70-300mm F 4-5.6L IS USM Review

[neuroanatomist]

Also, the "CR" guy made the following comment on a trip to Africa "If I could give you a bit of a hint of what I think about it, I’ve taken less than 10 frames with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and a few hundred with the new 70-300L. It’s not for everything, but it’s been great for a lot of things."

Although I (regrettably) did not yet have a dSLR when I spent a month in Africa, I had a 10x zoom P&S (38-380mm equivalent), and the vast majority of my shots were at one end of the range or the other. If the new 70-300mm is the longest lens he brought, it's going to see the most use. As I stated 'over there,' if CR guy had the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the new 70-300mm L,andthe 100-400mm, I wonder which would be seeing the most use? My money would be on the 100-400mm...

I'd rather just get one of the 70-200s and put a 1.4x extender on it and keep the constant aperture than buy the 70-300mm f3.5-5.6L; e.g., for 1,600 bucks I'd rather have the 70-200 f4L IS ($1,200) and a 1.4x extender II ($300), and have a little left over for a polarizer.

Well, the new 70-300mm L zoom is sharper and has less CA than the 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4x II, and it's a little sharper and has a little less CA than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 1.4x II. Plus, it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200 II or 100-400mm, and it's shorter and not substantially heavier that the 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4x II and you get the whole 70-300mm range without adding/removing the TC.


To me, this lens isn't a replacement for the 100-400mm (although Canon's marketing department may feel differently). But is an improvement upon the non-L 70-300mm lenses (non-DO and DO) that offers better IQ and weather sealing.

Personally, I would have preferred a non-pump action 100-400mm f4L IS

Constant f/4? That makes the suitable comparator Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 VR II, a lens which is 15" long, weighs 8 pounds, and costs $6500...
<div class="post"]
</div>