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

bronxbombers · Jul 22, 2012

Gearóid Ó Laoi said:
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.

ok, yeah if you also need 200+ then the 70-300L is awesome. I just sold off my 70-200 f/4 IS that I had replaced with a 70-300L (which was actually sharper at 70mm and 200mm than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS!even if not in the middle of the range and it's wayyyyy more convenient than swapping a TC on and off, plus much better image quality 201-280mm than the 70-200+TC)

bronxbombers · 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?

What about when you are in a sports stadium without a press pass?

Want to go on a hike without dragging your super-tele?

Running around on vacation and zoo all day long? You may hit some wildlife, some landscapes where you want tele-compression and reach, etc.

Even for landscapes or fall foliage shots it's easy to find yourself at 300mm, super so on FF.

Steve Balcombe · Jul 23, 2012

BigBen08 said:
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.

If that sort of size and weight difference matters, don't forget to include the extender...

(just a minute while I convert between g and oz ;-))

70-200/4 plus 1.4x extender - 3.0 x 7.7 inches, 34.7 oz

In practice, the weight difference is negligible and the 70-300L fits in a smaller bag.

BigBen08 said:
But having an extra 100mm without messing with an extender also makes the 70-300L attractive. Much to think about!

Not really

Seriously though, if you will never want more than 200 mm the 70-200/4L IS is a remarkable lens. But as soon as you factor in the TC (size/weight/convenience/price) the 70-300L is the clear winner.

offshore13 · Jul 23, 2012

Nice one at #2

Neil Schofield · Jul 23, 2012

Images below were taken using autofocus and a vigourously wafted 1Dm3, the 70-300 delivered these images, and many more besides.

I went back this weekend with the 300mm 2.8 prime attached, and couldn't even begin to match the earlier performance

In good light this is a magic lens, and never ceases to amaze me

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Jul 23, 2012

NeilSDPR said:
Images below were taken using autofocus and a vigourously wafted 1Dm3, the 70-300 delivered these images, and many more besides.

I went back this weekend with the 300mm 2.8 prime attached, and couldn't even begin to match the earlier performance

Sssshhh..

You can't say that. It's illegal!

--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

Starkiller · Jul 24, 2012

I think we mean the same:

Any 70-200mm > 70-300mm

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Jul 24, 2012

bhollis said:
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...

bhollis said:

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Thanks. No flash, though. Just ambient light.

I know that, but Graphikal criticised my use of flash which didn't exist..

--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

bronxbombers · Jul 24, 2012

70-300L handles flare the best too

bronxbombers · Jul 29, 2012

when used with a 5D3 or 1DX:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=42145657

a potential advantage over the 70-200 f/4 IS (70-300 non-L, tamron 70-300 vc)??

happysnapper62 · Jul 30, 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.

Love No's 2 &4. No2 is a great use of reflection & filling the frame. No4 is a real natural pose. Hard to choose, love them both & thank's for sharing. lee uk

happysnapper62 · Jul 30, 2012

I already had a Sigy 120-400 which I use almost exclusively on a tripod due to the weight, although I have had reasonable resultsup to the 250mm mark handheld. I got the 70-200 f/4 IS L which feels light compared to the Sigma. I also bought a used camcorder bag, padded with removable padded dividers for £1[ yes £1!! ] at a car boot sale, & my 7D + 70-200 fits perfectly, along with a 15-85 & flash as a all I need "kit" for the day. Whatever floats your boat I suppose? lee uk

Search

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

bronxbombers

Forum Pro

bronxbombers

Forum Pro

Steve Balcombe

Forum Pro

offshore13

Well-known member

Neil Schofield

Leading Member

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee

Veteran Member

Starkiller

Well-known member

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee

Veteran Member

bronxbombers

Forum Pro

bronxbombers

Forum Pro

happysnapper62

Leading Member

happysnapper62

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts