photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
All Cameras >> Canon >> Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens Sample Photos

Marketed: 26-Aug-2010
Lens Mount: EF
Random Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Samples from 2658 available Photos more
t9%2f98%2f930298%2f4%2f156655715.jUc3pumr.jpg t2%2f52%2f802752%2f4%2f149111882.jEVF5iqt.jpg t4%2f92%2f290392%2f4%2f143810820.KtHHV6sj.jpg t1%2f69%2f965369%2f4%2f146051710.4GzfHfN0.jpg
t2%2f92%2f290392%2f4%2f147256213.oyruW6ov.jpg t2%2f53%2f641953%2f4%2f148009626.2OOvYQMY.jpg t9%2f28%2f1010528%2f4%2f153123319.wxf3XeKa.jpg t4%2f26%2f601226%2f4%2f145636803.IXwbF78z.jpg
t9%2f94%2f17294%2f4%2f153978737.dOrnOVP1.jpg t9%2f05%2f545905%2f4%2f152150712.2E9Z1HoW.jpg t9%2f98%2f930298%2f4%2f155551936.X8EwYAYB.jpg t4%2f94%2f17294%2f4%2f144373903.73yDGGtF.jpg


Comments
SiliconVoid11-Mar-2014 08:41
(@thang) Dead serious..
I can dig up some of my shots, ones I specifically did to test detail resolve, sure..
In the meantime there are dozens of sites who have already compared the scenario I described, not to mention hundreds of images on this site. In the interim I will point you to one that helped me decide to purchase the 70-300L, and in the end I saw the same results they did. (The 70-200L I used in my comparison was a rental, but from a company that checks/cleans after every use.)
Even if you set the newest 70-200L to f/5.6 you only get comparable results (little less contrast along the edges than the 70-300L) but to do so you had to stop down to the same aperture as the 70-300L (f/5.6) so you haven't gained anything with the 70-200L/TC other than a lighter wallet...
Now I am talking about absolute detail resolve, not either one being useless... I'm not saying there is no reason to get the 70-200L, it will be faster in many shooting situations, but if your intent is to get the range up to 300mm and your using a newer body with great higher ISO, and looking for a carry all for a significant amount of wildlife shooting, I would still recommend the 70-300L and spend that ~$1500 towards another lens. Heck, you could get the 70-300L and the 400L for the same you would spend on the 70-200L & t/c.. O.o
Try:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738
thang05-Feb-2014 04:49
@SiliconVoid - are you serious? - "...you are quite often shooting at a smaller aperture than f/5.6 so it does not really matter that there is a slightly faster..."

"If you want to compare image quality of the configuration you recommended, the 70-300-L is sharper at 300mm than any of the 70-200-L lenses are at 300mm with t/c - and the 70-200-L 2.8 with t/c costs about twice the 70-300, not to mention that you get to keep (70mm) to (300mm) with this lens instead of losing your shorter range when using the 70-200 on a t/c."

please post pix to backup your statements!
SiliconVoid27-Jan-2013 09:12
(@Thang) - I think you have to first consider what camera body people are using. On a cropped body I personally would consider the 70-200 2.8L a waste of money unless being purchased for future use on a FF body as you are losing about 1.25/stop anyway in conjunction with the smaller sensors artificially increased depth of field. This lens, or the less expensive 70-300 (non-L), would be a better performance/cost ratio given that your images are going to look like you shot at ~f/7 anyway. Please do not confuse creative depth of field photography with typical wildlife scenarios.

If you want to compare image quality of the configuration you recommended, the 70-300-L is sharper at 300mm than any of the 70-200-L lenses are at 300mm with t/c - and the 70-200-L 2.8 with t/c costs about twice the 70-300, not to mention that you get to keep (70mm) to (300mm) with this lens instead of losing your shorter range when using the 70-200 on a t/c.

With a full frame body, and considering the 70-300-L for wildlife/portability (what most report purchasing for) you are quite often shooting at a smaller aperture than f/5.6 so it does not really matter that there is a slightly faster - but shorter focal length - option available for approximately $3000 (~$2500 lens and ~$500 t/c) compared to this all-in-one option at ~$1500.. ;=)
Thang07-Jul-2011 20:24
just don't get why people would spend $1500 to buy this lens. At 5.6, it better be sharp! Use the money to get the 70-200 2.8L. Add the 1.4 tc and stop down to 4.5 and you will get equivalent if not better IQ folks!
Brian Wadie23-Nov-2010 19:31
A few of us now have this lens and are getting excellent results from it. The price is dropping nicely too!. Very sharp at MFD and at distance, my own testing is showing better resolution and sharpness than my canon 300 f4LIS (which is one of the two lenses it replaces).

There are some early test results herehttp://www.pbase.com/oldcanon/canon_70__300_f4_f56_l_is_tests

All photos are copyrighted and may not be used without permission from the photographer.
These photos are are a guide to what these cameras are capable of, but may not fully represent the camera due to post-processing, scanning, or photographic technique.
All brands are trademarked by their owners.
These pages are not sponsored or approved by the manufacturers.
Other content Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006, pbase.com LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Contact cameras@pbase.com to contribute data or photos of cameras.