Canon 70-300 IS USM vs 70-300 L IS USM

I am currently using a T2i (550) crop camera. That probably won't change to a FF but eventually will be replaced by a newer model (in a year or 2) or somewhat upgraded model. I'm satisfied with it. My walkaround and general travel lense is a 15-85.

First I'd like to get my assumptions out of the way. I have to assume that the focus is faster and more accurate and the images are sharper using the "L" lens (see subject line). Correct?

Excluding price.

Does anybody have experince with both or either of these lenses?

I am not getting any younger and I go on at least one trip a year to national parks. I like to photograph landscapes, scenery using the 15-85 and wildlife. I currently use a 55-250 for distance but it's under-powered. I realize that 300 cropped is only 80mm more but that will help and 400mm is too heavy for me to lug around (see below).

I would like something with more reach, sharper and produces a better quality image.

I carry a small tripod for waterfalls but not on long hikes (up to 5 miles each way for me is long). Size and weight are very much an issue. That and price is why I have a 55-250.

If the two 70-300 lenses were close in focus, sharpness and anything else but noticibly better than the 55-250 I would be tempted to go with the non-L because of size and weight (let's ignore price for this conversation).

If the "DO" lense deserves to be in the mix then by all means include it.

Thanks for any comments that will help me make a decision.

Hello Myer,

I am a Canon 7D user, and two years ago I tried to save some money and bought the non-L 70-300 lens. But after several days of use, I quickly returned it and bought the L-series and have not regretted since. Truly there is a huge difference in focus speed and sharpness. Yeah, it's a little heavier, but you will get used it to quite quickly.

Here is a site I use for great lens comparisons. I have it set at 300mm, for most of shooting with this lens will be at full zoom, but feel free to change the zoom range and aperture for a complete comparison.....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

Thanks for the reply. I was hoping the non "L" version would be substantially better than my 55-250 and relative close to the "L" version. However, I suspect I'll have a problem.

Unfortunately it weighs 80% more than my walkaround 15-85 and more than 2.5 times my 55-250 lense.

And for sure it won't eliminate the 15-85.

I think I have to visit a camera store and try it out. I'm really concerned about the weight. As I wrote I'm not getting any younger and I'll be 69 on my next National Park (Glacier in Montana) trip this summer.

I am currently using the non l 70-300 and actually it is very good and better than my 55-250. There is no doubt the L is sharper wide open at 300 and has much better build and focus speed. The non L just before Xmas was selling new at $399 and the L at $1499 so it better bloody be better for the huge price increase. You need to try the non L for your self as it may suit you just fine especially at the price and weight. The L is still quite heavy.

I have tried the L but I just can't justify the price and I also have a 100-400L so that is my birding lens and the 300mm non L is the light walk around lens. I actually like this lens and if shooting 300mm at f8 works for you it is quite good.

James

My old 70-300 non-L is a great little lens. I can see why photozone used to refer to it as "a hidden L lens". The build quality isn't the greatest but if you get a sharp copy the results are really pretty good. That being said, my new L is better all round, especially in focussing speed. The focussing speed of the L is pretty darn fast, up there with my 400 5.6.

If you can check out the new L I would highly recommend it. It isn't as heavy as it seems, if that makes any sense. It is a short, tubby looking lens when you take it out of the box. I remember thinking, "this is a heavy little thing".  But then when you put it on the camera it seems to feel less obtrusive. I think it is because all the weight stays near the body of the camera instead of out at the end, distrubuting the weight more evenly between the camera hand and the lens hand. Not sure exactly. But the lens definately "feels" smaller on the camera than in the hand. Although that's on a 60D or 7D...not sure how it would feel on a slightly smaller rebel?

Although I have longer lenses available, I often pack just the 15-85 and the 70-300L when I want to travel light. In a small slingshot they tuck away rather nicely. If the L does prove to be too heavy though, the other option you might want to check out is the new tamron 70-300. I think it is lighter although not sure? I've heard mixed things about and it does seem to depend on the copy you get. But if you shop at a place where you can try them out and pick the one that works best, those that have had good copies do seem to be very happy.

Cheers Mike

Thanks all so far. I will definitely plan a trip to a camera shop. Not many around any more.

I'm a bit shy about non-Canon lenses.

For my first Canon Rebel I bought a Sigma 17-70 as my walkaround lens. Everybody said how great it was. Then when I started using it I found the focus was lousy and it was plain blurry anywhere near 70mm and close to wide open.

When I started to comment on the Rebel forum I started to get responses like "Oh yes, that's the problem with it". I guess it's excellent until you use it and lousy after you use it.

From then on I made sure that the longer I used it the further from wide open I used it. How many things was I supposed to consider when using it.

When I bought the Rebel 550 I decided to scrap the Sigma and buy the new 15-85 which I very satisfied with.

I will edefinitely run the non "L" version thru some tests and hopefully like it. Otherwise I'll have to make some decisions.

Thanks again so far.

the image quality of 70-300LIS at 300mm is not impressive.

a 70-200/2.8LIS2 (the new one) with a new 1.4x extender will perform better, and if you need a 70-200/2.8LIS2 later, the 70-300LIS will be a waste. the 70-200/2.8LIS2 at 200mm is better than Canon's prime lens 200/2.8L2.

70-200/4LIS is also a good lens but it's not in the same category. also the AF speed is slower with a extender.

One of the factors in L lenses is the build quality as well as better optics, faster AF, & some have a newer IS system. Whether it's worth the 3x or so price difference is up to the buyer. As an alternative, why not try the Tamron & Sigma versions of the 70-300? I had the Tamron 70-300VC for 6 weeks before dropping it on a stone floor & breaking it. In that time, however, I got to love the performance especially the VC system which IMO is the best there is. The lens is sharp throughout most of the range up to about 280mm with good AF performance also. The Sigma is slightly sharper at the long end, but overall the Tamron is the best VFM lens in its class IMO. I tested both before buying the Tamron.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I think I should set a cost limit and the 70-200 2.8 goes well beyond. Then the extender.

So it loses on 2 counts.

The cost and even more the weight.

I'd be curious to know what you did after you dropped the lens. Did you just cry or did you replace it with something. And what.

I looked up the price of it and that could tempt. However, I'm finding that the non-Canon lenses are very dependant upon getting a good one. They are too inconsistent.

I wonder where the non "L" Canon lens compares to the Tamron.

The lighter weight of the non "L" and Tamron could add points in that direction.

When I go to the camera store I'll have to keep track of what I'm trying.

This thread is giving me additional ideas and also adding some confusion. That's better than not havong ideas.

Thanks so far.

About owner reviews on web sites. Since everybody who bought a product doesn't review it you get two kinds of people. Those who are not happy and those who have to justify their purchase. Kind of like staying at a hotel.

I got the 70-300 non L 3 years ago to use with my rebel XT (350D). Since that time, I have upgraded to a 60D and the 70-300L.

The 70-300 non-L is a good lens. I would avoid extending all the way to 300mm and would try to stop down whenever possible. With the L-version, this is not necessary. I have heard some people question the build quality of the non-L, and I completely disagree. It always felt solid to me.

My primary use was kids' sports. The non-L version would sometimes hunt for focus for 1-2 seconds. Since none of my photos were for the cover of Sports Illustrated, this wasn't an issue.

The 70-300 L is razor sharp in comparison. I do, however, give consideration to the weight before taking it with me on vacation.

I have never used the tamron, but I consistently hear good things about that lens.

Is the L version worth the extra money? Yes, no question. It is that much better. But, I can highly recommend the Non-L version, if you know the limitations.

I think 70-200/2.8LIS2 will save you money at the end of the day.

the old none IS version was very good. same image quality at significantly lower price but the new one is from another world. for 70-300LIS, I'd rather call it "semi-L" one. the quality is somewhere between L and non-L ones.

Jules, thanks for the detailed info. I really do appreciate it.

One of the big things I will have to do at the camera store is try the lenses for weight alone. I've never tried a 1,000 gram lens so I don't know how it will feel.

I do know that my 15-85 at 575 grams is no problem.

The "L" and non "L" 70-300 are both about the same size and about 2" shorter than the 100-400L. So that's something in favor of both 70-300 lenses.

If 1000 grams doesn't feel too heavy then that would add points to the "L" and make the lighter (by 400 grams) less of an advantage.

My main reason for wanting a better lens is for wildlife on trips that I take. I've been going to National Parks for several years and wish I had discovered them earlier than at age 62. At 69 I'm not getting younger and not as steady as I used to be. So IS is mandatory. Especially since most hikes (some as long as 4-5 miles each way) are not condusive to carrying a tripod.

I'd probably like 400mm length but since my current 55-250 is close to my handling limit I should be realistic and go for 300mm.

A good, fast-focusing lens that's sharper than the 55-250 should allow me to do some cropping to make up for the lack of reach.

Also, 300mm as opposed to 250 will give me the equivalent of another 80mm cropped. That should also help.

Thanks for the good comments so far.

I broke it last year & I'm still crying!! I put in an insurance claim, & we all know how eager they are to pay out, yes? I decided in the meantime, to go with a longer focal length for birds & wildlife. I bought a Sigma 120-400 OS, which on the day, outperformed a 100-400L. It is not exactly what you would call a travel lens, as it's quite a heavy lump, but having the 400 is a bonus. So, you can see, I have nothing against third party lenses, my Sigma 10-20f/4-5.6 is a very good UWA. One of the problems we face these days, is the absence of shops where we can go & try the equipment, rather than going by opinions & experiences of others solely, we can then, as I did, buy the actual lens you test. Buying online, you don't know what you will end up with, which is why I try to support my local camera shops, while I still have them!! My choosing the 120-400 had absolutely nothing to do with any deficiences of the Tamron. Had I not dropped it I would still have it today. No question. As for your last comment, I think the majority who voice or post opinions on something, will be those who want to complain. Most who are satisfied will feel no need to make a comment. If we pay, what for us is a lot of money for an item like a lens, we simply expect it to be good, & only voice an opinion when it's not what we expected. It's human nature I suppose.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

I've seen some people shoot wildlife that set up a tripod either beside a road or on the shore of a lake and wait all day until or of they see a wolf in the distance or something else.

