Great travel zoom!

I've shy'd away from canon 70-300mm zooms all my life in favor of the 2.8 zooms. I have to have 2.8 for my event work, fast action, available light. However, on a recent trip, I found the 2.8 too big for my travel space. Owning the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, the 300mm 2.8 L IS and the 500mm f4 L II, I really didn't want to sacrifice IQ for size/space. After several recommendations, I purchased the 70-300mm L for the trip. Wow, was I impressed! Small, light, great color and IQ, it surpassed my expectations. I can't let go of the 2.8 as I have to have it to make money, but if you don't have to have 2.8, or need a travel lens that's smaller and has more reach, this is the one! Much better than the previous travel choice (the 100-400mm L). Converters are possible with the 70D or any future cameras with dual pix AF. With canon converters only at 300mm but with kenko or tamron there is more FL versatility.

In most situations, however, the IQ will be better by cropping than by using a converter.

I have 6D and 7D and Many Canon zooms including 70-200L f4 IS, 100-400 and 28-300L. If the 70-300 you suggested weighs 2.1 lbs, how do you suggest it's a travel lens? I find the lenses I mentioned heavy to carry around, but, then again, I'm old.

Thanks for your response.

Kent

KENTGA wrote:

I have 6D and 7D and Many Canon zooms including 70-200L f4 IS, 100-400 and 28-300L. If the 70-300 you suggested weighs 2.1 lbs, how do you suggest it's a travel lens? I find the lenses I mentioned heavy to carry around, but, then again, I'm old.

Thanks for your response.

Kent

I tend to agree with the above sentiment. "Travel" tends to presuppose light(er) weight, and the 70-200L f/4 is already pushing it, never mind the 70-300L. You want range and even lighter weight for travel, try the optically-good EF-S 55-250STM IS at 375 grams.

First of all I'm 72 years old and I have 6D and 7D and the lenses I described. I bought an SL 1 with an 18-135 STM which I've used several times for walking around and also got a 55-250 STM which I haven't yet used. It's hard to believe how light the combo is and the photos are very, very acceptable to me.

Not trying to get off the OP's thread, but this is what I call light.

Kent

Many FF shooters who long ago left APS-C don't realize how good today's APS-C and EF-S lenses can be. A 650D with the 55-250STM lens weighs 950 grams. That is the top travel telefoto zoom option, imo.

Indeed I have the 70-300L as well, really razor sharp images even at full aperture !
For such a demanding field as astrophotography (besides flowers, etc.) even it makes really nice photos !
And filming airplanes at full altitude works nice thanks to the great IS !

jrobichaud wrote:

The weight is ok, but there is no other tele zoom that weighs less that is an optical option in my opinion. the biggest advantage is size, it's the only one that fits well in my aw200 sling bag with this level IQ at 300mm.

I was looking to a smaller alternative to my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, 300mm 2.8 IS etc.

Hehe..you seem to be catching a rough ride for the travel statement :). I hear what you're saying though. I love the lens as a walk around travel lens. The lens is nice and compact and I can easily carry it all day at a zoo/park. It's a funny little lens in that when you hold it in hand it feels every bit the indicated weight, but put it on the camera and it seems to immediately get lighter. I think it is just the way the weight is distributed between the camera/lens, with so much of the weight being nearer the camera rather than hanging out in front. The short length also means I can easily fit it into a nice sling bag, rather than needing a bigger back-pack type bag like when I carry my 100-400. My better half doesn't give me that "your not carrying THAT bag around all day today are you" look when I grab my sling bag with the 70-300L in it . Anyway, 6D with the 70-300L is certainly the most travelled set up I have. Glad you're liking yours.

My travel zoom is a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens.  No, it is not as sharp as an "L" lens but it is compact and light.

KENTGA wrote:

I have 6D and 7D and Many Canon zooms including 70-200L f4 IS, 100-400 and 28-300L. If the 70-300 you suggested weighs 2.1 lbs, how do you suggest it's a travel lens? I find the lenses I mentioned heavy to carry around, but, then again, I'm old.

Thanks for your response.

Kent

For what it's worth, the 70-300L actually takes less space than 70-200L F4 IS.  It fits in the bag easier, and that was the deciding factor for me.  I will add that the "travel lens" notion has always baffled me... Not a pro, I cannot think of a more exciting reason to use my best glass than during travel :).  I mean, buying a great lens and leaving it home when heading to Paris?  I could never do that...  Mind you, no spring chicken either ;).

Peter

This is off subject, but I've read that having your equipment stolen in Cuba isn't a problem because there aren't any pawn shops or fences there and if you get caught, the penalties are severe. Hopefully will open for US citizens and it will be reasonable $$$ wise to travel there.

Kent

George Spencer wrote:

My travel zoom is a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens. No, it is not as sharp as an "L" lens but it is compact and light.

Same here. The fact that the 70-300DO is roughly the same dimensions as my 24-70 F4L is also a bonus for lens swapping.