p.2 #1 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Again: Thank you very much. You all helped me a lot, to make a decision.
If my next body offer 25k native ISO, this lens is my next lens instead of the 70-200 4.0.
p.2 #3 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Thxs.
I read this, too. I will not use it with an extender, I guess. To do my pictures, 300 will be long enough (for now). And if, I do not know the new ones from canon. Concerning the old ones, as far as I know, the Kenko 1.4x was better and cheaper than the Canon equivalent.
p.2 #6 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
quick shot from side road parking lot, saw amazing sunset behind, managed to find a spot off the highway to stop just in time before the colors faded for a couple quick shots, 70-300L (not sure what random shots demonstrate but anyway if it leads to EOSfun....):
oops forgot i actually used 24 and 100 maro combo and not 24 and 70-300 and trip so as aother poster pointed out this photo was taken with 100L macro not 70-300L
p.2 #7 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
I bought the 70-300 last year in HK and it has basically been my go to lens since for travel
It works Great with the Kenko 1.4 TC and the IQ is awesome.
As previous mentioned by other members, small, light and crazy IS and Focus speed!
Whats not to like! (just the price... )
but I have owned 3 copies of the 100-400 and this lens beats it for IQ and speed.
100mm longer is nice but thats why you have the Crop option!
p.2 #8 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
Thank you all a lot. I do not know if I told you before. I never in 35 years of shooting now went above 200mm. I did a test shooting with a friends 100-400 at a group of bison buffalos (yes, here in germany :-) ). That it was. It was nice and necessary (because of the distance). But it really is not my way of shooting. I guess the 100+ to 200 will give me new possibilities and maybe I would use a kenko TC to get more reach for motorsports (what I tried to get into). But I would love to have that 28-300 in that IQ. It would cover all my needs with one of those new bodies at usable ISO 25-51k.
Because it is not as fast and good as far I read, and it is more expensive than a 24-105 AND the 70-300 too, I think I would brefere to chooses the first two and add a backup body this year.
p.2 #11 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
If anybody has any direct comparison of the Kenko pro 1.4 against the Canon mk3 I would love to hear it as I have been considering a 1.4tc for use with my 400 5.6 that would also work with my70-300l
p.2 #12 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
f anybody has any direct comparison of the Kenko pro 1.4 against the Canon mk3 I would love to hear it as I have been considering a 1.4tc for use with my 400 5.6 that would also work with my70-300l
I had both, brought the kenko with my 1DMKII with my 400 5.6 and 70-300L
Worked Great on both. As others have mentioned, Canon TC will not fit the 70-300L due to weather seal protusion. Get the Pro Kenko, not the older model.
Compared the 400 5.6 with both extenders will hardly any difference, mind u its a VER II version so I assume the Ver III would be better?
Still interested in the comparison. I have been reluctant to purchase this lens using my good olde Zuiko 50-250 with bean bag and tripod or contax N 70-200 converted but the IS and reach is tempting.
Certainly could be the test procedure as some nice Zeiss glass with a bit of field curvature dosen't test as well as expected but is stellar in use.
Was just about to pull the trigger on this before the rebate expires but may need a push. :-)
Any comments appreciated.
Mike
Certainly could be the test procedure as some nice Zeiss glass with a bit of field curvature dosen't test as well as expected but is stellar in use.
Was just about to pull the trigger on this before the rebate expires but may need a push. :-)
Any comments appreciated.
Mike
Well SLRGear said the OLD abysmal Tarmon 70-300 non-VC was better than the 70-300L never mind just the old Canon 70-300 IS on-L! Not sure what is going on with them there. I do notice that even their own numbers don't support their text and that they also used different bodies for some of the tests and maybe they directly compared ratings anyway by accident too And maybe they got a bad copy on top. Bizarre.
I wouldn't worry too much about it.... unless you get their returned copy from the store as new. (even then I'm not sure it's half as bad as they said, even according to their own numbers )
Look at photozone.de ratings for it or my samples comparing it to 70-200 f/4 IS or that guy on the net with a blog who did the same comparison, if you want to feel better about pulling the trigger (to buy the lens).
p.2 #16 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
skibum5 wrote:
quick shot from side road parking lot, saw amazing sunset behind, managed to find a spot off the highway to stop just in time before the colors faded for a couple quick shots, 70-300L (not sure what random shots demonstrate but anyway if it leads to EOSfun....): http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-kBXcthn/0/X3/i-kBXcthn-X3.jpg
...ummm, Exif says your image is shot with the EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM...
p.2 #17 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
John_T wrote:
...ummm, Exif says your image is shot with the EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM...
100L? inconceivable!
errr actually maybe that word doesn't mean what I think that word means.... not the word 70-300L either.... ohh damn, you are correct, ahh man I forgot that I had the 24 1.4 II and 100 2.8L with me and not the 24 and 70-300 that I usually do, took this a few weeks ago on the way into NYC for the tree, so used to using my 70-300L for stuff like that I forgot! sorry, ooppssss, forever shamed.
p.2 #18 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
No shame in a beautiful shot, doesn't matter what it was made with. I wasn't checkin up on you, just looking how late that was and what you had to do to get it.
p.2 #20 · Show your EF 70-300 3.5-5.6 L IS pictures please
John_T wrote:
No shame in a beautiful shot, doesn't matter what it was made with. I wasn't checkin up on you, just looking how late that was and what you had to do to get it.
cut across 10 lanes of traffic and race across a gravel parking lot, spin the car and leap out before it comes to a stop and fire off a frame just before the color drops away
ok, not quite, but closer than you think, glad I got the quick snap, the sunset just kept getting better and better and I was trapped on a super highway and most of the time I could only see it in the sideview and rearview mirror, finally my exit just in time to catch the very tail end of it, just barely managed to cross over and pull into a parking lot in time.
)
never mind just the old Canon 70-300 IS on-L! Not sure what is going on with them there. I do notice that even their own numbers don't support their text and that they also used different bodies for some of the tests and maybe they directly compared ratings anyway by accident too
And maybe they got a bad copy on top. Bizarre.