I want to be able to take it with on a hike so weight is important. I won't have a tripod most of the time though I do use one when there are waterfalls involved and the hike is not too long.

So I'm looking at reasonable focal length, good, fast, accurate AF, quality images and light enough to carry in addition to my walkaround lens. And there's always price. Don't want to break the bank.

I agree with you about camera store being a thing of the past. A Calumet opened recently about 10 miles from here. I'll check it out in the next week or two.

Thanks for the comments.

I have the 15-85 & it is the 2nd sharpest lens I have next to my 70-200f/4 IS. My copy of the Tamron was almost as good, & difficult to tell the images apart from the 15-85. What we have to take into account with owners opinions, is operator error. You need to test them for yourself. I too am in my mid 60's [63] with arthritic problems all over. Some of the meds I take can cause a slight tremour which makes stabilization almost a must. The system on the Tamron [called VC for vibration control] is unlike any other. It simply "snaps" into action, leaving the image in the viewfinder completely stationary while you take the shot. Some like it, some don't, but it has to be seen to be believed. Weight 765g / 27oz. I find it is as much about the ballance with the camera body that matters as much as the dead weight. In the end it's what suits you & gives you the picture quality you are looking for. Good luck with your search.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

I have a few comments regarding the 70-300 L IS USM which may prove very important to you. I purchased the lens a couple of months ago so I do not have too much experience with it but so far am happy.

You say you use a small tripod. Do you also use a ball head? A lightweight ball head? Adding the lens to the camera body shifts the center of gravity forward. Can your tripod and head support the weight, and without movement? Canon sells a tripod mount ring (Type C) but it is outrageously priced. $170 is about as cheap as you will find it. There are generic brands that are much cheaper but the comments/reviews have in general not been good. If you use a tripod mount ring then you can't use a battery grip at the same time.

Do you use an extender? The Canon extenders are not compatible with the L lens. You can use them if the lens is extended to 300 mm, but you have to make sure you do not turn the zoom ring or the rear element of the lens will bang into the front lens of the extender; this is not good. Non-Canon extenders from what I understand will work, however.

If you look at the lens in person at a dealer, make sure you take your tripod with you for evaluation. And make sure you extend the lens to 300 mm, as this is the worst case for inducing camera movement, both tripod mounted and hand held. Hope this helps you to make a decision.

Ron

I didn't say I use a little tripod. I said I seldom use a tripod and usually for waterfalls after a relatively short hike. For those photos I would use my 15-85.

It's possible I might use a tripod with the tele but very infrequently. I expect to be getting a new tripod as I don't like the one I have.

I want to be able to carry the tele lens and my 15-85 on hikes. Some of these could be as long as 4-5 miles (long for this age).

I was in Glacier NP this past August and going back again this August.

We saw several grizzlies under different conditions. A couple of times they were quite a way up a hill off the main road. I could have used a tripod but that would have been inconvenient. I took some shots with the 55-250 but at that distance they were not all that sharp. With my Rebel 550 I find the images are pretty clean up to ISO1600 or eveb 3200 (although I would probably clean them at 3200. So I could still use a fast shutter speed and stay away from wide open.

I saw a grizzly by the shore while on a boat. I got some decent shots but a better lens and slightly more reach would have given excellent results. Again I wouldn't have used a tripod.

While returning from a hike we suddenly saw a grizzly walking parallel to us and about 10 yards above our trail. We took a few photos and then stopped to let him go on. Instead he veered down onto our trail and walk a few yards more before stopping, turning around to pose and then sitting down in a small stream crossing our trail to bath and cool off. This was all hand held. No tripod.

So I've got to be able to carry 2 lenses easily.

Getting older is a bummer but sdtaying active is still better than the alternative. Those 5-6 years I have over you make a big difference. Every additional year does.

Thanks for the response.

I got you confused with another responser about you age. I expect I added years to your age.

I can tell you from experience that at our age every year makes a difference. I just refuse to let it stop me although things can easily happen.

About 3-4 years ago I suddenly noticed I had what I thought was a pulled groin. After 3-4 months I decided it wasn't healing and looked into it. I couldn't walk more than 5 minutes.

Five weeks later I had a hip replacement and 5 months later I walked 8 hours in one day without a problem. It just depends what it is.