Anyone shoot the 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM?

[canoli]

I shoot the U.S. Open (tennis) from the stands every year. On a 40D 200mm is perfectly acceptable (except in Arthur Ashe Stadium). Now I'm using the 5D and I want that same reach. Using a teleconverter on my 70-200 2.8IS is a possibility.


I can't afford the 300/2.8 and they won't let you in with it anyway unless you're credentialed. The 300 f/4 is tempting but I keep coming across these great reviews of the 70-300 f/4-5.6.


Bryan's is the "worst" one I've read and he never says it's a bad lens, he merely points out its deficiencies. I'm hoping to hear from folks who've shot this lens. I'm specifically interested in the IQ at 300mm on a FF sensor.


Thanks for any thoughts and experience you can share!

[neuroanatomist]

Compare the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 280mm with the 70-300mm @ 300mm - with both at f/8 ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API= 4&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =4&APIComp=3) or with both wide open ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API= 1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =4&APIComp=1), on a FF 1DsIII. Not too different in the center, but the 70-200 + 1.4x is the clear winner in the mid-frame and at the corners - that's one big benefit of an L-series lens.


If you use a CPL, the rotating front element on the 70-300mm will probably drive you nuts.

[Mark Elberson]

If I were you I'd rock out to my 40D and 70-200 f/2.8 rather than put an extra $500 into the 70-300 f/4-5.6 to mount on a 5D I. It's a perfectly fine lens but it's pretty soft at 300mm and as far as "equivalency" goes a tad bit shorter and slower than the aforementioned combo. This is a great example of choosing the right tool for the job. I know you just got your 5D and probably hate putting it down (I shoot a 5D II and rarely use my 50D unless I'm shooting an event with two bodies) but in this case I think your 40D better fits the bill.

[crosbyharbison]

I've used the 70-300 and loved it. I used f/8-11 mostly and the results were very sharp. I borrow it whenever I need light telephoto lens that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. I wouldn't choose this for anything low light.

[canoli]

Hey you guys - thanks so much for your replies - was away for a week - very happy to finally get a chance to read your comments.


For shooting sports from the stands I guess the 1.6x really is the right choice. It's not like there's anything wrong with the 40D images.


40D 70-200 2.8 IS @ 150mm (1/800 @ f/4 ISO 200)


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/carolyn_5F00_bckhnd.jpg


I still may get that 70-300, just because like CH mentioned it is so much lighter and less obtrusive compared to the 70-200 2.8 IS. Also...480mm? That's almost irresistible!


maybe one day I'll have this hanging over my shoulder... [:)] (although what he's wearing around his neck (you can barely see it) is the real coveted prize...) Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/20090903_5F00_MG_5F00_2185_5F00_400mm.jpg

[peety3]

My standard advice applies here as always: just shoot with the glass you have, and crop. You'll have plenty of pixels to work with.