Superb lens

When I got my Canon 5D Mk 3, I found I needed more reach than the 70-200 (bought for my 7D) and stumbled upon this lens.  Little has been written about it and I've found no reviews in magazines, but I took a punt and bought a 'nearly new' one.  I am so glad I took the gamble, it is a really superb lens and I've got amazingly sharp images, handheld, showing minute details, e.g. pulled threads in a linen blouse sleeve taken at some considerable distance.

Yes the placing of the focus ring is odd, why did Canon do that?, but not worth worrying about as you soon get used to it..

If you are looking for a great lens that is smaller and lighter than the 100-400 you won't go far wrong with this one.

one of my strongest regrets was letting my copy of this nice lens go when i acquired a 300mmf4. i believe the incredible value offered by the 55-250 accounts for the current lack of interest in the 70-300.  it is not quite as good a lens. but is close enough in iq to make the price difference a deciding factor in choice for most people.

...found it not long enough, bought the 70-300L, and am very pleased with it.  I haven't shot it much, but what I have, I like.

SussexJude wrote:

Yes the placing of the focus ring is odd, why did Canon do that?, but not worth worrying about as you soon get used to it..

I agree that you soon get used to it. In fact, as it's a reasonably heavy lens, I prefer to have my left hand at the front for support, which is where the more often-used zoom is. But after extended use of the 70-300 when I go back to the 24-105 I often find that I'm focusing when I want to zoom.

And yes, it is a stellar lens. I had the 70-300 non-L for a few years before the L appeared. It was no slouch either, but of course the L is better.