TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

Hey Guys - I'm in the market for a 70-300 lens. The job it will have to do is a rough one. It will be outside all day in the elements, kinda thrown around some, , etc.. (my job is not glamorous)
So I want a lighter lens cause I'm always on the run - but of course I want quality photos too.
Ken Rockwell says that the Non L lens, (70-300 IS USM) is just as good as the L -
Do any of you know if that is true??

dweaver Loc: Atlanta

I'd like to add a question about this lens as well if you don't mind. I have a Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 kit lens and the L lens that Tommi asked about, 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS - what is the difference expected in picture quality? I know the build quality is miles apart and that will be a big appeal for the intended use for Tommi, as well as image stabilization, ultra-sonic motor. What else do you get for the difference between $199 and $649 lenses of similar focal length in quality?

TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

Ok canon does make this confusing because the numbers are all so similar - But there are actually 3 of these kinda guys
1. The 75-300 kit lens, no IS, etc.. around $185, ($100 on ebay yikes)
2. The 70-300 USM IS. around $650
3. The 70-300 L, USM IS around $1200

For me the #1 option is out because I need a speedy motor and I do like the Image Stabilization sometimes. But that lens is kinda cook because it is SO LIGHT!!

I was asking about option 2 and 3. Of course the L version should be better? But I have heard that other than the Plastic vs. Metal construction they are very similar. Just wondering if anyone really knows or have tested this. Does option 2 get soft when zoomed all the way to 300??
Does Option 3 (the big L) weigh so much I want to cry at the end of the day?? So really what I'm wondering is the picture quality close enough that I can get away with the lighter lens? Or is picture quality a big enough difference that I should man up and carry the beast???

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

I have used both lenses. I can tell for a fact that the L lens will outperform the USM lens. The biggest question is what type shooting will you be doing? Moving objects, low light is this for print? I am a fan of the USM but my type shooting requires me to use a higher end faster lens. I do keep a 55-250 kit lens in my bag when I travel.

TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

It will be for horse shows - jumping shots. Sometimes if the arena is covered the light is terrible. I usually bust out the ol' 70-200 2.8 is II for indoor and covered rings. But for outside I need a smidge more reach and I would love a smidge lighter weight (I considered the 2x converter for my 2.8 but I think it would be TOOOO heavy). So I really need it to be good all the way to 300 and good in many types of light. As you can see in the pic below - even in heavy FOG

TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

Hey Dweaver - I was thinking about your question and I remembered this. My niece has the inexpensive 75-300 kit lens and she told me this about it. It does great as long as you don't zoom all the way out to 300. She keeps hers at about 200 AND only uses it in full outdoor light. If you can get away with that - its a great lens for the price.

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

If you are shooting indoors you will need an f 2.8 Lens. You might look at the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM APO or the 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens. The sports lens will be my next lens purchase. You will never get the shot in low light with a 300mm 4.5 to 5.6 lens.(Tried it for a year) Might look into a monopod to shoot with, I never leave home with out mine.

Chris F. Loc: San Francisco

Actually, there is a 4th one too. The 70-300 DO. It's quite compact, priced at about $1200 and very nice to travel with. Image quality is pretty comparable with the 70-300L too. I have both.

Chris

dweaver Loc: Atlanta

You will NOT want the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM if weight is a concern. I rented it last week and it's a hefty 6 pounds! Add the camera and you'll be at 8-10 pounds? I was wiped out lugging it around, even on a monopod (which kept slipping under the weight).

dweaver Loc: Atlanta

Thanks for the clarification. According to Paul then, it's focus speed between the L and non-L?

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

The non L 70-300mm vs the L 70-300mm. In most cases the L version is far better. On my Rebel T1i and the Rebel T3 (not T3i), I cannot see much if any difference except for a little more softness on the non L at focal lengths above about 220mm. There is considerable difference between the two lens on my Canon 5D MK III, 6D, 7D, and 7D MK II. The non L is never really sharp and lacks color and contrast. The non L also auto focuses very slowly compared to the L version.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

You need to consult "the-digital-picture.com". He gives an honest, unbiased and detailed description of Canon equipment. There are many other "experts" who make their careers telling people what to buy. Rockwell is biased and bigoted. His reviews are tainted accordingly. Now he's telling you that apples and oranges are the same thing. You state the demand on this lens will be great. Rockwell tells you there is no difference between the glass? What about the build? "L" lens are built to withstand the rigors of everyday use and abuse. Non-L? No comparison. Rockwell sits in his office and plays photographer "talking" about gear. Does he ever produce evidence to back up his claims? Is he critiquing by experience? Does not sound as if he is.

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

The 70-300 USM lens was my go to lens for day time football games. (Wife dropped camera on lens after a game) Replacing it I decided to go with a Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 instead for the low light. I use a 1.5 teleconverter with it till I cant hold my shutter speed where I want it.
I rent the L lenses when we have special games or events. The focus is sharper and I get more keepers with it. Many more than the USM lens.
But if you go the L lens route you have to deal with the weight. A mono pole is your best friend.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This has been my same results as well when using the two 70-300s in question with XTi, 7D and 5DIII bodies. Since you reference Rockwell, I will add two other ideas:

1) Instead of the 70-300L, look at the older 100-400L. They're about the same size and weight and price used. The prices on the older 100-400L have been dropping as people move to the new 100-400L II. I found the 70-300L to provide richer colors, but otherwise the 100-400 had longer reach, is very sharp and is compatible with a 1.4 extender for either 7DII, 5DIII or 1D bodies.

2) Instead of the old 100-400L, look at the new 100-400L II. This will be about double the price of the old 100-400 or a new copy of the 70-300L. But, it's a much better lens than the others in about the same sized package. I took Rockwell's suggestion and sold both my 70-300L and old 100-400L and used the funds to nearly offset the purchase price of the 100-400L. If I remember correctly, he suggested retiring copies of the 70-200Ls from your bag as well except if you have the f/2.8 II and just using the 100-400L II to cover everything ....

You should look at used copies of all these lenses. There's really no reason to pay 'new' prices on the older zooms when so many excellent conditional specimens are available on the resale market.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

You have kind of nailed why people choose the 70-300 L over the 70-200: the weight esp with a TC.

The L is weather sealed and has a bigger front element. DXO rates it better than the non-L but not a HUGE difference in any one rank, but when you combine them it could be significant.

There is a big price difference. heck, you can aloost buy 2 non-L for the price of the L (thought there is a $100 rebate on the L right now)

You might want to rent one of each for a weekend and see.

Though I think if I already had the 70-200 and a TC, I might just mount them on a gun stock, monopod or body support and keep the low light performance.