p.1 #1 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
I read a couple of previews. I think about purchasing this lens and would love to see your favourite pictures as samples. Please feel free, to give me some comments about your experience with that glas, too.
p.1 #3 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Ralph Conway wrote:
I read a couple of previews. I think about purchasing this lens and would love to see your favourite pictures as samples. Please feel free, to give me some comments about your experience with that glas, too.
Thank you very much.
Ralph
So behind on my getting pics posted up I don't really have ones to show online just as yet but I can say that's nice glass.
A bit worse than my 70-200 f/4 IS was at the middle of the range but actually sharper than that one near 70mm and even near 200mm a touch sharper there at f/5 and f/5.6 than the f/4 IS was as well. Noticeably better IQ 201mm-280mm than the f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III had been. Noticeably more CA at 70mm (but also noticeably sharper) and less CA at 200mm.
AF speed very similar to that on the 70-200 f/4 IS (unless you add a TC or extension tube, then it can become slow and super hunty and not so good).
a bit heavier and fatter, but shorter
maybe I dig up a file or two from it to post tomorrow
p.1 #4 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Wow! Thank you both! And thank you very much, "skibum5"! That is not my sports, but it looks very much like one of my next lenses! Which camera did you use?
p.1 #5 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Ralph Conway wrote:
Wow! Thank you both! And thank you very much, "skibum5"! That is not my sports, but it looks very much like one of my next lenses! Which camera did you use?
p.1 #7 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Thank you both. I use a Sigma 50 1.4, a 100 2.8 L, a 24-105 4.0, a 70-200 4.0, regulary, but I sold my 24-105 and 70-200. Now I might go into Motorsports and would like to purchase a Lense that recovers this range and gives me some more.
A 28-300 would do the range. But it is much to havy for me carrying around 8-10 hours. And (in germany) it is more expensive than a 24-70 (or 24-105) and the 70-300 L.
So I am back to purchase two lenses again to cover my needs.
p.1 #10 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Ralph, I shoot mainly wildlife and the 70-300L IS and is always attached to one of my bodies.
I've had it for quite a while and I'm very happy with the lens. Sharp, fast focusing and with an excellent IQ. I also have the 70-200/2.8 IS MkII and it is hard to tell the difference between the two lenses from the images. It has replaced my 100-400.
I let the images speak
Socrate
p.1 #13 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Wow, nice images displayed here ! Indeed, that lens seems to be a great performer. As light and compact as the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS but with more reach, but slower and more expensive. As fast as the 100-400mm, but lighter and more compact but less reach. A great compromise between the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS and the 100-400mm, I guess. For sure, Canon's offering in this range doesn't fall short.
p.1 #14 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Fntastic "macro", Socrate! The only thing holding me back from swapping it with my 300 f4 IS, is the fact the latter will take TCs, with no real issues...
p.1 #15 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Very nice images all!
I am seriously considering switching over to this lens from my very heavy Sigma 100-300mm f/4 partly because that extra 30mm at the lower end would be nice to have (minimal kit for backpacking).
However, the images from this lens always seem to be missing a little bit of magic in comparison to the Sigma. Maybe it's the lack of F/4 on the longer end, but the images seem to be very sharp but lack some pop and contrast and the bokeh is also far from creamy.
Just comparing the flickriver of the respective lenses, the Sigma images just seem to be much more enchanting; although, this might have more to do with the differences in user demographic and the newness of the canon lens (the best shots are yet to come).
p.1 #17 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Well, I thought it falls under fair use, since it was merely for demonstration purposes -- I cannot conceive how the original photographer would be displeased with my posting his work -- but since I may be treading a murky waters here, I took the picture down.
p.1 #19 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
AGeoJO wrote:
Wow, nice images displayed here ! Indeed, that lens seems to be a great performer. As light and compact as the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS but with more reach, but slower and more expensive. As fast as the 100-400mm, but lighter and more compact but less reach. A great compromise between the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS and the 100-400mm, I guess. For sure, Canon's offering in this range doesn't fall short.
I have the F4IS and considered the 100-400L when I bought the 70-300L. I went with the 70-300 because it was about 2/3 the size of the larger, longer lens, and it also had better IS and the latest coatings. I was also concerned the 100-400L might be replaced, but that wasn't really too much of a factor. I could use 400mm at times though. I guess there are always compromises. I went for the more compact package for travel.
If you don't need the extra reach the 70-200 F4IS is a fantastic lens. However I was adding a 1.4TC often in windy, dusty conditions and that made me look for a longer native alternative.
p.1 #20 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
shoenberg3 wrote:
Well, I thought it falls under fair use, since it was merely for demonstration purposes -- I cannot conceive how the original photographer would be displeased with my posting his work -- but since I may be treading a murky waters here, I took the picture down.
Instead of posting the picture, just provide a link to it.
FM Forum Rules: Do not violate copyright laws, or misrepresent someone else's work as your own. You may not use or publish any of the photographs displayed on these pages without express permission from the original photographer. No exceptions.
and people would be damn if I only had that 18-55 non-IS instead of this crummy super-tele POS 
merci
! Indeed, that lens seems to be a great performer. As light and compact as the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS but with more reach, but slower and more expensive. As fast as the 100-400mm, but lighter and more compact but less reach. A great compromise between the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS and the 100-400mm, I guess. For sure, Canon's offering in this range doesn't fall short.