Canon 70-300L f4-5.6 usm

mjb123

mjb123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,187
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, could anybody share there experience on this lens please! Is there any point in buying an L series lens for a 60d! I read somewhere that L series lenses were designed for FF body's!!
Is there a noticeable difference without pixle peeping between it and the cheaper 70-300!
At the moment my zoom lens is a canon 55-250 would there be much difference!!
Pictures and comparisons or any info would be great cheers!!
 
your 55-250 lens on your 60d is probably as near to L glass quality as you will get without the price.

60d will take L lenses no probs although more expensive lol,
 
It is always worth putting good glass on APS-C DSLR's like 60d to get the best out of it and it does make a big difference.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4&feature=b-vrec

I havent owned a Canon 55-250mm but when choosing to buy a 70-300mm i first tried out a Tamron SP 70-300mm VC Di Aniverssary Edition Lens, Which was a very good lens but i found the zoom barrel a little stiff and VC a little anoying with its wirring sound. So i took the plunge and bough the Canon 70-300L instead, And i am very happy with it, very quite and very fast auto focus.

Here are shots from both taken from my back window, not massive but you can see the difference in resolution on the electric pole.


IMG_1684 Tamron by Gordon_Simpson, on Flickr


IMG_1785 Canon by Gordon_Simpson, on Flickr
 
Wow that's a big difference are they both taken on same settings!
 
They are both Raw files converted to Jpeg, Although taken on different days i havent done anything to the Canon file at all and only tweeked the exposure up a little for the Tamron.

Both at the same camera settings shot at the long end of the zoom 300mm, As you an see the canon does apear to be a bit brighter.
 
Last edited:
Hotshots said:
They are both Raw files converted to Jpeg, Although taken on different days i havent done anything to the Canon file at all and only tweeked the exposure up a little for the Tamron.

Both at the same camera settings shot at the long end of the zoom 300mm, As you an see the canon does apear to be a bit brighter.
Click to expand...

Yeh does look brighter, Which camera body was it taken with?
 
Thanks for your insight hotshots much appreciated!
 
I have the 70-300L and love it. Sold my 100-400L to fund it and am much happier with it.
 
I've got both the L and the Non-L and there is quite a difference between the two. The non-L really needs to be stopped down to F8 for best sharpness whereas the L is sharp wide-open. The L produces better contrast than the non-L and is sharper overall. The AF is faster and the IS is much better on the L. The L build quality is streets ahead.

Downsides of the L: obviously cost and it is much heavier/bulkier than the non-L. Also, if you want one, you have to buy a tripod ring to go with it.

Btw, I've also kept my non-L for times when I want to be a little less conspicuous with the camera bling.
 
I have been looking for a 70-300mm to carry around with a wide (ish) zoom as a fairly lightweight kit and happened upon a EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. I did quite a bit of reading up on it and it seems to be a bit of a marmite lens with some people saying it's soft at f5.6 and the Bokeh is terrible.

After using it for a couple of days I have to say I am very very impressed with it, the pictures seem to need processing differently but IMO it produces some great results.



 
nice
I've read mixed things about the DO lens, but it's so compact and seems to work well for yourself
sold my 70-300 IS non-L recently. Liked it a lot, great IS and decent for the money
softer at 300mm. would love to try the L-version
 
Interestingly enough I was researching the EFS 55-250mm and the EF 70-300mm today.

The 55-250mm is quite terrible wide open, especially at the long end and only stops down to "good"...the 70-300mm is incredibly sharp thought the whole range, even wide open at 300mm.
 
I have owned the 55-250, 70-300 IS (non-L), 70-200L F/4 IS, and the 70-300L.

Each of these lenses are ranked in order of price. The 55-250 is a great value lens which is capable of producing some great shots, but build quality is poor (cheap plastics), it is slow to focus, and most importantly IQ is poor at wide open. For someone on a budget of £140 it is well worth the money.

The 70-300 IS (non-L) is larger, heavier, better built and offers better IQ than the 55-250. It is a nice lens, but expensive for a non-pro part. For similar money a 70-200 F/4L (mon IS) will be much better, so long as you can live without the 200-300 range.

The 70-20L F/4L IS lens is almost perfect. Great IQ, super build and reasonably light. Focussing is super fast and it really is a pleasure to use.

I liked the 70-300L so much that I sold both my 70-200 F/4L IS abd 100-400L within a week of getting obe. IQ is pretty much identical to the 70-200, but that extra 100mm at the long end makes it really flexible. My copy is super sharp throughout the range when wide open.

The quality of the 70-200 and 70-300L's are amazing, but whether they are worth ~8x as much money as the 55-250 depends upon what you shoot and your budget. In most circumstances both lenses will take great shots, but one will be a bit sharper and bit better saturated. L's also hold onto their value very well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top