300mm can fit into any pocket - compact zoom lens with excellent optical performance.

300mm can fit into any pocket - compact zoom lens with excellent optical performance.

Canon EF 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6 L IS USM lens (67mm filter thread) (Accessories)

Customer Review

I already have the 100-400, which I reviewed here. And although I am very satisfied with the quality of the Canon EF 100-400mm L, I have but then the 70-300 L IS ordered. Why? The main reason to buy the 100-400 is strongly receded into the background in my photographic activities. (Meanwhile, I take a lot of photo trips from 2-10 days.) The 70-300 L was described by many owners and in various tests as compact and very good handling. I except for sports photography (and I'm as good as no longer) hardly need the 400mm and the 70-300L probably a little less space in my Lowepro Pro Trekker 400 AW required as the 100-400L, I ordered the 70-300L and subjected to a thorough examination compared to 100-400L.

In direct comparison weight per 'hand scale' is the difference though perceptible - I hold him in the daily practice of little or no relevance. The 70-300L is reversed Geli ('transport position ") slightly narrower. Since the 100-400L reverse Geli applying already powerful, I think this point quite noteworthy.
The 70-300L still fits in a large coat or jacket pocket, where you no longer want to take on this way, the 100-400.

Because of the sliding zoom, it is advisable to use the locking ring when 100-400L. Taking the lens unsecured from his pocket, as this may cause an unwanted extract. The solution at 70-300 I like better. The locking can be performed using a small switch easily with one hand.

I want to come back on the weight again. In contrast to the 100-400L 70-300L has enclosed no tripod mount. I was very skeptical of the leverages for stand mounting. (The lens is operated on a 5DII without BG with RRS-angle I use the Classic Ball 5 -. Tripod head and the Novoflex Q = Mount.) It keeps everything perfectly. When installing the LEE filter holder with a filter and a 105mm-POL it is at 300mm but getting tight (vibration). For comparison I have the 100-400 L without Stativschelle used (at 300mm). In the long run is one in my opinion a tripod collar to the 70-300 - if you frequently uses the lens on a tripod and with weighty filters. Who then works only every now and then from the tripod and with usual Einschraubfiltern, the output can save.

Interesting detail: The Geli of 70-300L is equipped with the same surface as that of the Canon EF 100mm 2.8 Macro IS. It is thus far less susceptible to wear.

Before I talk about the comparison of the optical power, a few words to order: For the first time I've ordered something at Warehouse Deals. The delivery took place, together with articles of the regular Amazon range. For the lens only by a delivery, but no bill was included. Online checked the account is no VAT. Expelled. In sum, I consider this approach to be critical. There is no proof of ownership in arrivals from the EU countries. There is no proof of value vs.. a photo insurance. The legal differences between purchases of Warehouse Deals and regular goods was not to be found in advance - a rogue who thinks evil. This of course is not included in the assessment of the objective. It is meant only as a reference for prospective buyers, the similar rate these facts as I do. Back to the lens.

As with my test of 100-400L I took several lenses and made comparison pictures, photographed no test charts. For comparison served the 100-400L and 24-105L with comparable focal lengths.
Was taken at focal lengths 70mm, 100mm, 200mm and 300mm.
The focal length motives in 2m, 5m and 15m are included.
Comparisons take place in LR3 without further corrections, full screen on 22-inch monitor (equivalent to about Din A3, so my printing).

Already at the beginning of the test series is striking that while the IS the image does not travel on the tripod when 70-300L - when 100-400L does. Even the IS needs during 70-300L no warnehmbare settling at 100-400 it always does a little shake before the image but then as quietly stands.
If some time is handled freehand, the difference between the IS versions falls already on. At 300mm compared, the image at 70-300 is simply still quiet. At the limit that can be entscheident. However, I have to confirm at this point the IS of 100-400L very good function. While researching in my pictures I have found photographs with 400mm and 1/50, the left nothing to be desired sharpness.

But now to my results:

Vignetting of 70-300L at 70mm to Aperture 5.6, but quite moderate.
Sharpness advantage vs.. 24-105L at 70mm. The 70-300L is very sharp even at full aperture in the center, by stopping I hardly sharpness gain. In the corners at full aperture already good sharpness, taking lens is stopped down to something. The sharpness of 70-300L with 70mm full aperture reaches the 24-105 for short distances only from aperture 8, from 15 meters from about 6.3 aperture. (Actually, I kept my 24-105L for sharp - which should be no devaluation of these amazing lens).
The 70mm of 70-300L are slightly longer than 70mm of 24-105L

Also 100mm are not the same everywhere. Longest 100mm are at 100-400L, Shortest 24-105L (Lightroom tells me every 100mm, but the image details are noticeably different). What I find unusual - but does not want to vote - is that when 70-300L the framing changed at the same focal length as a function of the aperture value - maybe someone can the explanation for this post in a comment.
The difference in sharpness between 24-105L and 70-300L repeats at 100mm. At close range the 70-300L reached in the corner in Aperture 5.6 the sharpness as the 24-105 at f 11. However, the sharpness gain is the 70-300L by stopping down very low.
The 100-400L intervenes for the first time and makes itself heard. In terms of sharpness, I see 100-400L and 70-300L actually on par (in the corners) - if at all, then the 100-400L has very very small nose at the edge of the front. However my 70-300L appears to be in contrast and to be better corrected regarding CA's recognizable better. In sum, none of the two 'long' lenses of the other can settle in my judgment. The differences of the lenses are certainly much less relevant for a skilful picture when the individual knowledge of EBV or even the individual photographic skills.
The results confirmed at 15m distance to the object.
By the way: The differences are analyzed in 100% view after repeated comparison of the images become apparent - in particular the differences between 70-300L and 100-400L. Actually I wanted but without an analysis at 100% view as a full-screen view on my monitor is an expression in A3. In full-screen mode, I could barely make out differences but in fact - the same goes for the rest of the settlement.

At 200mm the 24-105L leaves the ring - the 70-300L and 100-400L are located.
Again the 70-300L is slightly shorter at nominally the same focal length.
Near the minimum focus distance, the 70-300L appear slightly to be at an advantage - at 10% only very small differences can be discerned. At 5m object distance - and again at 100% view - only a very slight advantage for the 70-300L in the corners. In the center I lead the differences were not back on the sharpness but to better contrast the 70-300L.
The vignetting of 70-300L from aperture 8 is also confirmed in 200mm.
I feel the two present me optics with 200mm as absolutely comparable.

300mm show at close range, a somewhat different picture. When 70-300L the imaging performance in the corners well recognizable improved by stopping down aperture 11, while the quality is very good even at full aperture in the center.
At full aperture the unit 100-400L yoy. the 70-300L something left behind - especially in the corners. Dimmed the differences lose but almost completely. However, the jump comes in the imaging performance at 70-300L already at Blede 8, while the 100-400L engages properly at stop 11.
In print to A3 but the differences are barely visible and not relevant in practice, because many factors such as wind and quality of the tripod in my experience have a significantly greater impact on the image sharpness.
The larger the object distance is, the more the tide turns but to 100-400L.

With regard to the two present me optics so I can say for the focal length range of 100-300mm: In practice, with respect to the optical power punctual very small differences, sometimes in one and sometimes the other way. How far the two lenses are affected by positive or negative spread for standard I can not judge. Mir is always noticed that my 100-400L has worked very well.

Summary: The optical power distinguishes the two lenses is not enough in the deciding one way or another. Handling and focal length range are the criteria by which one can judge. After the price of the 70-300L something has come back already and 100-400L has risen significantly in recent days, is (apart from the enclosed in 100-400L Stativschelle) financially very little difference.

Personally, I tend to 70-300L something, it's sealed as L of the latest generation, which on some days can be quite an advantage. And by the somewhat more compact dimensions, it is just 'in the field' more practical to use. However, the comparison also showed me what the 100-400L is a great lens, despite the many years since its conception continues to be. And who has a good, should not see pushed sales up.

I myself will consider two more days and decide whether I keep or 70-300L but still take with the 100-400L on my travels. There are situations where it may be like some mm focal length longer. The 100-400L is quasi the 70-300L incorporating 1.33-Extender - but without the sharpness suffers.

