This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 201070-300 IS L came
p.1 #170-300 IS L came
One thing I noted right away: its a rear focus design, so when focusing at near distance its not 300mm any more, maybe 220. When shot side-by-side with the 70-300 IS consumer lens at infinity, the fields of view are identical. Shoo them both focused at 4 feet away and the consumer lens is still 300mm (same field as the 300 f4) but the 70-300 L is looks more like 240mm.
Below are shots at the same 4 feet distance with the 70-300 IS consumer lens and the 70-300 IS L, both at 300mm.
70-300 IS L
http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/image/130274719/medium.jpg
70-300 IS consumer
http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/image/130274689/medium.jpg
I don't think looking at just one copy is enough to make a major impression, but I'm fairly underwhelmed. The IS is excellent. Its a bit sharper than the consumer grade 70-300. If other copies are no better than this one, though, I'll take the consumer zoom and keep the extra $1k.
Below are shots at the same 4 feet distance with the 70-300 IS consumer lens and the 70-300 IS L, both at 300mm.
70-300 IS L
http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/image/130274719/medium.jpg
70-300 IS consumer
http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/image/130274689/medium.jpg
I don't think looking at just one copy is enough to make a major impression, but I'm fairly underwhelmed. The IS is excellent. Its a bit sharper than the consumer grade 70-300. If other copies are no better than this one, though, I'll take the consumer zoom and keep the extra $1k.
Nov 12, 2010 at 02:17 PM
p.1 #270-300 IS L came
Hi Roger...if you have a chance could you compare it to Tamron 70-300 VC ?. Thanks!
Nov 12, 2010 at 02:24 PM
p.1 #370-300 IS L came
Is the contrast better above 225mm where the non-L starts to fade?
Nov 12, 2010 at 02:25 PM
p.1 #570-300 IS L came
Its a bit better resolution and contrast at the long end than the standard, but it also seems to vignette a bit more wide open (not something I care about much, but some do). I've never shot the Tamron, so no experience there at all.
I don't want to form an opinion on just one copy: this one may not be up to snuff and the ones coming next week better. But on 3 different cameras I'm just not $1,500 impressed yet. Maybe this copy just isn't what it should be.
I don't want to form an opinion on just one copy: this one may not be up to snuff and the ones coming next week better. But on 3 different cameras I'm just not $1,500 impressed yet. Maybe this copy just isn't what it should be.
Nov 12, 2010 at 03:57 PM
p.1 #670-300 IS L came
Roger, when you get a moment, can you please compare the new lens to the following other lenses:
300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Nov 12, 2010 at 04:01 PM
p.1 #770-300 IS L came
PetKal wrote:
Roger, when you get a moment, can you please compare the new lens to the following other lenses:
300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Peter, you forgot to ask him to compare the classic 35-350L as well if he has one lying about! I bet you do?
Roger, when you get a moment, can you please compare the new lens to the following other lenses:
300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Peter, you forgot to ask him to compare the classic 35-350L as well if he has one lying about!
I bet you do? Nov 12, 2010 at 04:11 PM
p.1 #870-300 IS L came
RCicala wrote:
Its a bit better resolution and contrast at the long end than the standard, but it also seems to vignette a bit more wide open (not something I care about much, but some do). I've never shot the Tamron, so no experience there at all.
I don't want to form an opinion on just one copy: this one may not be up to snuff and the ones coming next week better. But on 3 different cameras I'm just not $1,500 impressed yet. Maybe this copy just isn't what it should be.
hmm I don't understand why it is so fat and uses such large filters it if it still f/5 at 200mm like at the rest AND vignettes even more
Its a bit better resolution and contrast at the long end than the standard, but it also seems to vignette a bit more wide open (not something I care about much, but some do). I've never shot the Tamron, so no experience there at all.
