70-300L change of mind

I never really was a big fan of the different 70-300 on the market I always liked the range but not what was available. Either the IQ at 300 was poor or the lens just wasn’t built well enough to survive longer than a year. In fact I went through several 70-300 IS which all ended up as paperweight. At the end I covered the range with a either a 2.8 or 4.0 70-200 and a 1.4 II converter. As I had to replace the 4.0/70-200 (hit a rock really badly ) the choice was either go with what I knew is a terrific lens or give the first L 70-300 a try. After lots of thoughts I decided to go for L 70-300, what a lens the IQ is really up on the level of the 70-200 and the bokeh at 300 is nicer than with either of the 70-200 with converter. Mechanically the lens doesn’t disappoint but I really don’t like arrangement of the zoom/focus ring it took me quite a while to get used to the zoom-ring in the front. And the second really annoying fact is that the tripod mount ring is not included for the price Canon asks - just include it. Is as good as the 2.8/300?? No at 300mm of course not;   between 299 and 70mm  it is by far the better lens .   a happy camper.

+ IS works stunningly well, IQ doesn’t disappoint, AF is very fast, no problems with strong backlight, versatile range, not heavy at all and ideal for having in my jacket when I am out with 500 or 600 including tripod.

- Af in low light sometimes hunts at the long end of the lens (a problem of being a 5.6 lens), extreme focus breathing at the long end and close focus – in fact it gives roughly the same magnification as the 4.0/70-200 at 1.2m means same focal length

300mm

yes, the 70-300L is indeed very good.  However, unless you are using your lens as a weapon, its highly unusual for 70-300 Non L to last you for only one year..... twice.

Its interesting what you say about focus breathing.  Fist I have heard about it on this lens.  I just tested it, and you are absolutely correct.  its only about 10-20mm longer than 70-200 f4 IS at MFD.

this is usefule information for me, as I often shoot hummingbirds with it at very close distance.  the 70-200 f4 IS is a stop faster, and lighter.

kevindar wrote:

yes, the 70-300L is indeed very good. However, unless you are using your lens as a weapon, its highly unusual for 70-300 Non L to last you for only one year..... twice.

Its interesting what you say about focus breathing. Fist I have heard about it on this lens. I just tested it, and you are absolutely correct. its only about 10-20mm longer than 70-200 f4 IS at MFD.

this is usefule information for me, as I often shoot hummingbirds with it at very close distance. the 70-200 f4 IS is a stop faster, and lighter.

He was talking about the non L breaking. And I can see that. No one would rate a L that breaks in a year that high.

its interesting that you quoted me without properly reading what I wrote, and then proceeded to correct a mistake which was not there  Read it again.

kevindar wrote:

its interesting that you quoted me without properly reading what I wrote, and then proceeded to correct a mistake which was not there Read it again.

Sorry, my mistake.  Still I kind of see the 70-300 non-L not lasting in wildlife shots like the pictures he have shown (well if you baby it even in the outdoors it should be ok, but lenses shot by wildlife shooters typically aren't the type of lenses that you can sell on ebay or CL as mint condition)

Timbukto wrote:

kevindar wrote:

its interesting that you quoted me without properly reading what I wrote, and then proceeded to correct a mistake which was not there Read it again.

Sorry, my mistake. Still I kind of see the 70-300 non-L not lasting in wildlife shots like the pictures he have shown (well if you baby it even in the outdoors it should be ok, but lenses shot by wildlife shooters typically aren't the type of lenses that you can sell on ebay or CL as mint condition)

kevindar wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

kevindar wrote:

its interesting that you quoted me without properly reading what I wrote, and then proceeded to correct a mistake which was not there Read it again.

Sorry, my mistake. Still I kind of see the 70-300 non-L not lasting in wildlife shots like the pictures he have shown (well if you baby it even in the outdoors it should be ok, but lenses shot by wildlife shooters typically aren't the type of lenses that you can sell on ebay or CL as mint condition)

I had one too...I think the biggest potential point of failure on the non-L is that its probably the largest lens I've ever owned that still utilizes front element/cam rotation on focus.  I think that might be a point of failure but that is just pure speculation on my part.  50mm 1.4 has a bad reputation for AF failure and it has a slightly protruding lip that is coupled to its AF motor.  The 70-300 non-L in comparison has a huge rotating cam that may be coupled to its AF motor and like the 50mm 1.4 it uses a cheaper grade of USM (gear based?) compared to many L Ring USMs.

It was the none L 70-300…which is a nice lens for what it is.

The sealing against moisture is just not good enough when you camp in the rain forest for two months (was the first one hitting the bin) and neither does it like sand when working in the desert. I agree I don’t pamper my equipment but then they are tools for me which have to earn me my living. Whereas my L lenses often are not that much better in terms of IQ they really take bad conditions and treatment much better than their less expensive relatives.

-A 12/25mm extension tube gives you back some of the focal length of the 70-300 works really well I use it sometimes for venomous snakes when longer is better.

drbird wrote:

It was the none L 70-300…which is a nice lens for what it is.

