Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    685

    Is a EF 70-300mm L worth 600 more than a EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM

    I have been debating on these two lenses for a while now and the price of the L lens has come down quite a bit. I can get an imported 70-300 for about 300 or a imported L version for 900.

    One thing that annoys me about both lenses is they will not take a converter; if I want to use one at a later date.

    I will be using them on a 500d so is it worth the extra 600; would I notice much difference?

    I like image quality and on a full frame I assume it would have to be the L version?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
    One thing that annoys me about both lenses is they will not take a converter; if I want to use one at a later date.
    Can you clarify that statement ? By converter do you mean Teleconverter ? I was under the impression that you cannot use a TC on an EF-S lens, but can on an EF lens.

    I have a Soligor TC and have used it successfully on my 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and my 70-200 f/2.8 L lenses.
    Canon 5D MKlll & Canon 50D
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 | Canon 430EX Flash | Lowepro Mini Trekker AW | Lowepro Toploader 65 AW | Lowepro Slingshot 200AW | Kata 3n1-10

    Panasonic Lumix FZ200
    Panasonic Lumix TZ7 (aka ZS3)
    Panasonic Lumix FT3 (aka TS3)

    Ali Baba.....the Thief of Bad Gags

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
    I will be using them on a 500d so is it worth the extra 600; would I notice much difference?

    I like image quality and on a full frame I assume it would have to be the L version?
    The 500D is not a Full Frame camera.
    Canon 5D MKlll & Canon 50D
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 | Canon 430EX Flash | Lowepro Mini Trekker AW | Lowepro Toploader 65 AW | Lowepro Slingshot 200AW | Kata 3n1-10

    Panasonic Lumix FZ200
    Panasonic Lumix TZ7 (aka ZS3)
    Panasonic Lumix FT3 (aka TS3)

    Ali Baba.....the Thief of Bad Gags

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    685
    Thanks for the coments Honest Gaza I may be getting confused between extenders and teleconverters and will need to look into it.
    Note that the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens is not compatible with
    Canon's extenders. The Canon extenders do not physically fit into the back of
    the 70-300 L - there is not enough clearance for the extender to insert behind
    the rear element. This is the only Canon L zoom lens with a widest focal length
    of 70mm or longer that is not compatible with Canon extenders (as of review
    time).
    The comment about full frame was more the fact that my camera is not full frame so the non L version might be good enough but if I had a full frame camera the L version would be better.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Crapville, Australia
    Posts
    5,148
    That's a tough one. The new 70-300/4-5.6 L IS is stellar: quick AF, and outstanding IQ. I see quite a lot of pros using them - most recently for the Tour de France and some F1 from the television (in and around the pits).

    However the non-L is not so weak as it once was (the earlier 75-300 versions).

    Either way, the only zoom I would trust with a TC is the 70-200s.

    If it was me I'd take the L - but $$$???
    Christian Wright; Dip Phot
    EOS 5D Mark III | EOS 600D | EOS-1V HS
    L: 14/2.8 II | 24/1.4 II | 35/1.4 | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 400/2.8 IS | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-105/4 IS | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS
    580EX II | EF 12 II | EF 25 II

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    685
    From the Canon USA website ( 1.4 III ):
    Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series
    lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF
    70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L.
    I am sure I also read in a review of the 70-300L some where it was not suitable.

    I am sure I would regret not buying the L version and I would probably never fit a converter anyway - leaning towrds the L version now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    1,205
    Wait, there's a 70-300L? Don't you mean 70-200L?
    Jeff Keller
    Founder/Editor, Digital Camera Resource Page

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    685
    Yes it has been out a couple of years now EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...4-5.6L_IS_USM/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    1,205
    Ah! I didn't know about that one. For some reason I was thinking you were talking about this one, which is anything but L quality
    Jeff Keller
    Founder/Editor, Digital Camera Resource Page

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    685
    That is my alternative and as I say 600 difference. My heart says get the L but my head says the one you posted.

    I basicaly need to make my mind up tomorrow so I have time to try it ou before my holidays

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •