There's a lot of talk about 70-300L at the moment..30 shots

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Jul 21, 2012

I was about to buy a 70-200 L ii in Holland recently and the young man in the shop, who was really knowledgeable (I would know) persuaded me to buy this instead. He told me it was at least as sharp in his experience, had bigger reach, was lighter and cheaper and he felt that it had better IS.
I took his advice.

I can't compare it because I don't have the second lens, but I've found it to be superb. For photographing flying children it scores really well.

Here's a series of shots of one of my granddaughters playing in the garden with my daughter, not her mother. They were moving so fast that I put the camera in multipoint AF, 1Ds3, 5fps, 800 iso and just shot.
The indoor shots were taken handheld with very slow shutter speeds.
Most of the shots were spot on as regards focus.

graphikal · Jul 21, 2012

I see chopped body parts and other poor framing, obvious lack of postprocessing, and poor flash use indoors. I don't think the 70-300L has been talked about more than usual lately, and it's been out for a while. In my opinion these shots wouldn't persuade me to buy the lens, either.

Honestly, if you're going to shoot indoors, you'd be better off with the 70-200 f/2.8L (either I or II would work fine). There's no reason that 200mm wouldn't be enough for chasing grandchildren around the yard, and you could use a teleconverter when necessary for extra reach.

valkerie · Jul 21, 2012

Don't worry , the pictures are GREAT and so is the lens . I know I have one . Gave up my 100-400 ( and i had two of them ) for the 70-300L .. there are times that I'll take that one over the 70-200's ..I know I have both of them . F4 and f2.8mkll ...

VALKERIE

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Jul 21, 2012

graphikal said:
I see chopped body parts and other poor framing, obvious lack of postprocessing, and poor flash use indoors.

Indeed?

There was no flash used.

as for chopped body parts..

If you read how I did this stuff, you would realise that composition was out of the question. I was barely following them.

bhollis · Jul 21, 2012

Glad you're enjoying your 70-300L. And I fully understand your enthusiasm for photographing your grand daughter.

Here are a few shots of my grand daughter taken at the Washington, DC, zoo with my 5D3 and 70-200 f/4L IS--another fine lens.

cybergeek · Jul 21, 2012

It looks like a great lens! Congrats! I chose the 70-200mk II but there are times when I think the extra reach would be nice!

Dags · Jul 21, 2012

Don't think it's a replacement for the 2.8 70-200, but it does definitely compete with the f4 IS. I have my f4 IS & 1.4 extender up for sale now & have ordered the 70-300L. I seem to always want to use my 70-200 at either 70-100 or at 200-280 with the extender & at those focal lengths the 70-300L is reportedly slightly sharper & you don't have to mess around with an extender. The 70-300L is a bit heavier than the f4 IS, but packs shorter. I always find the 70-200 slightly long to fit comfortably in my bags, so the 70-300L will be easier for me to carry.

The only disadvantages the 70-300L has I think is slightly heavier weight & 1/2 stop slower. The half stop difference is not too big a deal for me. If I want creamy background blur I can use my 200 2.8L
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdaggar/

bronxbombers · Jul 21, 2012

it's a great lens!

(although if that is all you use it for the 70-200 actually is better since you certainly don't need the 200-300mm but the faster aperture might be nice at times)

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Jul 21, 2012

I've used it for running, for triathlon and so on as well. I did have a 70-200 F4 L for years but sold it when I got this. It was a terrific lens but the IS on the 70-300L is just astonishing to me. Better than the IS on any other lens I own.

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Jul 21, 2012

bhollis said:
Glad you're enjoying your 70-300L. And I fully understand your enthusiasm for photographing your grand daughter.

Here are a few shots of my grand daughter taken at the Washington, DC, zoo with my 5D3 and 70-200 f/4L IS--another fine lens.

bhollis said:

That one is brill. Graphikal might not like the use of flash in it, though..

bhollis · Jul 22, 2012

Gearóid Ó Laoi said:
bhollis said:

Glad you're enjoying your 70-300L. And I fully understand your enthusiasm for photographing your grand daughter.

Here are a few shots of my grand daughter taken at the Washington, DC, zoo with my 5D3 and 70-200 f/4L IS--another fine lens.

Click to expand...

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

Click to expand...

That one is brill. Graphikal might not like the use of flash in it, though..

Thanks. No flash, though. Just ambient light.

paulbysea · Jul 22, 2012

I was always told if if you can't saying anything good keep your trap shut.