The sealing against moisture is just not good enough when you camp in the rain forest for two months (was the first one hitting the bin) and neither does it like sand when working in the desert. I agree I don’t pamper my equipment but then they are tools for me which have to earn me my living. Whereas my L lenses often are not that much better in terms of IQ they really take bad conditions and treatment much better than their less expensive relatives.

That would certainly do them in.  Based on what I saw the 70-300 non-L seemed very 'drafty' in its design.  My 85mm 1.8 does not have any extending barrels and internally focuses and collects dust like a vacuum.  So to see a large telephoto that pretty much ignores weather sealing of any kind is inviting failure in the conditions you cite.

rebel99 wrote:

kevindar wrote:

yes, the 70-300L is indeed very good. However, unless you are using your lens as a weapon, its highly unusual for 70-300 Non L to last you for only one year..... twice.

Its interesting what you say about focus breathing. Fist I have heard about it on this lens. I just tested it, and you are absolutely correct. its only about 10-20mm longer than 70-200 f4 IS at MFD.

this is usefule information for me, as I often shoot hummingbirds with it at very close distance. the 70-200 f4 IS is a stop faster, and lighter.

kevindar, unfortunately i lost my 70-200 f4.0IS a couple weeks ago and i need to replace it. i am really hesitant to purchase a new f4.0IS and replace the lost one or get 70-300 L IS, which has a superb IQ, almost the same as f4.0IS. in the same time, i do have a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. i strongly feel like going for the 70-300 L which is nice for travels since i do have the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS already, what would you do? appreciate your input

chears.

I followed the 70-200 F4IS with the 70-300L and was not disappointed. Maybe ever so slightly less sharp, but not so you'd notice.

rebel99 wrote:

kevindar wrote:

yes, the 70-300L is indeed very good. However, unless you are using your lens as a weapon, its highly unusual for 70-300 Non L to last you for only one year..... twice.

Its interesting what you say about focus breathing. Fist I have heard about it on this lens. I just tested it, and you are absolutely correct. its only about 10-20mm longer than 70-200 f4 IS at MFD.

this is usefule information for me, as I often shoot hummingbirds with it at very close distance. the 70-200 f4 IS is a stop faster, and lighter.

kevindar, unfortunately i lost my 70-200 f4.0IS a couple weeks ago and i need to replace it. i am really hesitant to purchase a new f4.0IS and replace the lost one or get 70-300 L IS, which has a superb IQ, almost the same as f4.0IS. in the same time, i do have a 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. i strongly feel like going for the 70-300 L which is nice for travels since i do have the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS already, what would you do? appreciate your input

chears.

You logic is sound.  optically, there is nothing that separates the two lenses.  both are stellar. 300 goes to 300, but its not a constant aperture.  its fatter and heavier and extends, but packs smaller.  Both are very fast focusing, with a very slight edge to the 70-200 f4 IS.  the 70-200 is also a touch less expensive.  However, If I were in your shoes, I would go with te 70-300 L IS.

For me the IQ of the 70-300 L is good enough even at 300 the images turn out quite sharp (see the samples of the deer males in the water (view the 1:1 and you should see the pixel level). Theonly thing which annoyed me –in particular at the beginning- was the handling to have zoom and focus ring not in the place I was used to for so many years was quite tricky at the beginning. Even now after thousands of images I sometimes turn the wrong one but that may be me working with Canon 70-200 since decades. If you think you benefit from the 200-300 range go for it is stunning lens small and light enough for the pocket and you still have the 2.8/70-200 when you need the speed.

"extreme focus breathing at the long end and close focus – in fact it gives roughly the same magnification as the 4.0/70-200 at 1.2m means same focal length"

Can I just check that I understand what you mean by this? That when set to 300mm and focused on something very close, it seems to give the same image as a 70-200 at 200mm?

What about at longer focusing distances? Do you have any feel for what distance you need to be at before it starts acting like a 300mm lens?

Yes at minimum focus distance you roughly end up with the same focal length as the 4.0/70-200 has. Focus breathing is quite common nowadays in modern designs, I guess it doesn't bother most people or most don't realize it. Just look at all the 18-200(300) and the like they suffer massive from focus breathing as does one of the newer Nikon 2.8/80-200. An extension tube often helps to get some of the original focal length back (you basically focus with extension and avoid the IF-mechanism which mostly is responsible for the focus breathing – but also for the compact size, ice IQ and blazing fast AF of modern lens)

No I didn’t really check at what distance it kicks in, I often use it at 300mm around 5-10m and it works out very similar to my 2.8/300. But as soon as I get the tripod mount for the lens I will compare it to the 2.8/300 to get some valid data.

70-300L is an awesome lens! I bought one myself when considering 70-200 f/4 IS and I have been very happy with it. The IQ is outstanding! Based on images I have managed to click with this lens I sometimes think that this lens is under-rated or probably not covered as much as 70-200 series. The extra range, portability makes it very handy to even carry it in small camera holster along with you for any casual day trips. Here are some samples from mine:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sachinsawe/14952005710/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sachinsawe/15182400861/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sachinsawe/15185673615/

and a couple of more...

Taken at a children's park

Taken at a beach