# 70-300L on 5D Mark III



## lexonio (May 27, 2012)

There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.


----------



## briansquibb (May 27, 2012)

lexonio said:


> There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.
> 
> Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.



The 70-300L is my favourite walkabout lens. Top IQ, top IS, top contrast.

Totally recommended as an excellent general purpose lens


----------



## pwp (May 28, 2012)

The 5D3 and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L will be a killer combination for you. The 5D3 gives this slightly slow lens a lot more scope than the 5D2 with increased options for bumping up the iso when the need arises, plus the very powerful AF system which will do a far better job working with those smaller f/4-5.6 apertures than the 5D2. 

Just be aware that the 5D3 has the same black AF points in the VF as the 7D. Most people don't care but it can be a disruptive disappointment for some photographers. There is a recent thread on CR which discusses this, and may be worth a browse before dropping your Visa card on a 5D3.

PW


----------



## wickidwombat (May 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 70-300L is my favourite walkabout lens. Top IQ, top IS, top contrast.
> 
> Totally recommended as an excellent general purpose lens



hehe its funny how different people have such different shooting styles
my favourite walkabout lens is the 16-35 i love getting right in there and up close
where as you prefer... artillery  
not saying its not a good general purpose lens because you are correct , just an observation really


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L is my favourite walkabout lens. Top IQ, top IS, top contrast.
> ...



With the short focussing distance of the 70-300 I get right in there and up close too  It is pretty reasonable at closeup shooting.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 28, 2012)

It sounds like the 70-300L will be a good fit for you. If you planned on using it indoors a lot in dim situations, then the 70-200 II would be better.


----------



## lexonio (May 28, 2012)

Thank you guys for your help! This community is golden, I am reassured of that 
Just got the 70-300 and it's amazing. Shooting indoors with f/4-5.6 at 12800 ISO, after some post images look extremely appealing.






12800 ISO, 300mm, f/5.6, 1/60, IS on, some post in LR4CR2


----------



## Act444 (May 28, 2012)

I used to have the 70-200 f4: since I traded up to the f2.8 version I also got the 70-300. 

The 70-300, although still big & white (and thus an attention-grabber) is MUCH easier to walk around with than the 70-200 2.8. I don't even mind hiking with it- it's probably at the limit of what I'm willing to carry around all day long on a camera. 

As for IQ, compared to the 70-200 f4 I think it holds its own pretty well. The extra 100mm, although not really that much TBH, CAN make a difference in the appropriate situations. I think the 70-300 is weaker at the wide-end though- specifically wide open at f4 it can be soft. But it shines at the most important setting: 300mm at f5.6. No need to stop down at the long end to get sharp shots!


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

Taken this morning with the 70-300L @229mm f/8

Two week old kid


----------



## lexonio (May 28, 2012)

That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end 

Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment


----------



## Kernuak (May 28, 2012)

lexonio said:


> That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end
> 
> Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment


From someone who has been known to carry around the 300 f/2.8 all day, carrying the 70-200 MkII would be giving me a bit of a rest .


----------



## Random Orbits (May 28, 2012)

lexonio said:


> That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end
> 
> Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment



The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system. Took it with me to the Bronx Zoo with a 1.4x and used it all day. It's a great lens for portraits and sports. It's not ideal for the zoo (a bit short FF and a bit heavy), but the pictures are nice! =)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

Act444 said:


> The 70-300, although still big & white (and thus an attention-grabber)



I taped mine - less white ("here comes the money") makes me more comfortable, furthermore the white is pure marketing because it doesn't have any fluorite elements.



Random Orbits said:


> The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system.



It certainly might be manageable, but in the local zoo I can see owners of a 70-200/2.8+tc from afar because they use both arms to carry their camera. I just wouldn't have this and a flash hang from my wrist, that's why I've got the 70-300L.



pwp said:


> The 5D3 and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L will be a killer combination for you.



I'm puzzled - I've got this lens on aps-c, but I've read that it's noticeably softer in the edges on full frame? Furthermore, the af system of the 5d3 seems to be made for lenses of f2.8 to f4, or you're disabling part of the af points' pattern detection with f5.6?


----------



## Act444 (May 28, 2012)

> Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment



Don't get me wrong- the 70-200 2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens and for what it does, there's nothing else like it. It is best for sporting events (if you are close) as well as autograph/book signings, which often take place indoors (and f5.6 just won't cut it- I hate using flash). It is extremely versatile and I like that. But, it is not a lens I would want to sling around my neck and walk around with all day long...even for the couple of hours I use it, it gets tiring. But it is worth it when you view the images afterward!