I don't want to form an opinion on just one copy: this one may not be up to snuff and the ones coming next week better. But on 3 different cameras I'm just not $1,500 impressed yet. Maybe this copy just isn't what it should be.
hmm I don't understand why it is so fat and uses such large filters it if it still f/5 at 200mm like at the rest AND vignettes even more
Nov 12, 2010 at 04:19 PM
p.1 #970-300 IS L came
Sir_Loin wrote:
300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Glenn, thank you for the reminder. No zoom comparison shall be considered complete without 35-350L in the mix.
Peter, you forgot to ask him to compare the classic 35-350L as well if he has one lying about! I bet you do?
PetKal wrote
Roger, when you get a moment, can you please compare the new lens to the following other lenses:300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Peter, you forgot to ask him to compare the classic 35-350L as well if he has one lying about!
I bet you do? Nov 12, 2010 at 04:36 PM
p.1 #1070-300 IS L came
Is it really true that the US version ended up NOT including the tripod collar after all?
$1599 and not even including the collar?
$1599 and not even including the collar
?Nov 12, 2010 at 04:37 PM
p.1 #1170-300 IS L came
PetKal wrote:
300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Glenn, thank you for the reminder. No zoom comparison shall be considered complete without 35-350L in the mix.
Peter, you forgot to ask him to compare the classic 35-350L as well if he has one lying about! I bet you do?
you forget to mention the classic 100-300L
Sir_Loin wrote
PetKal wrote
Roger, when you get a moment, can you please compare the new lens to the following other lenses:300 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS.
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
100-400
28-300L
200 f/2.8L
Can you please do the comparative shots at following distances: 2, 4, 8, 10, 20m,
and at following aperture values: f/4, f5.6, f/7.1, f/8 and f/11.
Thank you.
Peter, you forgot to ask him to compare the classic 35-350L as well if he has one lying about!
I bet you do? you forget to mention the classic 100-300L
Nov 12, 2010 at 04:39 PM
p.1 #1270-300 IS L came
$1599 and not even including the collar:
wow, I paid 200.00usd less for my UW 70-200 2.8 IS L ver I
less than 2 years back
wow, I paid 200.00usd less for my UW 70-200 2.8 IS L ver I
less than 2 years back
Nov 12, 2010 at 04:47 PM
p.1 #1370-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
Is it really true that the US version ended up NOT including the tripod collar after all?
$1599 and not even including the collar?
No tripod collar included. The collar from the 28-300 fits perfectly, BTW.
And what, you guys don't want it compared to the 300 f2.8, too?
Seriously, I'll leave that to the real testers who have more patience than I do. Unless one of the techs gets bored next week and wants to do some comparisons. First I want to compare to a couple of more copies that are coming next week and make sure this just isn't a bad one.
I can say without hesitation that the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 are both sharper at 200 than this is, and, of course the 300 f4 is sharper at 300. I will try to do a 100-400 comparison, I think the new lens is really close to that, but again, I may just have a bad copy.
If any of you want to see the 100% jpgs of the test chart shots they're here: http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/canon_70-300_comp
Edited on Nov 12, 2010 at 05:04 PM · View previous versions
Is it really true that the US version ended up NOT including the tripod collar after all?
$1599 and not even including the collar
?No tripod collar included. The collar from the 28-300 fits perfectly, BTW.
And what, you guys don't want it compared to the 300 f2.8, too?
Seriously, I'll leave that to the real testers who have more patience than I do. Unless one of the techs gets bored next week and wants to do some comparisons. First I want to compare to a couple of more copies that are coming next week and make sure this just isn't a bad one.
I can say without hesitation that the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 are both sharper at 200 than this is, and, of course the 300 f4 is sharper at 300. I will try to do a 100-400 comparison, I think the new lens is really close to that, but again, I may just have a bad copy.
If any of you want to see the 100% jpgs of the test chart shots they're here: http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/canon_70-300_comp
Edited on Nov 12, 2010 at 05:04 PM · View previous versions
Nov 12, 2010 at 05:01 PM
p.1 #1470-300 IS L came
I read the thread title and immediately thought, "Whos stupid enough to buy a 70-300 IS L?" But its Roger, with like 200 70-200s.