No matter how you decide - I wish you always have the right light.

PS: A reader of the review asked me regarding 70-300L or 100-400L to do my final decision known. I will now catch up after a few weeks.
If I would buy for my purposes (travel and landscape photography) today is a longer lens, it would be the 70-300L - simply because of the compactness (and on the edge because of the seal).
For a spotter or nature lover or sports-outdoors-in photographer I recommend the 100-400L because of the longer focal length.
The differences in picture quality is so low (had again gekuckt critical of my shots that 70-300L has a total nose minimal front) that I would like it not derive any recommendation.
Purchase Tsche identification should be the purpose.

Great part, aaaber Rank: 1/5
July 15
Good choice 30 Rank: 5/5
January 5
Beautiful 6 Rank: 4/5
May 7
What all this power? Rank: 5/5
May 27
2RCA audio cable Rank: 5/5
December 6
useful 9 2 Rank: 5/5
December 14

Related Reviews


Strong zoom lens with excellent image qualityCanon EF-S 55-250mm 4.0-5.6 IS II lens for EOS (image stabilized) (Accessories) Affordable telephoto zoom lens with excellent performancePanasonic H-FS045200E telephoto zoom lens Lumix G F4-5.6 / 45-200 mm (90-400 mm KB, image stabilization, 52 mm filter thread) black (accessories) a very nice zoom lens with excellent imaging characteristics in my opinion,Sigma 18-250 mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM travel zoom lens (72 mm filter thread) for Nikon lens mount (Electronics) small, handy - fits in any pocket!Ballistol aerosol can KO-CS Spray, 40 ml, 24220 (Equipment) Super Zoom lens, offering excellent value for moneyOlympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm EZ-1442 F3.5-5.6 lens (Four Thirds, 58 mm filter thread) (Accessories) Poor quality and does not fit into any PCPoppstar mounting kit for internal SSD / HDD incl. Mounting frame for 6.4 cm (2.5 inches) (Accessories) Small straightener for travel that fits into any handbag.Braun Satin Hair 1 ST100 Style & Go Mini Styler (Personal Care) Poor quality - imprecise and does not fit into any socket!3.5 mm jack stereo solder [electronics] (Personal Computers) Attention does not fit into any microwavePhilips Avent SCF282 / 22 Mikrowellensterilisator Starter Set (Baby Product) Very convenient, handy, fits in any pocketWinten 5200 mAh WT-P52S-BK mobile external battery pack, with 1x high (5V / 800mA) USB Output for iPhone, iPod Touch / Nano; Smartphone, Black (Wireless Phone Accessory) Does not fit into any DC34Dyson DC31 replacement battery suitable for Dyson DC34 DC35 No .: 917083-01 Does not fit into any socket4X MENGS® G9 5W LED lamp 51x2835 SMD lamps with Ceramic and ACRYLIC material (480LM, warm white 3000K, AC 220-240V, 360 ° viewing angle, Ø15 x 48mm) energy-saving light very good for heat dissipation Compact system camera with excellent facilities and very good image qualityPanasonic LUMIX DMC-GF6KEG9K system camera (16 megapixels, 7.6 cm (3 inch) LCD display, Full HD) incl. H-FS1442AE-S Lumix Vario lens (Electronics) Compact, fast lens with focal length reportage!Fujifilm Fujinon XF 18mm F2 R Lens (Electronics) Very useful and fits in any pocketDettol wipes, 5-pack (5 x 15 pieces) (Health and Beauty) meZmory "Key" 16GB USB 3.0 flash drive does not fit into any USB 3.0 socket longmeZmory "Key" 16GB USB 3.0 flash drive key shape metal | Silver (Electronics) Class product, does not fit into any wall outletREER - 25 x Steckdosenschutz for screwing WHITE! (Baby Product) do not fit into any poolExcenterstopfen metal 38 mm Design Lighthouse (tool) Does not fit into any lampOSRAM LED STAR PAR16 50 (36 °) Warm White, GU10 (replaces 50W) 2,700 K, 230 V, 36 ° viewing angle (household goods)