Canon 70-300, L or Non L ?????
Mar 18, 2015 17:42:50 #
erickter
Loc: Dallas,TX
TommiRulz wrote:
Ok canon does make this confusing because the numb... (show quote)
I have the 70-300L. It is not heavy at all. Very compact too when not fully extended. Sharp, Good color and contrast, but no better in quality than my 28-200 canon non-L, which has a crappy build, but excellent optics. I am keeping both. Love canon lens, ....AND Nikon too.
Mar 18, 2015 18:13:45 #
I'm sure the Canon 70-300 L is a great lens - probably the ultimate lens for what you want - but way overpriced IMHO ! IF, you could get a good used one reasonable - maybe?
There are so many other great cheaper options ! Like the Canon 70-200 f4L non IS with Tamron 1.4X, (used, about $500-600). or the Tamron SP 70-300 VC ( about $400) -OR- the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX ( about $600 used only) - preferably from KEH. The Canon and Sigma are non extending zooms.
There are so many other great cheaper options ! Like the Canon 70-200 f4L non IS with Tamron 1.4X, (used, about $500-600). or the Tamron SP 70-300 VC ( about $400) -OR- the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX ( about $600 used only) - preferably from KEH. The Canon and Sigma are non extending zooms.
Mar 18, 2015 18:32:21 #
imagemeister wrote:
I'm sure the Canon 70-300 L is a great lens - probably the ultimate lens for what you want - but way overpriced IMHO ! IF, you could get a good used one reasonable - maybe?
There are so many other great cheaper options ! Like the Canon 70-200 f4L non IS with Tamron 1.4X, (used, about $500-600). or the Tamron SP 70-300 VC ( about $400) -OR- the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX ( about $600 used only) - preferably from KEH. The Canon and Sigma are non extending zooms.
There are so many other great cheaper options ! Like the Canon 70-200 f4L non IS with Tamron 1.4X, (used, about $500-600). or the Tamron SP 70-300 VC ( about $400) -OR- the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX ( about $600 used only) - preferably from KEH. The Canon and Sigma are non extending zooms.
Larry, the OP already has the 70-200 2.8 Canon lens. After rethinking , maybe an extender would be the answer or the new 100-400L II. From what I understand, the new 100-400 when cropped equals the Tamron 150-600 at 600. Then again I think it's important to have a fast f/stop when shooting action.
Mar 18, 2015 19:48:02 #
Mar 18, 2015 20:03:36 #
TommiRulz wrote:
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??
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??
I took Ken's advice and purchased the non L usm lens and have been quite happy with it. I think it is one of the sleeper lenses for the price. You can get them used between $200 and $300 all day long, and the image quality is very high. Also, the color rendition is excellent.
I don't have the L version to compare it to, but I have the 24-105 L and at 100mm I can't tell the difference. Maybe I have a good copy, but at three times the used price, I'm not sure the quality difference of the L, if there is one, would be worth the multiple.
Mar 18, 2015 20:58:03 #
dsmeltz wrote:
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.
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.
This is very good thinking ! :thumbup:
Mar 26, 2015 09:04:18 #
WOW I just unpacked my new 70-300 L and took some test shots and it is AWESOME !!!! I'm so glad I splurged!! It is not that heavy, and it's actually kind of small compared to the BEAST 70-200 2.8 II. It is going to make a great addition to my collection. THANKS so much for everyone's help and input.
May 3, 2015 16:23:40 #
Hey to everyone that was interested in this discussion .. I have had my new lens now for over a month now. I have used it like crazy - and it is worth every penny !!!!
So if there is anyone out there considering a 70-300 mm lens - I would say to ebay every piece of crap in your house so you can buy the L version!! NO COMPARISON
So if there is anyone out there considering a 70-300 mm lens - I would say to ebay every piece of crap in your house so you can buy the L version!! NO COMPARISON
May 3, 2015 16:31:14 #
TommiRulz wrote:
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??
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??
I think KR is an bombastic idiot, but I agree - optically they are interchangeable. Build quality is better on the L.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.