The 70-300L is the telephoto lens I use when it is not worth lugging the extra weight of the 70-200. Basically, outdoor events in good lighting and animal shots where the variable aperture isn't an issue. Plus, 100mm of extra reach is gained and for animal shots, it can make a BIG difference!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2012)

Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)



I am taking a series of pictures of the kid above to cover a wall - 4 x A3 - these are going to be one week apart (they grow quickly)

The A3 print shows a lot more detail than the one above. The picture was taken with the 1DS3.

I believe the L version of the lens is worth the extra - the contrast and IS work very well. Is it worth trying the cheap one - that is the question? 8)


----------



## VirtualRain (May 28, 2012)

I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it. The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L. The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive. The build quality difference is night and day better.

However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135). And it's ideal for portraits. The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

On the other hand, the 70-300L would be much better on a Safari or other wild-life shoot.


----------



## drjlo (May 28, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).



As much as I love my 70-200 II, there is NO WAY I'm getting rid of my 85L and 135L! If Canon re-issues the 70-200 II with at least f/2 or f/1.8 (yeah right!) aperture, perhaps..


----------



## Act444 (May 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)



I tried the regular 70-300 in-store before settling on the L version eventually. I didn't evaluate its image quality but there is a HUGE difference between the 2 in build quality. You really do get what you pay for.

The regular 70-300 felt like a camera toy in my hand- the 70-300L feels like a serious piece of professional photographic equipment. Ultimately it's about the IQ for me and I've heard that the regular 70-300 is pretty weak at the 300mm end, so that's why I went for the L version. 

Best thing is to try both out (if you can), then weigh the pros and cons of each. The regular one IS lighter, and 1/3 the price, so if weight and/or budget is an issue that's probably the way to go. But if you demand the highest in IQ it's probably worth it to save up.



> ...is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.



depends on what you're shooting, and on what environment you will be shooting in. For me, the two lenses are interchangeable depending on what my telephoto needs are, exactly. Sports or indoors? f2.8 wins. Outdoors in daylight or animal photography? 70-300 with extra reach. 

As for IQ, the 70-200 wins at the 70mm end, certainly. I'd even say the 70-200 at 70/2.8 outperforms the 70-300 at 70/4! At the 200mm end they seem to be quite close, though. I don't think you'd notice a difference in everyday shots...and in good light, the lighter weight of the 70-300 in that case is certainly appreciated. (Note that at 200mm the 70-300 has you at f5 minimum so it is nearly 2 stops slower here.)


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it. The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L. The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive. The build quality difference is night and day better.
> 
> However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.
> 
> ...



I agree the 70-200mm II is a awesome lens but I'd almost never choose it over the 135mm. The 135mm is lighter, faster, cheaper and sharper than the 70-200mm, and if i need 200mm I'd just use my 7D or a 1.4X TC.

It doesn't really weigh down you hand much and that f/2 aperture is better at stopping action than the slower zoom.

The main reason for the 85mm and 135mm prime lenses is the color, character, rendering and OOF blur they have. Its just personal taste but the 85mm 1.2L and 135mm f/2L have some of the best OOF i've seen.


----------



## lexonio (May 28, 2012)

Act444 said:


> > Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

lexonio said:


> Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that



Well, use for what screen- or print size is the question. Of course you can at least use the 70mm f4 end indoors - if there's no fast movement, or it isn't pitch black. People are said to use flashes, too, or so I've heard 



VirtualRain said:


> From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135). And it's ideal for portraits. The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.



You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8. 

The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too: The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L



The difference in sharpness is very small - certainly I dont see it. 

The big benefit of the 70-200 f/2.8 is the f/2.8.

The big benefits of the 70-300L is the extra 100mm and light weight.

IS is the same on both


PS For weddings the 24-105 is my most used. Ultra shallow DOF has to be carefully used in order to ensure both eyes are in focus. By default I use f/5.6.


----------



## Act444 (May 28, 2012)

lexonio said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > > Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment
> ...



I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

Act444 said:


> I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.



It's good you're saying what your comparison basis is - because I think iso3200 w/ the current 18mp sensor is like turning on a noise generator, I usually stay at 800 and maybe 1000 for some shots... the real question is how many stops better the 5d3 is, I guess it's 3 (2 for ff sensor + 1 over the 5d2)?!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.
> ...



+1, I've also shot at ISO 3200 and sometimes even 6400 on my 7D. Alittle grain never hurt anyone, plus its no worse than the ISO 800 B&W film I'd be shooting years ago. Modern software can take the noise well as long as you do your job and nail perfect exposures in RAW.


----------



## lexonio (May 28, 2012)

12800 ISO is fine at 5d mkIII, even 25600 is quite okay.


----------



## VirtualRain (May 29, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.
> 
> The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too: The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.



There are plenty of threads on "other forums" where a lot of folks sold their 135L in particular after acquiring a 70-200 II and some even parted ways with their 85L II. The Bokeh of the 70-200 with rounded blades is apparently nicer than the 135 and not many people have use for the razor thin depth of field that results from f2 at 135mm. That's the kind of territory where an eye is in focus while the nose and ear are not. But that's getting off-topic.

I think everyone has summarized the 70-300L pros and cons nicely... it's a nice set of glass in a very convenient package and the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 make up for it's otherwise unappealing max apertures.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135). And it's ideal for portraits. The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.


Actually i've gone the other way since getting my 85 f1.4 sigma I hardly use the 70 200 anymore unless i specifically need 200mm, at f2 the sigma 85 is considerably sharper than the 70-200 at f2.8 anywhere
perhaps i should do what brian did and get the 200 f2L (I am not sure i could get that approved by the wife though)


----------



## Random Orbits (May 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system.
> ...



LOL! I carry it on a strap or mostly one-handed because the other is pushing a stroller or holding a kid's hand. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is about a pound heavier (without the tripod ring) than the 70-300L. I've never used the 70-300L, but the images from it look great and I'm sure the torque on the wrist is a lot less because its shorter (esp. at 70mm). I was thinking about looking into the 300 f/4, but I like using zooms outside if the target distance is variable (like the zoo). Instead, I got the 1.4x TC when it went on sale, and there isn't that much of a difference between 200 and 280 most of the time. The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable." I'm hoping that the 100-400L replacement will be lighter than the current version because, right now, it only weighs a couple ounces less than the 70-200 f/2.8 II.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."



Do you mean physically long or long as in reach?

Either way I handshoot the 600mm for wildlife, but I would say the 500 f/4 II is probably the longest in both areas that I would consider truly portable

I dont consider the 70-200 f/2.8 to be very large or heavy.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."
> ...



LOL! I knew writing that sentence would bring you into the fray. 

I meant long in reach. According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood. Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier. The 500, 600 and 800 are 7, 8.5 and 10 lb. The 70-200 is also about 8 inches long, but the three telephoto primes are almost 2x as long or longer.

It's too bad that Canon does not offer smaller aperture options at the longest focal lengths like they do up to 400mm. The Canon 300 f/4 is about $1400 and weighs about 2.5 lb while the Canon 300 f/2.8 is about $7300 and weighs about 5 lb. What if they were to design smaller aperture lenses for 500 and 600mm? They would be a lot more appealing at half the weight and less than 1/3 the price (300mm comparison is unfair because the 300 f/4 is a much older design)! Imagine a 600mm lens at f/5.6 and 4.5 lb for $4000-5000!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 30, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood. Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier.



Since I don't use a strap, for me the torsion on the wrist is the most important thing - I guess someone could calculate it, and one result would be that the 70-300L is the most portable tele L since it's physically short, and even extended the bulk of the weight is near the camera body.


----------



## awinphoto (May 30, 2012)

During my testing of the lens last year (pre 5d3) with my 7d, it's highly recommended. One of the rings, i think zoom, is backwards than the other telephoto zooms that I've tested so there's a minimal amount of getting used to it, but it's a fine lens. Weight wise it's not much lighter than the 70-200 2.8 II so be prepared, it is a hefty lens, but does offer a nice compromise in range and sealing.


----------



## dstppy (May 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)



The Non-L is garbage IMO. Worst lens purchase I've ever made  I've honestly used my 200mm f2.8 more than the 70-300 I have and I've only had it a few months.

IQ was a major letdown.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

Sorry to hear you had a bad one. You are the first to complain - and a lot of my friends have this lens and are very happy with it.

Here is another image taken with the 70-300L, this time on the 1DS3


----------



## Harv (May 30, 2012)

lexonio said:


> That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end
> 
> Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment



For the record, I'm 70 years old, have two arthritic knees and one arthritic shoulder. I carry a 70-200 2.8L IS II on a 1D Mk IV around a motocross track most of the day without a problem. If it gets to feeling a little heavy around my neck, I hang it on my shoulder for a while.

The lens delivers spectacular results and rivals my 300 2.8L IS in image quality.

.....just saying.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

Harv said:


> lexonio said:
> 
> 
> > That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end
> ...


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> lexonio said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.
> ...



So which zoom in your experience has the IQ, contrast and IS to match the 70-300L.

If weight is a problem then perhaps a P&S superzoom would suit?


----------



## Nancy Goodenough (May 30, 2012)

I have the 5D3 with the 70-300L and it's a great walk-around combination. I was surprised how I can walk around with it all day. I'm a 60-something woman and moved up from a mirrorless Pany G2.

Here's an image from the weekend using the 70-300L @229mm, f/5.6, 1/750, ISO 100. It's a crop with a bit of PP in ACR and Nik. Just a quick bit of PP to see what could be done. I think I was off a bit in ACR, so will go back and adjust.


----------



## awinphoto (May 30, 2012)

dstppy said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)
> ...



Couldn't agree more with the non L... I had one when i first started... soft is the only thing I can say about it... Was ok if I was in a pinch and needed the zoom but I couldn't count on any real keepers. worst lens purchase i've ever made... now the L version is quite nice indeed. It's a shame about the variable aperture, but very good IQ.


----------



## awinphoto (May 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > lexonio said:
> ...



True... although I would also throw the 70-200 F4 IS in the ring with the 70-300 L in terms of IQ, contrast, and IS and build quality... Plus it's considerably lighter and cheaper by a few hundred... but you do lose the 100mm on the long end so yeah...


----------



## photophreek (May 30, 2012)

The 70-300L weighs in at 1050g, while the 70-200L II is 1490g and the 100-400L is 1380g. Regarding the zoom ring and the focus ring on the 70-300L, all L zooms have the zoom ring closest to the camera. The 70-300L, has the rings reversed with the focus ring closet to the camera like all Canon non L zooms. I'm very happy with the 70-300L and I'm looking forward to trying it on the 5d III.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> - weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Would you like to comment on the weight issue in a way that is meaningful?



The lightest zoom is a P&S superzoom which you appear to be concerned about

Looked up the review http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc



> The build quality is not comparable to e.g. Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS but it's very good nonetheless



- It is 285g lighter than the 70-300L - not exactly a significant weight advantage.
- it is not weather sealed
- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection 
- The lens body is made of quite high quality plastics based on a metal mount.



> Verdict - The most interesting question is, of course, how it compares to the genuine Canon lenses in this range. The Tamron manages to stay a little ahead of the consumer-grade Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS but it doesn't totally reach the professional-grade Canon L variant (especially in terms of bokeh quality). Even so it represents an excellent value offer in the APS-C market.



So it is a good budget lens which edges ahead of the 70-300 non L 

Is it worth the premium for the 70-300L? - well that is a personal opinion


----------



## K-amps (May 30, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it. The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L. The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive. The build quality difference is night and day better.
> 
> However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.
> 
> ...



I owned both the 70-200m.ii and the 70-300L and now the 100-400L... I still regret selling the 70-300L... it is visibly superior to the nonL version. The only reason I sold it is that it does not work with the 2x Canon tele's...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 30, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I owned both the 70-200m.ii and the 70-300L and now the 100-400L... I still regret selling the 70-300L... it is visibly superior to the nonL version. The only reason I sold it is that it does not work with the 2x Canon tele's...



Using the 70-300L with a 2x is maybe not such a good idea anyway? I don't have the Kenko 2x, but the 1.4x and it's working fine, but I wouldn't want to push it any further than that because of loosing af completely and iq breakdown.



briansquibb said:


> - IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection



... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.



Readily available on eBay for a few dollars


----------



## Harv (May 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > lexonio said:
> ...



No, I haven't, but perhaps I should. 70 year olds are slow to change how they have done stuff all these years.


----------



## DanielG. (May 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ... but not that Canon would include a tripod ring by default, it's only a $1300 lens - thanks, Canon! I just discovered from some long-term exposure shots at dawn that there's really no getting around a collar.
> ...



Be careful with the cheap ones. Mine scratched the lens while trying it very carefully for the first time. I got rid of it very quickly (trash).


----------



## awinphoto (May 30, 2012)

DanielG. said:


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



I got my collar on ebay for my 70-200 F4... Not nearly as heavy duty or solid and wouldn't trust it unsupervised (with lens on and camera on tripod)... but fits securely, and on a monopod with the neck strap still attached to me, it works ok.


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> You forgot to mention:
> 
> Price/performance: 5 out of 5 (for the Tamron lens)
> 
> Additionally, the Tamron 70-300 VC is the 70-300 lens of choice for those that use Nikon, including the D800/E.



Price/performance - of course it did well, a cheap lens with reasonable performance. A bit like saying a Mustang is better than a Ferrari because of better price/performance.


----------