Also whilst these pictures might break the accepted rules of composition they do get across the fun being had. (btw. I and other often choose to shoot or crop body parts, to get a better shot.)

Finally this is a tech forum, he was discussing an aspect of the lens, showing us what it could do with little or no processing. If you want to discuss post-processing go to the relevant forum I suggest.

graphikal said:
I see chopped body parts and other poor framing, obvious lack of postprocessing, and poor flash use indoors. I don't think the 70-300L has been talked about more than usual lately, and it's been out for a while. In my opinion these shots wouldn't persuade me to buy the lens, either.

Honestly, if you're going to shoot indoors, you'd be better off with the 70-200 f/2.8L (either I or II would work fine). There's no reason that 200mm wouldn't be enough for chasing grandchildren around the yard, and you could use a teleconverter when necessary for extra reach.

HAbba · Jul 22, 2012

Hi,

I replaced my 70-200F4ISL and 100-400L with the 70-300L. Overall I am very happy with this lens and the photos from it are amazing.

I see you are already having a great time with yours - lovely photos and a cute family by the way.

Below are some portraits I have taken with this lens. Also I have used it for Safari in India and Kenya - Steller lens.

2011

Hassan

Stakeouttoo · Jul 22, 2012

for me it's easier to just keep 'g' on my ignore list ..his credibility is nil.. always negative.. never says anything positive..and obviously not a nice person
--
Ray

my Canon 60d sure beats using that ol' Petri 7s

photosen · Jul 22, 2012

Radiant kid!

On a technical note I find these way more useful than brick walls and such.

Starkiller · Jul 22, 2012

The five 70-200mm lenses can't do 201-300mm, but they can do 70-200mm with at least f4.0. What do you need 201-300mm at f5.6 for?

Schwany · Jul 22, 2012

That is a lot of shots. You owe me a drink, since it was like sitting down and watching a slide show of Grandpa's photos. giggle

Only noticeable difference for general purpose use might be focus speed. The 70-200f/2.8L IS II is quick. Most L stuff looks pretty good. Hard to go totally wrong, unless one buys something and they can't figure out what to use it for.

BigBen08 · Jul 22, 2012

Dags said:
Don't think it's a replacement for the 2.8 70-200, but it does definitely compete with the f4 IS. I have my f4 IS & 1.4 extender up for sale now & have ordered the 70-300L. I seem to always want to use my 70-200 at either 70-100 or at 200-280 with the extender & at those focal lengths the 70-300L is reportedly slightly sharper & you don't have to mess around with an extender. The 70-300L is a bit heavier than the f4 IS, but packs shorter. I always find the 70-200 slightly long to fit comfortably in my bags, so the 70-300L will be easier for me to carry.

The only disadvantages the 70-300L has I think is slightly heavier weight & 1/2 stop slower. The half stop difference is not too big a deal for me. If I want creamy background blur I can use my 200 2.8L

Your comments are interesting, thanks for sharing. I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS II but I'm also considering a smaller, lighter lens as an easy to carry walk-about, when f2.8 is not needed.

For me it's either the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300L.
For those interested, here are the specs...

70-200 f4 3.0 x 6.8 inches, 26.8 oz

70-300L f4-f5.6 3.5 x 5.6 inches, 36.9 oz

I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f4, that would save 10 oz.

But having an extra 100mm without messing with an extender also makes the 70-300L attractive. Much to think about!

BigBen08 · Jul 22, 2012

Gearóid Ó Laoi said:
I did have a 70-200 F4 L for years but sold it when I got this. It was a terrific lens but the IS on the 70-300L is just astonishing to me. Better than the IS on any other lens I own.

Thanks for the comment. I'm torn between the 70-200 f4 and 70-300L.
Does the extra weight (10 oz) and larger diameter seem like a drawback to you?
I'd be using the 70-300L as a walk-about lens, for event photography.

graphikal · Jul 22, 2012

Starkiller said:
The five 70-200mm lenses can't do 201-300mm, but they can do 70-200mm with at least f4.0. What do you need 201-300mm at f5.6 for?

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II can do up to 280mm at f/4, and up to 400mm at f/5.6, with a teleconverter. It's also a far better choice than the 70-300L for shooting people indoors (in fact even the 70-200 f/4L IS is a better choice for that).

There's a lot of talk about 70-300L at the moment..30 shots

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts