Reading mode: Light Dark

EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS experience?

Go to last post
P

Phil Geusebroek

Leading Member
Messages
622
Reaction score
112
Location
US
Looking to get one of these to pair with a 24-70mm f4L IS for walkabout travel (full frame). The idea is that it will give me 300mm without an extender and be squat enough to fit in a ThinkTank ChangeUp with the lens still on the body. Weather sealing and rugged construction are also important to me.

Image sharpness and contrast is very important. There isn't much point to the lens if I can crop a 70-200mm or 100mm macro and get the same result.

My alternative is the taller 70-200mm f4L IS which is more of a pain because I must take the lens off and put the 24-70mm back on to zip up the bag.

I know the effective focal length shortens at close range. Is this a factor?

Have you used this lens for travel/walkabout, and what is your take on it? Worth the money?
 
I absolutely love this lens. I use this lens with my 6D and 24-105L as my standard travel kit. No problem carrying the lens for hours. I use the Black Rapid system, so no strain at all on the old neck.

As for sharpness... I feel it is comparable to the 70-200 f4.0L (which I did have for quite a while).
 
Crazy contrast and very sharp. Have travel in India with it. Favorite lens.



Montauk
Montauk
 
I use my gear almost exclusively for travel (as you can see on my website). Back in 2006, when I got my original 5D, I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L with a 2x extender. Big mistake. Too bulky, too heavy. I later sold them and got the 70-300 non-L upon its release, and was much happier. When the L came out, I couldn't resist. Its image quality is even better, and it's still small and light enough to carry around on extended trips. I've used the 70-200 f/4 L (without IS). It's very light and also very sharp, but I often need the extra length of the 70-300. I can't imagine you'd be disappointed with it.

If I was buying now, I'd almost certainly get the 70-300 L but first I'd have a look at the Mark II non-L that's just been released, as early reports seem to be pretty favourable.
 
Phil Geusebroek said:
Good to hear and thanks for responding.

Any quirks I should watch out for?
Click to expand...
Only that the zoom ring is in the position closest to the front of the lens. This means you cant use the lens with the hood reversed. You get used to it though.

Mine is hardly ever off my 5Dmkiii, even as a walk around I find the range good. Coupled with my 24-70 f/2.8 mkii and i have more or less all i need to cover most things.

Its a lens i put off getting for a few years, due to (still) having the 70-200 f/4 IS, but once it was on the camera i fell in love with the image quality. The 70-200 never gets used.

I even use it as my low light lens sometimes, i can hand hold down to around 1/10 at 300mm if im careful.

One other thing i love is i can use a lens hood designed for the 18-135. This means its a smaller footprint and now fits in my camera bags attached to the camera, without any need for a lens cap. Cant say ive ever had any lens flare even without a hood so using the shorter hood hasn't only increased the love for this lens.
 
So the same hood can be used on the 18-135 (which flavor?) and the 70-300?
 
Last edited:
dave_bass5 said:
Dave said:
So the same hood can be used on the 18-135 (which flavor?) and the 70-300?
Click to expand...
Yes. Ive got the STM lens and a spare 3rd party hood. I also found the even smaller EF-S 10-18 hood works on the 70-300L but i dont have a spare for that lens.

Its got me strange looks when out. People who think they know lenses have come up to me and asked what it is lol.
Click to expand...
I have a 18-135 USM and don't believe its hood is interchangeable with the 18-135 STM. So I'm guessing my hood might not be as good a fit for the 70-300L.

I don't need a camera in my hands to generate strange looks. :-)
 
No, I think all 3 18-135 versions have slightly different hoods. I only buy 3rd party hoods though as i think the Canon ones are a rip off compared to a good 3rd party hood.

Although i understand why the 70-300L comes with the hood it does i just find it makes things a bit too long when i want to put the camera back in the bag quickly.
 
Phil Geusebroek said:
Looking to get one of these to pair with a 24-70mm f4L IS for walkabout travel (full frame). The idea is that it will give me 300mm without an extender and be squat enough to fit in a ThinkTank ChangeUp with the lens still on the body. Weather sealing and rugged construction are also important to me.

Image sharpness and contrast is very important. There isn't much point to the lens if I can crop a 70-200mm or 100mm macro and get the same result.

My alternative is the taller 70-200mm f4L IS which is more of a pain because I must take the lens off and put the 24-70mm back on to zip up the bag.

I know the effective focal length shortens at close range. Is this a factor?

Have you used this lens for travel/walkabout, and what is your take on it? Worth the money?
Click to expand...
For a walkabout and travel lens, the 70-300 is ideal. It is very small which the hood reversed and easy to get in a small camera bag. It's very sharp and fast to focus.
 
Phil Geusebroek said:
Good to hear and thanks for responding.

Any quirks I should watch out for?
Click to expand...
For a walk-around lens this may not matter but:

The lens does not come with a tripod foot. I worry that it is too big and heavy to cantilever off a camera body mounted on the tripod. The Canon accessory tripod mount costs over $150 and with my 6D is very unbalanced. I have even tried mounting the tripod mounting collar backwards on the lens to see if it helps the balance.
 
Threads like these--70-200/4L vs. 70-300L--are not uncommon here, and they often revolve around the ease packing of each lens. I don't quite understand the problem since I've carried the 70-200/4LIS on travel to several destinations, including three months around Europe. It stands to reason if the 70-200/4L doesn't fit in your bag, the first thing to do is to buy a more suitable bag for, say, $100 rather than a new lens for $1,350. Call me crazy. A Lowepro Nova Sport 17L for $89 will fit a 70-200/4 standing up unattached, or lying down attached to a 6D body, while storing a second lens.

Now, if you need the additional reach to 300mm, that's a different discussion.

--
>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<
 
Last edited:
CameraCarl said:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Good to hear and thanks for responding.

Any quirks I should watch out for?
Click to expand...
For a walk-around lens this may not matter but:

The lens does not come with a tripod foot. I worry that it is too big and heavy to cantilever off a camera body mounted on the tripod. The Canon accessory tripod mount costs over $150 and with my 6D is very unbalanced. I have even tried mounting the tripod mounting collar backwards on the lens to see if it helps the balance.
Click to expand...
As with hoods, i go with 3rd party tripod feet as well. I think i paid about £25 for mine off Amazon. Before anyone says they are rubbish and will break, ive had mine for two years and used it a lot, with no sign of it falling apart. Same with my 70-200 f/4. Had that one for about 9 years, still going strong.
 
I switched from the 70-200L f4 IS to the 70-300L because of the extra 100mm, much more useful for me on FF and I was an early adopter of the f4 IS and loved that lens. camera bag size or packability had nothing to do with it.
 
Abu Mahendra said:
It stands to reason if the 70-200/4L doesn't fit in your bag, the first thing to do is to buy a more suitable bag for, say, $100 rather than a new lens for $1,350. Call me crazy. A Lowepro Nova Sport 17L for $89 will fit a 70-200/4 standing up unattached, or lying down attached to a 6D body, while storing a second lens.
Click to expand...
Sure, but many of us need to carry a range of different gear, and a bag which fits most things well typically doesn't fit the 70-200/4L very well. It's not a huge deal, but it's something to be aware of.
 
Swell. Packability has never been an issue either for me with the 70-200/4LIS either since 2006 when I bought my first specimen. On the other hand, packabiity is indeed an/the issue for the OP. Ergo my response.
ed rader said:
I switched from the 70-200L f4 IS to the 70-300L because of the extra 100mm, much more useful for me on FF and I was an early adopter of the f4 IS and loved that lens. camera bag size or packability had nothing to do with it.

--
Instagram
https://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
Click to expand...
--
>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<
 
Last edited:
Steve Balcombe said:
Abu Mahendra said:
It stands to reason if the 70-200/4L doesn't fit in your bag, the first thing to do is to buy a more suitable bag for, say, $100 rather than a new lens for $1,350. Call me crazy. A Lowepro Nova Sport 17L for $89 will fit a 70-200/4 standing up unattached, or lying down attached to a 6D body, while storing a second lens.
Click to expand...
Sure, but many of us need to carry a range of different gear, and a bag which fits most things well typically doesn't fit the 70-200/4L very well. It's not a huge deal, but it's something to be aware of.
Click to expand...
 
I have some bags that allow the 70-300 L put standing up but not the 70-200/4 IS.

That is the reason I sold the latter. The 70-300L is better for travels.
 
The 70-300L has been serving me for 5 yrs, and still going strong even on my 5DSr. I sold the 70-200/4 IS 2 months after I acquired the 70-300L. Now, I have 70-300L and 100-400 IS II. When I travel, 70-300L is most certainly my choice due to shorter form factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM version 1 soft at 200mm
Replies
11
Views
4K
J A C S
J A C S
shidan
  • User review User review
Sigma 16-300mm f3,5-6,7 (vs Tamron and Sony Zooms)
Replies
2
Views
41K
shidan
shidan
I
Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM version 1 soft at the wide end
Replies
8
Views
4K
Marquee
M
M
XF 10-24mm f/4 R, XF 33mm f/1.4 & XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for backpacking landscape photography
Replies
9
Views
1K
Mountaingrapher
M
G
Thoughts/experiences on adapting Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L ii
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mecca66
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top