# Just bought a new Canon EF 70-300L IS USM lens.



## Richard8971 (Jan 1, 2013)

Well, I had been wanting a little more reach than my 70-200 f4L IS USM lens could give so I sold it and my EF-s 60mm macro (I really liked that little lens) and bought a new EF 70-300L lens from Adorama.

I replaced my 60mm macro with the EF 100mm USM (non IS, already had one but the ex wife got that one in the seperation...) I thought about getting the 100-400 but I really wanted a nice walk around zoom so the 70-300L seemed perfect.

I have spoken to people who have one and they love it. What are your experiances? Good? Bad?


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 1, 2013)

Highly underrated lens...excellent IS.... Great IQ ...congrats.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 1, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Highly underrated lens...excellent IS.... Great IQ ...congrats.



Thanks Ray, that is almost exactly what I have heard. I ran into a lady a week ago who had one on her 5D2 and she said she never takes it off. She remarked how fast the AF is and how super sharp the photos were. She showed me a few pics on her camera and I was pretty impressed. I believe I made a great choice.

D


----------



## Renegade Runner (Jan 1, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Highly underrated lens...excellent IS.... Great IQ ...congrats.
> ...



Congratulations. Excellent high end, affordable lens. You did make a great choice. Enjoy it.


----------



## nickorando (Jan 2, 2013)

I much prefer it in every way to the 70-200 f4 L IS - it's better made, has (slightly) better IQ, and much better reach. The only advantage the 100-400 has is the 300-400 range. I personally think the 70-300 L is one of Canon's very best lenses, and certainly one of their best-kept secrets.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 2, 2013)

nickorando said:


> I much prefer it in every way to the 70-200 f4 L IS - it's better made, has (slightly) better IQ, and much better reach. The only advantage the 100-400 has is the 300-400 range. I personally think the 70-300 L is one of Canon's very best lenses, and certainly one of their best-kept secrets.



+1

I bought the Canon 70-300mm L a short while after it was released (and thankfully I got a great deal from a local, Australian bricks and mortar retailer). Initially I was looking at the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD (and even bought a 62mm filter for it) to replace my Canon 100-300mm USM (non IS). But then the L was announced and in store too.

So I went and tried the 70-300mm L out. I was very impressed with the quality wide open (f/5.6) at 300mm - which is the setting I would use it most at. Also, though it's an L and solid, it was remarkable how transportable the 70-300mm L still is (being 'short' and stubby). 

Therefore I bought it, and have NEVER looked back. It's IQ is so good, very close to the best of any of Canon's zooms.. and with USM focussing is awesome for BIF which I do a lot of (using my 7D, effective reach of 480mm. The 4 stop effective IS helps so much too. 

All the best with it... I can highly recommend this lens. Matched with my Canon 15-85mm, a great 'travel duo'!

Paul


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 2, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> Well, I had been wanting a little more reach than my 70-200 f4L IS USM lens could give so I sold it and my EF-s 60mm macro (I really liked that little lens) and bought a new EF 70-300L lens from Adorama.
> 
> I replaced my 60mm macro with the EF 100mm USM (non IS, already had one but the ex wife got that one in the seperation...) I thought about getting the 100-400 but I really wanted a nice walk around zoom so the 70-300L seemed perfect.
> 
> I have spoken to people who have one and they love it. What are your experiances? Good? Bad?



awesome lens, comparable to the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS for image quality (better at the extremes (near 70mm and 200mm), worse (not because it is bad but because the 70-200 f/4 IS becomes like a 135 prime there just about, so it's more really good vs ridiculously good than decent vs great) in the middle when comparing them over 70-200 range and better than the 70-200+1.4x TC for 201-280mm part of the range) (copy variation may swap things around a bit, this is how it was with my copies and I get the feeling with most copies on average but I have seen results that seemed to be reliable where it came out a bit differently)

you give up constant f/4 which isn't ideal for action (it does maintain f/4.5 for a good chunk of the 70-200 range though for stills), but you gain a higher quality 200-300 without the super hassle of swapping TC on and off and maintain a nice travel/walk-around size and weight

it is probably my single most used lens, although the new 24-70 II may bring it to a draw

for pure wildlife focus the 100-400 is better since you get a lot more reach but otherwise the 70-300 has a much nicer range on the wide end on FF for general usage and it's much smaller and lighter (the 100-400, 70-200 2.8, sigma 100-300 4 and such are really different lenses in that they are not also nice little travel lenses too as the 70-200 4 and 70-300s are) and has better image quality over the shared range plus better AF and IS


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 2, 2013)

First, congrats on your new acquisition. Use it well!

Ah, you've re-sparked my dilemma. I love my 70-200 f4 IS for its IQ and utility. But, now that I've got a FF, I miss the reach. The 1.4x helps but I keep looking at the 70-300 L. I'd have to sell the 70-200 to help "fund" a 70-300 L, and that's what's got me nervous. I don't want to look back and wish I'd kept it. It is reassuring to see the comments about the 70-300 vs a 70-200 with a TC above. Just "thinking aloud" but I would say my very improved high iso performance on the 5diii could more than offset the loss of the constant f4 I've got now, but I keep debating with myself.

Anyone want to put themselves into my shoes and think what they'd do?

JP :-\


----------



## pp77 (Jan 2, 2013)

You might already know the CR guy's review of the lens:

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 3, 2013)

In a little more detail, here is what happened. I sent my 70-200 f4L IS USM and my 60mm macro to Adoramda after they sent me an email stating that they were interested in making a deal on my equipment. I have bought several things from them and they have always been professional and honest. 

They examined my equipment and told me that they would give me $750.00. I know they are in the market to make money so I didn't complain too much about the price they offered me. I told them I wanted to trade those lenses for a EF 70-300L. The gentleman I spoke with offered me the USA (not grey market) 70-300L for the same price as the grey market version. ($1250.00 vs $1600) The lens included the case, hood, front and rear caps.

Well, it cost me 500 bucks to seal the deal but I agreed. I spent a little more than I was hoping for but I got the lens I really wanted at a great price. It shipped today and I can't wait to take it out and use it. 

Thanks everyone for the input. Now I am regreting not getting 2 day air shipping on the thing! 

D


----------



## alan_k (Jan 3, 2013)

Great lens. If you don't need the extra stop and/or canon TC, I think you'll be happy with it. The IS is fantastic.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 4, 2013)

alan_k said:


> Great lens. If you don't need the extra stop and/or canon TC, I think you'll be happy with it. The IS is fantastic.



I rarely shoot under f8. And the loss of being able to use a TC isn't that big of a deal. I should get it this coming Tuesday via UPS. 

D


----------



## tome223 (Jan 4, 2013)

Ugh. I'm jealous. Bh and adorama had 70-300l on sale for $1099 a few days ago. Sale only lasted several hours before they want back up to 1250 / 1300


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 4, 2013)

I've considered this lens, but I've developed an addiction to f/2.8 or faster. That and I love to shoot in crazy lighting, which means the >= f/4 just doesn't do it for me. Unfortunately, it's got great range, and otherwise would win out for me even that it's not quite up to the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 for sharpness/IQ I'd still take it if it was wider than f/4.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 9, 2013)

I just got my 70-300L from Adorama. This thing is a beast. Heavy and solid but nice and compact when the barrel is retracted. I can't wait to try this thing this weekend.

That doesn't mean I didn't crack off a couple of test shots and let me tell you what... this thing is razor sharp (indoors, poor lighting, on camera flash) at even 300mm. This sucker was made for some serious shooting. I will keep you posted and post some sample shots from this coming weekend.

D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 9, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I have spoken to people who have one and they love it. What are your experiances? Good? Bad?



Good/Bad is relative, for me the 70-300L has a very good price-weight-size-reach-iq-build-is combination, on ff is still ok as a longer walkaround, the one problem is that af @f5.6 is not optimal making this an "outdoor" lens in contrast to the 70-200/2.8. And the 70-300L doesn't work with Canon tc (but with Kenko).

Imho its really funny how the reputation of this lens rises, when I bought it a year ago most reviews basically said that its overpriced and the iq is not good enough, esp. in comparison to the non-L model. But now that the new Canon "double the price" strategy is in effect, the 70-300L esp. in combination with a rebate is a good choice. But of course I'd switch it for the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 for free ;-)


----------



## GaryJ (Jan 9, 2013)

Have one for over a year now,must agree with Marsu42 about the reputation.On my 7D it works fine,not a patch on the 70-200 L IS II whose image IQ is outstanding.I find the 70-300 to be sharp,colour good,really only a daylight lens as it is let down by the apertures available,a touch more contrasty than I would prefer,lack of money means this will have to me.All in all ,not a bad lens by any means,hunts for focus in less than well lit conditions but can be lived with.your experience may different to mine,I live in Queensland Australia and have no lack of sunshine,41 degrees celcius here today,so the lens performs to my satisfaction.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 9, 2013)

I have the 70-300L IS USM and the 70-200 Mk II IS USM and the difference in weight is considerable, albeit not on paper. The 70-300L is an excellent lens for outdoor, travel etc but it can be slow and in low light, or why I need more speed, I always prefer the 70-200.

Both excellent lenses, but unless you need 2.8 then the major considerations should be the price, the weight and the ease of portability.


----------



## Steb (Jan 9, 2013)

I also own the 70-300L and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I rate the IQ of the 70-200 slightly better and of course the 2.8 is awesome. But it is more of a special purpose lens. You think twice before you take it with you. I would carry the 70-300 with me at any time. It is very compact and light compared to the other zoom. Enjoy it!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 11, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> First, congrats on your new acquisition. Use it well!
> 
> Ah, you've re-sparked my dilemma. I love my 70-200 f4 IS for its IQ and utility. But, now that I've got a FF, I miss the reach. The 1.4x helps but I keep looking at the 70-300 L. I'd have to sell the 70-200 to help "fund" a 70-300 L, and that's what's got me nervous. I don't want to look back and wish I'd kept it. It is reassuring to see the comments about the 70-300 vs a 70-200 with a TC above. Just "thinking aloud" but I would say my very improved high iso performance on the 5diii could more than offset the loss of the constant f4 I've got now, but I keep debating with myself.
> 
> ...



I think it's good enough to give up the 70-200 f/4 IS (a lens I never though to give up). Tried a Tamron 70-300VC too. That was very good for that sort of lens but just no way I could give up my amazing 70-200 f/4 IS for that. With the 70-300L I was able to sell off my 70-200 f/4 IS (I did delay the sale for six months ;D it's a hard lens to let go, but it was virtually never getting used and that was way to much money on the shelf).

I'd stick with the 70-200 f/4 IS is if it is to be both your main walk-around long lens and primary wide field sports lens paired with a long prime and you consider that shooting to be quite important (although not quite enough to get a bulky 70-200 f/2.8 for that alone). Otherwise I'd seriously consider the swap.

I think it's f/4.5 to 155mm, so so long as you don't need M mode for action the constant f/4 isn't quite as much of a loss as you'd think, although f/5 200mm certainly isn't f/4.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 11, 2013)

Second update. I took the 70-300 out today and well...

I am kicking myself for not getting this thing sooner. Focus is "right now" and the images are truly razor sharp. Canon put a lot of thought into this lens and it is 100% modern. Some of my "photo buddies" are reconsidering getting "pro" lenses now that they have seen the images from my 70-300L. 

I do not regret buying this lens!

D


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 12, 2013)

UPDATE:1-12-13

A few of my photo buddies have the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM and they swear by them. I have seen the photos and they speak for themselves.

Truth be told, I rarely shoot at under f8. (I range from f8 to f16) Nothing personal, just my particular style of shooting. If I need 2.8 glass I can slap on my EF 100mm macro 2.8. That is also a great walk around lens that is really sharp.

Having that extra 100mm over the 70-200 is worth losing the 2.8 glass, to me. Yes, the images from the 2.8 200 are fantastic, but I can do what I need to do with my 300 and get great images for a few bucks less and get that extra range I need.

I have thought about getting the 1.4X teleconverter from Tamron if I needed more reach and I don't mind a tripod and manually focusing.

D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 12, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I have thought about getting the 1.4X teleconverter from Tamron if I needed more reach and I don't mind a tripod and manually focusing.



I've got the identical set (100L, 70-300L) and a Kenko 1.4x tc that works great with the macro (more working distance) and good with the tele zoom, the Kenko enables f8 focusing on all cameras even though it's prone to hunting in low contrast and not as precise as the bare lens.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Jan 13, 2013)

I've had mine for a year, during the transition between 7d and 5d3. Awesome outdoor/travel/walkaround/sports lens. Fast AF, wonderful colors, sharp. Love the form factor. Compact when stored. Built like a tank. Sadly selling it, due to recent 70-200 2.8 mkii acquisition. Anyone in SoCal interested, please PM me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 13, 2013)

Could it be that the 70-300L is so good that Canon can delay or even abandon the upgrade of the 100-400L?

After all if the imminent 7D II gets 24Mp a 7D II with 70-300L will be equivalent to 88 - 380 with a 50D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 13, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Could it be that the 70-300L is so good that Canon can delay or even abandon the upgrade of the 100-400L?



I guess so, because for the 100-400Lii to really make a iq difference apart from the 100mm more zoom range (not that much, even 200-300 isn't) it would have to be significantly more expensive - and in this case many people might be inclined to buy tele primes instead that have a larger aperture than f8 with a tc.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2013)

I agree, you need to have F2.8 to take advantage of the advanced AF systems in the newer Canon cameras. I shoot mostly birds in flight and even at F4 to get a shutter speed that can really stop action and water drops I have to raise the ISO to 1000 or higher. Even with the 5D3 that sometimes is not good enough depending on how close the subject is. I can say it entirely can be based on what you shoot. The 70-300 is a great lens but it's not for everyone. I have stuck with F4 and faster on the tele's and they have to accept the 1.4x III. F5.6 and limited to 300mm is too restrictive for what I shoot.



Drizzt321 said:


> I've considered this lens, but I've developed an addiction to f/2.8 or faster. That and I love to shoot in crazy lighting, which means the >= f/4 just doesn't do it for me. Unfortunately, it's got great range, and otherwise would win out for me even that it's not quite up to the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 for sharpness/IQ I'd still take it if it was wider than f/4.


----------



## miah (Jan 13, 2013)

I've had my new 70-300L for less than a week and like the OP, I'm blown away by its AF speed, color, sharpness and build quality. *Marsu42*, I recently purchased the 100L, as well, and am debating the Kenko 1.4x for use with it and the 70-300L. This seems like a good mix. Can you tell us how much additional working distance the 1.4x adds to your 100L? And will the 5D3/70-300L + 1.4x auto focus at f/8 with current firmware?


----------



## SpecialGregg (Jan 13, 2013)

I understand that you CAN mount the 70-300L to the Canon 1.4x III, as long as you have the lens extended past 250mm when you mount it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2013)

We are promised F8 AF for the 5D3 in April as a firmware upgrade. But don't expect the fast AF you are used to. AF at F8 is a bonus, not something to use every day or for every purpose.



miah said:


> I've had my new 70-300L for less than a week and like the OP, I'm blown away by its AF speed, color, sharpness and build quality. *Marsu42*, I recently purchased the 100L, as well, and am debating the Kenko 1.4x for use with it and the 70-300L. This seems like a good mix. Can you tell us how much additional working distance the 1.4x adds to your 100L? And will the 5D3/70-300L + 1.4x auto focus at f/8 with current firmware?


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 13, 2013)

I put a Kenko 1.4x teleplys Pro on the 70-300L and the 5D3 works pretty well AF at F8. No need for new firmware  for this combo.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2013)

Simply awesome! I wonder what the IQ difference is between the canon 1.4 and the kenko? 



Lnguyen1203 said:


> I put a Kenko 1.4x teleplys Pro on the 70-300L and the 5D3 works pretty well AF at F8. No need for new firmware  for this combo.


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 13, 2013)

Canon 1.4x TC won't fit with the 70-300L, so it is not a choice for this combo. Folks will want to compare with the 100-400L, but the reason I got the 70-300L is it is a better, lighter, smaller lens than the 100-400 for a walk around and medium telephoto lens. I don't use the 1.4x much on it, but have done some test shots with hummingbirds and they look fine (even in not so ideal lighting).


----------



## miah (Jan 13, 2013)

Appreciate your confirmation, *Lnguyen1203*. I could never tell for sure, from what others all over the internet have said about this combo, until your definitive statement. I'll be ordering up one Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter. Thanks!


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 13, 2013)

miah said:


> Appreciate your confirmation, *Lnguyen1203*. I could never tell for sure, from what others all over the internet have said about this combo, until your definitive statement. I'll be ordering up one Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter. Thanks!



You're welcome. Just remember to substrate about 1 stop of light. I don't quite understand how the Canon light meter works, but that is my experience. The 5D3 knows the presence of the Kenko and will give you the correct focal length and aperture setting, but the light metering is off by about 1 stop.


----------



## miah (Jan 13, 2013)

*Lnguyen1203*, are you saying that whenever you mount your Kenko 1.4x to your 70-300L you set the 5D3's exposure compensation to +1?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 13, 2013)

miah said:


> Can you tell us how much additional working distance the 1.4x adds to your 100L?



The tc converts the 100mm lens into a 140mm lens and still focuses to infinity (unlike extension tubes) - the working distance difference is significant for easily frightening critters (I'm (still) on crop, so it's actually 100x1.6x1.4). The iq of 100L+tc is excellent.



miah said:


> And will the 5D3/70-300L + 1.4x auto focus at f/8 with current firmware?



Yes, though there have been some reports with problems on the 5d3 (check these threads). Be sure to get the newestdgx with the blue dot, and from a big retailer so you get even the latest model from that (I suspect Kenko does silent firmware updates).



miah said:


> are you saying that whenever you mount your Kenko 1.4x to your 70-300L you set the 5D3's exposure compensation to +1?



... certainly not on the 60d (and I've also never read of the +ev requirement before) - the metering is through the lens, so afik the tc should be "invisible".


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 13, 2013)

miah said:


> Appreciate your confirmation, *Lnguyen1203*. I could never tell for sure, from what others all over the internet have said about this combo, until your definitive statement. I'll be ordering up one Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter. Thanks!



I'm not sure if this completely true. I remember reading on TDP that the 1.4x can be mounted when the 70-300L is zoomed out a bit.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/news/news-post.aspx?news=3227

The link states:

_What I just discovered, however, is that the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for the 1.4x to mount.

The available focal length range is about 350-420mm. There is a physical bump at the lower end of that range with (guessing) the rubber around the edge of the extender element contacting the rear 70-300 L lens element or its edge ring. This combination indeed autofocuses on the 1D X with the new firmware.

I'll put this combination on the ISO 12233 chart testing list to see what the image quality looks like, but ... I'm not sure that I recommend mounting this combination due to potential damage the to lens. I'll try to find out what Canon says about this._

TDP also has ISO crops of the 70-300L with 1.4x, where it is shown to be softer than the 100-400L


----------



## miah (Jan 13, 2013)

*RandonOrbits*, that applies to the Canon 1.4x, because of its design. The Kenko design is different, and allows it to be used over the entire 70-300L range. I don't have either tele-extender, so this isn't from personal experience, but that seems to be the consensus. And as for the extender eating another stop of light and impacting sharpness, I think that's the expected price you pay for gaining the reach.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 13, 2013)

Lnguyen1203 said:


> I put a Kenko 1.4x teleplys Pro on the 70-300L and the 5D3 works pretty well AF at F8. No need for new firmware  for this combo.



You say that with the Kenko 1.4x the 5D3 autofocuses ... will this combo work with the 100-400 also as it will also result in a max aperture of f/8?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 13, 2013)

J.R. said:


> You say that with the Kenko 1.4x the 5D3 autofocuses ... will this combo work with the 100-400 also as it will also result in a max aperture of f/8?



The Kenko tc tricks the camera into focusing @f8 while the Canon tc makes the camera do what its supposed to to - disable af @f8 to sell more 1d series cameras (or 5d3 sometime in 2013). The Kenko also works on *all* lenses, while the Canon is only designed for a small selection.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2013)

I know that on the Canon, the extenders need to be able to extend into the rear of the lens a slight bit. Those lenses with optics right up to the mounting ring wont accept the canon extender.



miah said:


> *RandonOrbits*, that applies to the Canon 1.4x, because of its design. The Kenko design is different, and allows it to be used over the entire 70-300L range. I don't have either tele-extender, so this isn't from personal experience, but that seems to be the consensus. And as for the extender eating another stop of light and impacting sharpness, I think that's the expected price you pay for gaining the reach.


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 13, 2013)

miah said:


> *Lnguyen1203*, are you saying that whenever you mount your Kenko 1.4x to your 70-300L you set the 5D3's exposure compensation to +1?



-1. You need to substrate light, which is a bit weird.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 13, 2013)

miah said:


> *RandonOrbits*, that applies to the Canon 1.4x, because of its design. The Kenko design is different, and allows it to be used over the entire 70-300L range. I don't have either tele-extender, so this isn't from personal experience, but that seems to be the consensus. And as for the extender eating another stop of light and impacting sharpness, I think that's the expected price you pay for gaining the reach.



Yes, I agree. I'm saying that for those that already have a Canon extender, it'll work on the 70-300L on the long end and that you might not need to get extender specifically for the 70-300L.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 13, 2013)

Have to say that your thread is a pleasure to read  It is invigorating (not sure if that is spelled correctly..?). Love your enthusiasm. Congrats on what obviously seems to be a great lens


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 14, 2013)

I did a quick and dirty experiement today to check the exposure compensation.

#1 photo: 5D3, Kenko 1.4X TC, 70-300L, 0 EV, blown highlight is evidence, couldn't be recovered in LR4

#2 photo: same as above with -1 EV compensation, much better, some highlight on the bird is still blown.


These are quick and dirty experiements, so appologize to those of you who are purists


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 14, 2013)

Lnguyen1203 said:


> I did a quick and dirty experiement today to check the exposure compensation.
> 
> #1 photo: 5D3, Kenko 1.4X TC, 70-300L, 0 EV, blown highlight is evidence, couldn't be recovered in LR4
> 
> ...



and just for kick, I swapped out the Kenko for the Canon 1.4X III. AF is a bit sluggist and the lens makes a grinding noise. I put the combo on my 1DX and the same noise persists. My hummingbirs were not cooperating, so I went out and shot an Amerian Kestrel instead. The IQ is fantastic, but I guess we know that already. So, if Canon can fix the AF issue with firmware, this is in fact a viable option.


----------



## miah (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanks for availing the results of your experiment, *Lnguyen1203*, that's really helpful. But just to be clear, the Canon 1.4X III only fits/works on the 70-300L throughout the latter part of the zoom range, right? Zoom it in too far and glass meets glass--ouch--right?


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 14, 2013)

miah said:


> Thanks for availing the results of your experiment, *Lnguyen1203*, that's really helpful. But just to be clear, the Canon 1.4X III only fits/works on the 70-300L throughout the latter part of the zoom range, right? Zoom it in to far and glass meets glass--ouch--right?



Correct.


----------



## miah (Jan 14, 2013)

Your kestral looks awesome, *Lnguyen1203*. Is that image cropped? If not, even with the 1.4x on the 70-300L you were able to get awfully close to that bird!


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 14, 2013)

miah said:


> Your kestral looks awesome, *Lnguyen1203*. Is that image cropped? If not, even with the 1.4x on the 70-300L you were able to get awfully close to that bird!



It is crop, but yes, I was fairly close to the bird, may be 15 yards or so.


----------



## FlowerPhotog (Jan 14, 2013)

I had posted a shot showing the excellent resolution of the 70-300L, with the Kenko 1.4X teleconverter several months ago.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4977.msg110430#msg110430

My series of shots, ending up a 100% crop of a shot at 420mm are on the third page of that thread - think the link above should take you to that page.

That thread was started talking about the problems with the Kenko and some lenses on the 5DMkIII - turns out the problem is solved by turning AFMA off. The 70-300L was one of the lenses I didn't have a problem with


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 28, 2013)

I am seriously thinking about getting one of the Kenko tele's, but has anyone had any experience using the 2X tele's with this lens?

D


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I am seriously thinking about getting one of the Kenko tele's, but has anyone had any experience using the 2X tele's with this lens?
> 
> D



I wouldn't if I were you. The 2X would rob you 2f stops and now you will ha f11 as the largest aperture. Meaning you can't use AF. Also, the 2X should be reserved for the very best, sharpest telephotos. If you need more reach, the Kenko 1.4x is OK.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> I am seriously thinking about getting one of the Kenko tele's, but has anyone had any experience using the 2X tele's with this lens?



The 2x will most likely be worse than cropping, so it'd be only an advantage for very high iso shots - imho the 1.4x is the max for the 70-300L that makes any sense, not only because of the f11 problem.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 28, 2013)

This is a lens which has impressed me more and more I use one. On paper, it's a sharp but over priced lens. But in real world use, it's a fantastic performer. My only gripe is the lack of a tripod collar and it's low magnification at closer focus distances. Other than that, it's superb. 
It's also a lens which came in for some really harsh objections when it was first launched. Sure it was expensive, considering most 70-300 lenses were consumer grade zooms. This lens was cut from different cloth, it's a profressional lens and a pretty goon one too. Now it's a few years after it's launch, it's new price has come way down to a far more realistic level. It's still not a cheap lens per-say, but it's good value considering it's strong performance. It's relatively small, light and it's a great range to have. 
Personally, I'm holding out for a new 100-400 instead....which is going to be over priced and heavily maligned in the various forums on it's launch....but after a year....it'll come down in price somewhat.


----------

