent on the research you'd need to have a much bigger sample than just one of each lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 21, 2012)

100% crops on 5D2 (saving and flipping back and forth makes the difference even more noticeable), center frame, constant indoor lighting, best of half a dozen or more manual focusing 10x zoom liveview attemps for each, tripod, remote release, etc., 25' to target:


70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III:





70-300L focal length set to match size of the bill above:


----------



## K-amps (Feb 21, 2012)

JoeBoe19 said:


> why don't people like it when you say you think the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200?



I don't know... but I have usually gotten smited after bringing it up . 

I suspect it's hard to come to terms that a $2500 is not sharper than a $1600 lens that they got. The Mk.II has gotten rave reviews and is considered very sharp (and it is). Myself I figured I'd sell my 70-300L after buying the 70-200 mk.ii, but have not been able to yet... lets see how long I can keep both.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> JoeBoe19 said:
> 
> 
> > why don't people like it when you say you think the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200?
> ...



Both are good lens.

They do a different jobs but as they are both good their functionality overlaps rather.

I think we should agree that they are both very sharp with the 70-200 strength being low light and the 70-300 being as a lightweight travel/walkabout lens

I will be keeping both


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 21, 2012)

Brian, +1 for 1000th post


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 21, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Brian, +1 for 1000th post


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBoe19 said:
> ...



Are you kidding me? Keep away from me with your commie equality talk - you're ruining my favorite past time until my 70-300L arrives and I actually can take pictures instead of writing forum posts )


----------



## dunkers (Feb 21, 2012)

If I didn't need the 2.8 of the 70-200, I would have purchased the 70-300L.

I tested it at a store once and was amazed at how sharp and fast the AF was. I will say that the swapping of the focus ring and zoom ring will take a little time to get used to. I really liked the compact size of the 70-300L as well. 

I hope to pick up a copy in the future. I would much rather take it on travels than the heavy 70-200.


----------