Nov 12, 2010 at 05:04 PM
p.1 #1570-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
you forget to mention the classic 100-300L
Yes, I have......thank you. We must be comprehensive and thorough in our new lens tests.
you forget to mention the classic 100-300L
Yes, I have......thank you. We must be comprehensive and thorough in our new lens tests.
Nov 12, 2010 at 05:05 PM
p.1 #1670-300 IS L came
Peter, you've done it again! You have one of the best senses of humor on here, and I really appreciate it! Thanks, man!
Nov 12, 2010 at 05:07 PM
p.1 #1770-300 IS L came
Thank you, Ernie, glad to have made you chuckle.
I guess Roger knows I was just foolin' around.
I guess Roger knows I was just foolin' around.
Nov 12, 2010 at 05:12 PM
p.1 #1870-300 IS L came
PetKal wrote:
Thank you, Ernie, glad to have made you chuckle.
I guess Roger knows I was just foolin' around.
Of course -- I was trying to set you up for asking for a 50 1.0 comparison.
Thank you, Ernie, glad to have made you chuckle.
I guess Roger knows I was just foolin' around.
Of course -- I was trying to set you up for asking for a 50 1.0 comparison.
Nov 12, 2010 at 06:08 PM
p.1 #1970-300 IS L came
PetKal wrote:
Thank you, Ernie, glad to have made you chuckle.
I guess Roger knows I was just foolin' around.
I wasn't.
And there will be hell to pay if I don't see my results (and yes with the 300 2.8 IS too) by tomorrow AM (at latest!)!
(AND I expect all tests to be carried out focusing on the 50mm 1.0 box)
Thank you, Ernie, glad to have made you chuckle.
I guess Roger knows I was just foolin' around.
I wasn't.
And there will be hell to pay if I don't see my results (and yes with the 300 2.8 IS too) by tomorrow AM (at latest!)!
(AND I expect all tests to be carried out focusing on the 50mm 1.0 box)
Nov 12, 2010 at 06:10 PM
p.1 #2070-300 IS L came
RCicala wrote:
No tripod collar included. The collar from the 28-300 fits perfectly, BTW.
wow, just wow, $1599 and they can't even toss in the collar now?
So it's reallt a $1750 lens, if not more! holy smokes!
hmm does the 28-300 use the same ring as the 300 2.8 IS by any remote chance?
And what, you guys don't want it compared to the 300 f2.8, too?
Yes, 300 f/2.8 IS MkII.
If any of you want to see the 100% jpgs of the test chart shots they're here: http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/canon_70-300_comp
To be honest though, I have to say the L looks better to me on that comparison, by far (although the non-L also looks worse than I remember by far, maybe bad copy or bad focusing? or maybe because it was shot near MFD? Some lenses do turn starting turining to junk under 5' and especially right at the MFD).
It looks like either the target was slightly twisted or the bottom right on the L shows a touch of de-centering since it looks a little less sharp there than everywhere else.
No tripod collar included. The collar from the 28-300 fits perfectly, BTW.
wow, just wow, $1599 and they can't even toss in the collar now?
So it's reallt a $1750 lens, if not more! holy smokes!
hmm does the 28-300 use the same ring as the 300 2.8 IS by any remote chance?
And what, you guys don't want it compared to the 300 f2.8, too?
Yes, 300 f/2.8 IS MkII.
If any of you want to see the 100% jpgs of the test chart shots they're here: http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/canon_70-300_comp
To be honest though, I have to say the L looks better to me on that comparison, by far (although the non-L also looks worse than I remember by far, maybe bad copy or bad focusing? or maybe because it was shot near MFD? Some lenses do turn starting turining to junk under 5' and especially right at the MFD).
It looks like either the target was slightly twisted or the bottom right on the L shows a touch of de-centering since it looks a little less sharp there than everywhere else.
Nov 12, 2010 at 06:17 PM