Unexpected - Superb Lens

I purchased this over the pumper 100-400L ISM for sports and general zoom photography, I used with my 5D MK3 and had focus issues which turned out to be the 5D MK3 focusing system just not handling rapid pace sports work, so traded to a 1DX, the lens is light so easy to carry and use, very sharp, IQ is better or on a par with the 70-200 II ISM L, very fast focus, even at high iso's, I find it good in low light with instant focus and tracking. Given the relatively low price in comparison to a 70-200 and it seems to me very sharp IQ, I am very happy with this Lens and defiantly recommend giving it a go.

Whatever problems you had with the 5D3 were most likely user error, the 5D3 is an excellent sports camera.  You probably needed to micro-adjust the AF.

And if you can afford a 1DX I'm not sure why you didn't just go for the 70-200/2.8II, which you can transform into a 98-280/4 with the 1.4xTC.  Would have been a more versatile setup.

shot with 70-300L  (5D Mark II),  this is a superb lens.

If you don't need f/2.8, this is a great travel lens too.

I agree it's a supreb lens, but don't understand why you had problems with the 5D III. I have a 5D III.

Most likely it was operator error on my part, I played extensively with the different AF modes but was only getting about 50% keepers, I read extensively on the 1DX and its focus system and because I was still in the 14 day return period decided to go that way. The 1DX with the 70-300 produces a much higher ratio of in focus shots.

I am a relative Newbie and keen to learn, I have enrolled in some photography classes and any suggestions are always welcome.

Most likely you are right, and it was my relative inexperience that did help the situation. I have written a response lower in this thread about why I went with the 1DX and the results.

I have the option of returning the 70-300 and I am seriously considering the 70-200 option however I have read that with an Extender the autofocus system is slower. Also for a general purpose carry lens the 70-300 is a lot lighter and has more zoom, its only drawback is I can't down to 2.8 but I am thinking the tradeoff is worth it.

I am still unsure of what is the best solution as I haven't tested the 70-200 with the extender in the field so can't comment.

Two responders know that there was probably nothing wrong with OP's 5DIII, even though they never even saw it. One responder wonders why OP did not buy a bigger more expensive lens, just because he could afford a 1Dx. I'm confused. I thought this post was just a personal review of the 70-300L?

Can't comment on the 5D3, but I have a 70-300L and find it to be superb on all my Canon bodies (50D, 5D, 1D4, 1DX). In fact, my 70-200/2.8L IS II typically sits home unless I am shooting in dim available light.

+1....Vegas Odds says, User Error and he loves to throw money away.

What I don't get is why it was "unexpected"?  This lens always gets great reviews.  The only problem is the aperture, and the fact that the available focus points are restricted excessively on the 5D3.

bronxbombers4 wrote:

billythek wrote:

What I don't get is why it was "unexpected"? This lens always gets great reviews. The only problem is the aperture, and the fact that the available focus points are restricted excessively on the 5D3.

When it was release it was kind of derided and mocked, for at least the entire first year. Only more recently have people, en masse, discovered that it's actually not a joke, but a pretty useful lens, with top quality (and something unique to the Canon line-up, the Nikon and third party 70-300 type lenses simply don't match up). So I could see how it could be unexpected. It really took a beating, right from the initial press release, for quite a while.

You ain't kidding there . I remember the threads claiming "canon has totally lost the plot with their pricing", or "it was the beginning of the end for canon", and "the new Tamron is going to kick its ass". Some people were REALLY upset. A number of early "reviews" by the resident armchair measurbators (those that only look at the spec charts and then pass judgement) went on and on about "who would want to buy such a thing" or "only people with too much money to waste" yadda yadda...

But to be fair I seem to remember most of this happened early on before the lens was really released and most of the angst was directed at the price and a disbelief that the lens could compete in IQ with the much loved 70-200 f4 IS. Once people started to get their hands on it and actual user reviews showed up it was pretty much all positive.

crazybadger wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

billythek wrote:

What I don't get is why it was "unexpected"? This lens always gets great reviews. The only problem is the aperture, and the fact that the available focus points are restricted excessively on the 5D3.

When it was release it was kind of derided and mocked, for at least the entire first year. Only more recently have people, en masse, discovered that it's actually not a joke, but a pretty useful lens, with top quality (and something unique to the Canon line-up, the Nikon and third party 70-300 type lenses simply don't match up). So I could see how it could be unexpected. It really took a beating, right from the initial press release, for quite a while.

You ain't kidding there . I remember the threads claiming "canon has totally lost the plot with their pricing", or "it was the beginning of the end for canon", and "the new Tamron is going to kick its ass". Some people were REALLY upset. A number of early "reviews" by the resident armchair measurbators (those that only look at the spec charts and then pass judgement) went on and on about "who would want to buy such a thing" or "only people with too much money to waste" yadda yadda...

But to be fair I seem to remember most of this happened early on before the lens was really released and most of the angst was directed at the price and a disbelief that the lens could compete in IQ with the much loved 70-200 f4 IS. Once people started to get their hands on it and actual user reviews showed up it was pretty much all positive.

Oh, OK, I guess I missed out on the early announcement hysteria.  All the reviews I've seen from people who actually used the lens have been very positive, as are the pictures I've seen taken with it.

Steve Hoffmann wrote:

Two responders know that there was probably nothing wrong with OP's 5DIII, even though they never even saw it. One responder wonders why OP did not buy a bigger more expensive lens, just because he could afford a 1Dx. I'm confused. I thought this post was just a personal review of the 70-300L?

You can't come on this forum and deride the finest overall DSLR yet made and expect to get away with it.

billythek wrote:

crazybadger wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

billythek wrote:

What I don't get is why it was "unexpected"? This lens always gets great reviews. The only problem is the aperture, and the fact that the available focus points are restricted excessively on the 5D3.

When it was release it was kind of derided and mocked, for at least the entire first year. Only more recently have people, en masse, discovered that it's actually not a joke, but a pretty useful lens, with top quality (and something unique to the Canon line-up, the Nikon and third party 70-300 type lenses simply don't match up). So I could see how it could be unexpected. It really took a beating, right from the initial press release, for quite a while.

You ain't kidding there . I remember the threads claiming "canon has totally lost the plot with their pricing", or "it was the beginning of the end for canon", and "the new Tamron is going to kick its ass". Some people were REALLY upset. A number of early "reviews" by the resident armchair measurbators (those that only look at the spec charts and then pass judgement) went on and on about "who would want to buy such a thing" or "only people with too much money to waste" yadda yadda...

But to be fair I seem to remember most of this happened early on before the lens was really released and most of the angst was directed at the price and a disbelief that the lens could compete in IQ with the much loved 70-200 f4 IS. Once people started to get their hands on it and actual user reviews showed up it was pretty much all positive.

Oh, OK, I guess I missed out on the early announcement hysteria. All the reviews I've seen from people who actually used the lens have been very positive, as are the pictures I've seen taken with it.

Hehehe...you didn't miss anything worth while, trust me . I purchased mine based on the overwhelming positive feedback on these forums, and couldn't be happier.

JackM wrote:

You can't come on this forum and deride the finest overall DSLR yet made and expect to get away with it.

OP did not deride the 5DIII. he said "which turned out to be the 5D MK3 focusing system just not handling rapid pace sports work". Maybe he needed more than 6fps, maybe it was partially user error. In any case, that camera was returned and he claims to be getting better results with his 1DX. Whether or not HIS 5DIII had issues or not will never be known. The original post is a personal review of a lens not the 5DIII. I don't understand why folks gets so defensive of their brand/model. It almost borders on taunting sometimes.