Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
kewlguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have two bags that fit the 70-200/4LIS with no problem whatsoever. The lens has been to East Timor, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Portugal and Spain.

So by your own admission you shelled out $1,350 for a lens rather than $100 for a suitable bag. Not sure people should be taking your advice.

--
>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<
 
Last edited:
I chose my LowePro Toploader bag for its ability to hold a camera with 70-300 (either L or the new II).
 
kewlguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I said i would sell my 70-200 when i got the 70-300L but for some reason i still have it. Maybe this year ill get rid of it.

As far as the 70-300L fitting in my bag, its only when the original hood is on that i had trouble. As i got the lens for its smaller form factor getting a larger bag wasn't going to be a sensible option (plus i have enough bags so buying another was a waste of money.). Of course i could just take the hood off but i prefer to use hoods rather than lens caps when im out and about.
 
Abu Mahendra said:
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! <<
Click to expand...
The Change-Up is no ordinary shoulder bag. It is wearable umpteen different ways and IMO is the best thing ever for walking/jogging/climbing great distances with more than five pounds of gear in varying social situations. The bag is nearly non-negotiable as I have not found anything that works better.

It will fit the 70-200mm f4L IS no problem, but not mounted on a body. The 70-300mm L will mitigate a load of lens mount changes both through its shorter build and because I won't have to deal with the extender.
 
Last edited:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Abu Mahendra said:
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! <<
Click to expand...
The Change-Up is no ordinary shoulder bag. It is wearable umpteen different ways and IMO is the best thing ever for walking/jogging/climbing great distances with more than five pounds of gear in varying social situations. The bag is nearly non-negotiable as I have not found anything that works better.

It will fit the 70-200mm f4L IS no problem, but not mounted on a body. The 70-300mm L will mitigate a load of lens mount changes both through its shorter build and because I won't have to deal with the extender.
Click to expand...
Well, it appears that your fabulous bag has one flaw--it can't fit an attached 70-200 zoom--and that flaw is about to cost your $1,350. I myself would go for the 100-400II instead, but we all know that if finding a bag for the 70-200/4 is mission-impossible, finding a bag for the 100-400II will be equally impossible, right? The packability of the 70-200/4 is a problem of your own choice, and of your own making. You are simply trying to align evidence to a decision you have already made. It's your money, you don't need us to legitimate your spending. Buy the 70-300L today.

--
>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<
 
Last edited:
Abu Mahendra said:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Abu Mahendra said:
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! <<
Click to expand...
The Change-Up is no ordinary shoulder bag. It is wearable umpteen different ways and IMO is the best thing ever for walking/jogging/climbing great distances with more than five pounds of gear in varying social situations. The bag is nearly non-negotiable as I have not found anything that works better.

It will fit the 70-200mm f4L IS no problem, but not mounted on a body. The 70-300mm L will mitigate a load of lens mount changes both through its shorter build and because I won't have to deal with the extender.
Click to expand...
Well, it appears that your fabulous bag has one flaw--it can't fit an attached 70-200 zoom--and that flaw is about to cost your $1,350. I myself would go for the 100-400II instead, but we all know that if finding a bag for the 70-200/4 is mission-impossible, finding a bag for the 100-400II will be equally impossible, right? The packability of the 70-200/4 is a problem of your own choice, and of your own making. You are simply trying to align evidence to a decision you have already made. It's your money, you don't need us to legitimate your spending. Buy the 70-300L today.

--
>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<
Click to expand...
Fair comment.

Not just the bag. I would also rid myself of the finagling with an extender. Less lens changes when touring with others is always a good thing.

I don't think the bag's size constitutes a flaw. The Change-Up is the right size for general walkabout/hiking - I wouldn't want to tote anything larger than that unless it was for a dedicated photo trip. And for its size it can swallow a fairly good size bit of kit (24-70mm f2.8L with body on, 70-200mm f2.8L II, charger, small flash). It has a harness system that helps manage the load very well and changes to a shoulder bag in more casual situations. A bag that will carry a mounted 70-200mm would likely be too large.

So the problem as I see it is more about having a right-sized kit to cover 24mm-300mm with good quality. The bag facilitates the carry and I give it high importance in making trips pleasant and fruitful.

Hence the question about the 70-300mm f4-5.6L lens as due diligence to determine what I would be giving up in quality, ease of use, etc. for the form factor. The aperture is obvious but what else? Thanks to all the commenters so far, it seems like a well-received lens that is appropriate for the use I intend. Had I received comments to the contrary my decision could lean to continuing with the 70-200mm., dealing with extra changes and extenders and saving the money.

Horses for courses.
 
Last edited:
I have it, along with 70-200 f4 IS, and 2.8II is.

the color, contrast, and sharpness are all fantastic. Great travel lens as it packs small. the 70-200 f4 IS, is slightly faster focusing with respect to tracking. its also constant F4, and is lighter. howeve,r the 70-200 is my prefered travel lens as it packs smaller and gives me a more useful range.
 
Phil Geusebroek said:
Abu Mahendra said:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Abu Mahendra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have a Kenko x1.4 TC and while it works perfectly with all my lens on my 5Dmkiii (even works with EF-S lenses on full frame) it does not play nicely with the 70-300L and 80D.

Ive got very very mixed results with this combo. Lots of over exposed images, even though the camera meter is showing it should be fine. Using ther camera in M mode is the best way to get the best out of this set up IME. Must be an electronics issue with the lens not communicating to the camera properly i expect. Again, no issues at all on the 5D.

The good thing is this lens is so sharp it can take the slight IQ hit by using an extender as long as you dont pixel peep too hard.
 
Enough information already ;-)

Just adding, I have this lens and use it with the Think Tank Change Up V2.

That works fine, although I prefer the Pro/Steroid belt with a holster and the Keep-it-up-it-up shoulder strap. More stable, the Change Up can't hold its shape very well.

The 70-300 L is amazing, have been using it for birds for five years and it crops out the 100-400 I easily. To be clear, an image cropped to '400 mm size' is sharper than one from the 100-400. Even cropping to 1600x1200 gives good image quality. And for birds you need this.

Never missed the tripod ring. Because of the compact size and the weight distribution hand holding is no problem. For the 100-400 you need twice the power, it weighs more, is longer and more top-heavy.
 
Well, you must be Mr. Always Right, huh? LOL

I could list other reasons, but I guess you don't care - it's ok if you like the 70-200/4 IS to death, but 70-300L has better contrast and color (to me at least), slightly better IS - and *300mm*. Plus it's shorter... and if you read my post, I do have 100-400L II which is bigger than either 70-300L/70-200/4 IS - so I do have bigger bags - BUT if I want to keep it compact - 70-300L fits the bill.

I don't need people to follow my advice - but I'm sure there are many happy 70-300L users for whatever reasons and I know some sold the 70-200/4 IS for it.
 
kewlguy said:
I could list other reasons, but I guess you don't care - it's ok if you like the 70-200/4 IS to death, but 70-300L has better contrast and color (to me at least), slightly better IS - and *300mm*. Plus it's shorter... and if you read my post, I do have 100-400L II which is bigger than either 70-300L/70-200/4 IS - so I do have bigger bags - BUT if I want to keep it compact - 70-300L fits the bill.
Click to expand...
+1 to all that. My 70-300L seems to have just a bit more contrast and the colours seem to be just a bit more punchy and 3D like. I have tested this out, although in a non scientific way. Still, the eye is what counts and my eyes find 70-300L shots more pleasing (otherwise i wouldnt use it as much).

I also get more keepers at 1/10 with the 70-300L than i can with the 70-200 f/4 IS. This i have proven to myself.

We are all different though, and my statement is not a blanket statement, just a statement about my situation.
 
I was planning to get a 70-300 L to photograph my daughter playing tennis. Then I learned of the new non-L IS II. I may have to rent a copy of each to see which focuses more reliably with my 80D. Even if the new II is as good I still may get the L because of its water and dust resistance and included hood.
 
