EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review on canonrumors.com

[mukul_chou]

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

[thekingb]

Anyone in the TDP community have this lens? Thoughts? I am torn between it and the EF 100-400.


-Brian

[DavidEccleston]

Thanks for posting this review. I'm happy to see it getting praised, as it's in my list of possible future lenses. For me though, it's a fair way off, perhaps next fall. That will give me plenty of time to see what Bryan has to say. I'd hate to give up 100mm, but it's nice to know I can get it back with a Kenko extender. I'm not sure what that's going to do to the autofocus, since the max aperture is already f/5.6 at the long end.


A Flickr pool for the lens is hereif you want more sample images.

[DavidEccleston]

Amateur review from the Flickr pool here.

[Kayaker72]

Brian,


My quick thoughts:

• 70-200 f4 if you need 70-100 mm range and really like the f4 from 100-200 mm.
• 100-400L if you would prefer the 300-400 mm range over the 70-100 mm range.
• 70-300L lens as a compromise between the two. Especially if size is important.

I know there isn't anything profound in the above thoughts, but really, those are the primary differentiators (to me) for those three lenses. As many others have commented when the 70-300L was introduced, it came into a niche that was already occupied by other lenses, so differentiating it between those other lenses isn't going to be easy. But that does make it intriguing for people that do want a"compromise" lens. The thing that I am most intrigued by with the 70-300L (besides the weather sealing, modern design, 4 stop IS, etc) is what the reviewers are describing as very fast and accurate AF. Maybe I am reading something into their comments, but that seems to be a reoccuring theme in the reviews, which makes me wonder if that feature really stands out for the 70-300L.


If you decide to get the 70-300L,you may want towait until next spring/summer rebates to see if it is on the list and to give some time for the price to drop. That would also give time for Brian's review. Thus far the canonrumors guy and another link from canonrumors.com are really favorable of the 70-300L. Photozone.de has it as "highly recommended" for a crop body, but not as favorable for FF.And in lensrentals.com "Rogers Take" basically says good lens, but he'd rather spend his not so hard earned money ()on something else...such as the 70-200 f4.


If you decide on the 100-400L, the price is pretty darn good right now.


Brant

[thekingb]

Brant - thanks for your thoughts. You are absolutely correct that the 70-300 would be a compromise, as I am sure that I would miss the 300-400mm range. I am just spooked that (1) a new version of the 100-400 will be announced soon and (2) its IS is an early implementation and less effective. In other words, the 70-300 is latest gen tech, whereas the 100-400 is 12 year-old tech.


Waiting would be wise, but as Tom Petty said, it

[Kayaker72]

I wasconcerned about the same things when I bought the 100-400L in September. I decided to not worry about the lenses that weren't yet released (or in the case of the 70-300L-available) asthe resale on Canon L lenses is so good. So my logic was that if I bought the 100-400L, used for a year, and then sold it, I would be paying ~$300-$400 of "rent" for a year of use and then I would buy what I wanted summer of 2011. But thus far, I plan to keep the 100-400L.


As for the IS, I own the EFS 15-85 that has 4 stop IS and the 100-400L with 2 stop IS. Basically, the IS in the EFS 15-85 is amazing. It is quiet, you don't feel anything, it is fast and it is legitimately 4 stops. The IS on the 100-400Lhums/whirls, I can feel movements now and again (magnets?),but it is legitimately 2 stops. The CR guy's review said that he was hand holding numerous shots at 1/50 secat 300 mm. 4 stop IS on a FF, I would have expected even lower (~1/20) and maybe he didn't try 1/20th. On the 100-400L, I'd say 1/160th-1/200th sec is the best I can use on my 7Dand still have a sharp hand held shot. So is it less effective? Sure, but it is still effective.

[Jonathan Huyer]

As an alternative to the new 70-300, consider the venerable70-200 f/2.8L. The original version is cheaper than the new70-300, and it works brilliantly with the 1.4 TC. I can get the same focal length coverage as the 70-300, although obviously not quite as conveniently. On the plus side, my setup gives me f/2.8 from 70-200 and f/4 from 98-280 with the TC in place. And I really, really like what f/2.8 provides for photography.


Here's a shot taken with my 70-200 f/2.8L with the 1.4 TC, handheld from a kayak (at ISO 1600)


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1884._5F00_M3_5F00_2663.jpg[/img]