Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2015 · 70-300L vs. non-L?

  
 
hcm228
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


With the lenses you already have, I personally would probably just pick up a 1.4x adapter. on the 70-200 its sharper then the non L and so close to the L its scary. But thats just my opinion.


May 22, 2015 at 07:28 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


If you are shooting crop, you shoult seriously also look at the 55-250 STM lens. small, light, and sharp, and better focus thatn 70-300. I have owned the tamron and canon, and well as the canon L. The tamron is heavier, its better built. Optically it may be marginally better at 300.

The L, as everyone else says, is well deserving of its L designation. Super fast AF, and excellent color and contrast, similar to what you get out of the 70-200 2.8L II, which is quite a complement

on 70D (crop sensor), 300 f 5.6

Spring Hummer by kevindar, on Flickr

Spring Hummer by kevindar, on Flickr



May 23, 2015 at 05:59 PM
charlesk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


Wow, very nice shots there.

Just purchased a 70-300IS from a regular here, hoping it arrives Thursday.

I have a 1.4 adapter, but the 70-200 is not a carry-around lens, at least not for me. I am just hoping the larger 70-300IS will fit in my frontloader.

I shoot a 5D2 at present.



May 26, 2015 at 07:51 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


the non L is very good . But it does have several drawbacks .

1: the AF is not the full ring USM and having owned one will say its not as good .

2: at 300mm its not the sharpest . but it is still decent .

3: the IS isn't upto the latest IS standards

4: the front element rotates . not an issue unless you use a CPL

.
Now in the 70-300 class with IS the L is the KING . but its not cheap and is quite fat to hold and store in a small walk about bag . next down I would put the the Tamron VC version . its a very good lens and a real bargain . probably next Id put the 70-200/4 IS + TC (ok its not 300 but its probably pretty close to the others at close to normal distances) . next up would be the non IS and then the DO . the DO has the advantage of ring USM but really isn't that much smaller than the non L .



May 26, 2015 at 08:14 AM
samfowler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


I bought one refurbished from Canon (L version) a couple years ago or more for about $1000. Its one of my best lenses I have and with no regrets buying it. I have seen and used the non-L version - and to be honest, I would use the non-L as a door stop or a weapon to hit someone with.

Here are a few shots taken with mine.

https://flic.kr/p/eZjX59
https://flic.kr/p/eZjWME
https://flic.kr/p/eZ8Bt8
https://flic.kr/p/eGXVoc
https://flic.kr/p/eHeuZy
https://flic.kr/p/eH8whe
https://flic.kr/p/eGUdNe
https://flic.kr/p/eH5TS2
https://flic.kr/p/eH1ju3
https://flic.kr/p/eGUtV4
https://flic.kr/p/eH1JJS
https://flic.kr/p/eGCGKw

That L version is one heck of a lens.


Website



May 26, 2015 at 08:37 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


I picked up a refurbished 70-300 IS several years ago. It couldn't focus but the optics were good. Not quite as good as my 60-300 Tamron at 300, which is one of the best before the newer L and Tamron, apparently. Miniscule difference between 60-300 & 70-300 IS at 300. 70-300 IS beat the miserable old 100-300L at 300.

70-300 type zooms seem really good from 70-200, not so good past 200. My Tamron (672d?) was actually sharper at 5.6 than my 180 Tamron at f/5!



May 26, 2015 at 04:08 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 70-300L vs. non-L?


AmbientMike wrote:
I picked up a refurbished 70-300 IS several years ago. It couldn't focus but the optics were good. Not quite as good as my 60-300 Tamron at 300, which is one of the best before the newer L and Tamron, apparently. Miniscule difference between 60-300 & 70-300 IS at 300. 70-300 IS beat the miserable old 100-300L at 300.


Never used one but I thought the old 100-300L was meant to be OK optically . just not great in the AF department (old micro AF) .
Funny thing is I used to have a 100-300 USM before I got the 70-300 IS . the 100-300 USM wasnt great in the IQ department but its Ring USM was great . I would say it was as fast if not faster as the AF in the slower than 2.8 L lenses . It would certainly knock the socks off my 24-105L (but then my old 28-105 USM could do that with its hands tied )
sham Canon didnt see fit to stick that USM drive in the 70-300 IS . then we would have had alens that could go toe to toe with the Nikon offering which was (and still is) supurb value for a very good lens




May 26, 2015 at 04:28 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.