I have both the 70-200 F4 IS, the 70-300 L and the 100-400ii. I picked the first two up second hand and can't quite bring myself to sell either of them despite the obvious overlap.

I see most people here have expressed a preference for the 70-300 L but personally I prefer the 70-200 for most of my uses. I prefer the lighter weight and I think the IQ might be a hair better. Portraits at 200mm and F/4 look great. Both have exceptional IQ though, razor sharp and with loads of contrast, so that really should not be the deciding factor. In my experience the 70-200 with 1.4 converter is no worse than the 70-300 at the long end. Also at relatively close distances (couple of metres) the 70-200 with 1.4 actually has a more narrow angle of view than the 70-300 L, due to focus breathing. Having said that if you are going to be using the converter a lot then the 70-300 L is clearly the better option; the weight saving then becomes negligible, the physical length of the lens becomes more of an issue and the hassle of changing the converter may be a consideration.

I would not let my existing bags make my decision though I can appreciate that for some the more squat size of the 70-300 L might be an advantage that could even trump the narrowness and lighter weight of the 70-200.

Shane

--
"The simple things are also the most extraordinary things and only the wise can see them."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/135843555@N03/
 
Last edited:
kewlguy said:
Well, you must be Mr. Always Right, huh? LOL

I could list other reasons, but I guess you don't care - it's ok if you like the 70-200/4 IS to death, but 70-300L has better contrast and color (to me at least), slightly better IS - and *300mm*. Plus it's shorter... and if you read my post, I do have 100-400L II which is bigger than either 70-300L/70-200/4 IS - so I do have bigger bags - BUT if I want to keep it compact - 70-300L fits the bill.

I don't need people to follow my advice - but I'm sure there are many happy 70-300L users for whatever reasons and I know some sold the 70-200/4 IS for it.
Click to expand...
This is what you yourself wrote earlier:

'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.'

By your own admission, and in your own words, you conveyed to us that the reason--again, your own words--for staying with the former and selling off the latter was due to the fact that your bags do not fit the latter. Your admission, your words.

Now, you tell us, after the fact and obviously bactracking, that you think the 70-300L has better contrast, colors and IS. As if that had anything to do with the issue of packability, but in any case, there is no objective test or evidence that one lens is optically better or worse than the other. This is confirmation bias, wishful thinking on your part, and perhaps yet another reason people should take your advice with caution.

Finally, you tell us that you have the 100-400II, and bigger bags. Begs the question. What are these bags that fit the 100-400II, but not the 70-200/4L?

You are all over the place. Caveat emptor.

>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<
 
I decided to sell my 70-200 f/4 and bought the 70-300 L. It's the perfect combination with a 24-70 f/2.8 but I find that the 70-300 is on my camera most of the time ! It just seems to be the one I go for...
 
Blokfluitist said:
I decided to sell my 70-200 f/4 and bought the 70-300 L. It's the perfect combination with a 24-70 f/2.8 but I find that the 70-300 is on my camera most of the time ! It just seems to be the one I go for...
Click to expand...
 
dave_bass5 said:
Dave said:
dave_bass5 said:
When using my 5Dmkiii I tend it go out with my 16-35 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8 mkii and 70-300L. All fits in my small bag with any lens thatched, with hood on all lenses even when stored (as i dont tend to take lens caps out).

I just wish the 70-300L was black like all my other lenses.
Click to expand...
Would you consider switching to the new 70-300 USM II if it didn't mean much (or any) sacrifice? And have you thought about using some kind of cover?
Click to expand...
I would switch if it meant no loss of IQ. Unfortunately it will as by all accounts the new one isnt much better than the old one, and i hated mine when i had it.
Click to expand...
Same here. My 70-300L gets little use now that I have a 100-400L II, but I still want to keep hold of a 'travelling light' tele zoom. If the new 70-300 had been good enough I might have traded down, but the reviews are consistently, well, unenthusiastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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