I appreciate this great review. It highlights the strong features and the minor cons that really don't matter on balance. I also like the sample shots you presented that show its awesome imaging capabilities.
On shooting macros with this lens, if you use a canon 12mm extension tube with it then it cuts the minimum focus distance in half plus the lens can still focus out to approx 18 feet.
I've watched this video a few years after it was issued but found it extremely helpful. I have pretty much worn out my 70 - 300 IS USM and need to replace it. Having watched your reviews on both this lens and the 70 - 300 IS USM ll I am convinced by the detailed reviews and your personal experience with the L version that I need to go with the more expensive option. Thanks Dustin.
Hey Dustin, I've watched millions of camera reviews and am quite jaded, but this was quite nice. And usually I laugh at the example pix but yours here really stand out--I'd be proud to have shot almost any of them.
Thanks Dustin for your reply. Well there couldn't be a much clearer answer to my question than that. I'm getting clear that I don't want to be tethered to a tripod , but like the versatility and portability the 100-400 brings. I respect your opinion and love your reviews for their down to earth ability to boil down equipment functionalities to their essences. Thanks again
Thanks for mentioning the focus breathing at the MFD. Many reviewers completely forget that point in their reviews. I bought the recently release 100-400 M2 only to find that it is only about 177 mm at MFD! Shocked to learn that, even though the magnification is real and still very useful (and large for a non-macro lens). I just think it should be mentioned more in reviews.
@@TheRTM MFD == minimum focus distance. The small distance to a subject that a lens can focus. Each lens has its own MFD. Some have really large MFD, some smaller. A MFD if say 4ft is much better than on of 12ft or 18 ft, in terms of how versatile a lens is when using it. HTH.
I have been thinking about this lens for several months now.Looking for a lightweight, sharp travel type lens for my Canon 5Dll and 7D.Do mostly landscape/nature stuff that is very much like some of your shots.Good to see you using it under cold conditions.I like to get out and about in the winter here in Manitoba,where as you may have heard can get cold! Of all the reviews I have seen re this lens I think yours is one of the most down to earth/common sense ones around.
Well done dude - very good review. Excellent image examples and tellingly you say it like it is without the degree of self promotion that other popular youtube Camera reviewers seem to do. Thanks
One thing that amazed me about this lens is that at 300mm you can focus down to about 5 or 6 feet. You can fill the frame with a field of approx. 100x67mm. (on an APS-C camera). Almost macro.
Hi Dustin I know this is an old video but I wanted you to know I still use this lens in 2022 and have found it to be fantastic on the EOS R with the adaptor. It performs better to my eye than the 28-240 RF native len. Thanks for the review. Cliff.
The one thing is that when on a tripod and extending the lens, the AF ring is pretty sensitive and in such an awkward position. Still a great lens, but a little clumsy to use.
It is not for nothing that you only have likes and no dislikes! I bought this lens secondhand and I have the same experience with it that you describe so well in this review! There is one little thing about this lens and Canon lenses witch came out after this lens was introduced. There is no info anymore when and where the lens was made. Never understood that from Canon. But hé, awesome lens and review.
Mr. Abbot: I have been looking for a suitable sling bag to carry my Canon RP with the same lens you reviewed for the last 2 years and come up empty. I look at your review the 3rd time this morning and finally noticed the sling bag you were using. Would you please share with me what made and model of the sling you showed in the review? By the way, it was your good review which encouraged me to acquire this lens and it took me a very long time to find a used one in reasonable shape at a reasonable price.
I don´t own this lens and I don´t see myself buying it any time soon but I appreciate that you took the time to review it. I own the 100-400 II and love it especially for birds and small critters.
I just bought a used copy for a great price to complement my RF 24-105 F4 and 15mm F2 prime on my R. This lens is tack sharp, and the focus is incredible. I doubt Canon will release an RF variant of this lens anytime soon, did not want to wait any longer to buy an affordable, quality telephoto option. The range is great in a relatively compact and light package. This made more sense for me than buying the RF 100-400mm that I borrowed before, both image quality wise and build quality wise.
smart games I personally think so. It is shorter when not zoomed out, and stores more easily - including in something like my sling bag shown here. That extra reach comes in handy, too.
I'd say definitely. You could almost think of it as a 70-200/4 that in effect has a 1.4x teleconverter mixed in at the long end. With this lens available, I don't think I'd even consider a 70-200/4.
Dustin, thank you. Do you think this would suffice as a good portrait lens as well? I have the 24-105 that came with my Mark II, but I’m looking at taking a “one and done” with me on my son’s graduation. He will be at times 200-300 ft away from the bleachers. What’s your thoughts? Thinking I will bring that 24-105 with me anyways for a backup or different types of shots. Thank you again!
Have you done a review on the Canon 300 f4l lens I'm thinking about getting it for my 77d crop sensor camera and wondered what you thought of that lens and is it okay to use it on the crop sensor will there be any diminishing of quality thanks so much keep up the great videos
The audio output level in your video is quite low compared to the average video on UA-cam. With my not so great hearing, a noisy fan in the room, and my Macbook Pro 15 Retina I couldn't hear your video very well, but I can hear other videos on UA-cam just fine. Just a note for you to use on your future videos.
I bought one of these a few years ago and I love it. I use it on my 7D and the results are excellent. I've used it to shoot race cars at Laguna Seca from the car corral and from the stands and the range is just fine on crop frame cameras. I typically set my camera on aperture priority with the shutter speed anywhere between 1/800 and 1/5000, and set the ISO between 800 and 2000 depending on conditions to stop to action. My only objections are that it's heavy and that Canon doesn't include the tripod mount ring with the lens. Instead, you have to buy it separately as an accessory. It fits just fine in my bag along with my EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5, EF-S 15-85 f3.5-4.5, my flash unit, and my 7D body. I give this lens a 9.5 out of 10
hi, I'm trying to decide if this is worth getting. Iv been playing around with my friends 75-300 by canon and I must say I love it. this seems to be a good choice. all I have is my lens that came with my T5. its alright but over time iv come to be in need for a little more, I also plan to get a pentax SMC 50mm. 85% of my photos are of nature and some closer shots of animals. would you say those two are good choices?
Hi. Wanted to know your views on image quality and sharpness when comparing canon 70-300mmL with canon 100-400mmL ii when used in their common focal length range. I am using the 70-300mmL on a 650D for aerospotting. Thanks in advance.
Hi Dustin great review, I always feel this lens is underated as everybody seems to go for 100-400, I thinkwith my budget i will go for this lens, I have a Canon700d will it be okay to use with this camera body ?
Great review as always! I recently picked up a used copy in excellent condition from my local camera shop for around $600. I got this to go with my R7 as a smaller lens. I already have the fantastic RF 100-500L, but always loved the 70-300 focal length and always wanted this lens. Let's just say that it's absolutely fantastic on my R7. Tack sharp and fast AF. IS works well and it's just a great lens. It's very close in sharpness to my 100-500L, which is my favorite all time lens. For the price, this is a great option when I don't want to carry around the 100-500. Definitely recommend if you can get a good used copy.
Hi Dustin. Is this lens still a part of your kit? Or has another lens taken it's place? I'm trying to decide between a used copy of this lens or a new Tamron 70-210 F4.
Just purchased a lightly used copy of this lens, in large part due to you review. Looking forward to using it for general purpose and especially cross country races.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Just finished shooting our state track & field championships and used the EF 70-300L along with the EF 70-200L II f2.8 on a R6 and 7D II and the 70-300 holds it's own against the 70-200 f2.8, which is a known exceptionally sharp lens. Nice to have that little extra reach
Hey Dustin, years on now, would you still recommend this lens? Kinda thinking about either having only a 70-200 2.8 iii, or having both this lens plus the new 135 1.8 that’s coming out. Have you ever tested the old 300 f4? To see how wide open 300mm sharpness compares? Thank you 🙏
Hello Dustin, I had it earlier on the EOS 5D MK II / III and the EOS 7D but got it used again at a reasonable price and will use it again on the R5/6 in the future. Very compact lens with very good image quality properties. I'll see how it works with Canon's R-Mount.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hi Dustin, got the lens yesterday and the Meike adapter, since this is not available from Canon at the moment here in Germany. Today I took the first pictures with my R6 and can confirm that it works fine. The very good image quality I knew from the time when I had it on the 5D MKII/III and the 7D. Also here on the R6 it looks very good already in the first pictures with this lens. Merry Christmas and a happy new year 2021 from Germany. I continue to look forward to your as always very good and informative reviews in 2021. Best regards Oliver www.riwodot.de
Great Review, thank you! I purchased this recently for ice hockey pictures. I'm an armature and heard this is not the best lens for the job, but this was my price cap. Do have recommended settings using a Canon 80D with this lens for ice hockey?
A lot of times I will set up the camera for AUTO ISO and set your desired shutter speed (keep the aperture wide open). I'd recommend a shutter speed of 1/250th or more. Put the 80D in AF Servo focus mode, and focus on following the action.
Dustin, I’m sorry to be aggressive on commenting here, but I can’t find anything online comparing this lens to the newer version (model II) Have you used the newer model? If so is it worth the upgrade from the old when comparing price as well?
If you search my channel, you'll find my review of the 70-300 IS II. It's not an upgrade from this lens, however, but rather a version II of the more inexpensive 70-300.
Dustin Abbott I think there isn’t an upgraded version to a secondary model for this lens from my understanding. It’s noted on Canon’s site this is the only 70-300 f/4-5.6L version available. Sorry for the confusion. It seemed that there were two different L style versions but I was mistaken.
@Mr Dustin I have a query I am using canon 7d and looking to upgrade my lens I have short listed 2 lens canon 70-300 L and the new canon 100-400 l is ii Want to know your valuable advice . Which one should I go in for .
+Zaydi amine That would depend entirely on what you primary subject matter is and how you intend to use it. Both great lenses, but with two very different purposes.
Hey Dustin! I know this is an older review, but just wanted you to know you covered all questions and concerns very well. I picked up a Mark IV within the last month that I'm doing a review on, and have been using the 70-300mm IS USM (499.00) model. While the pair seem to be very good overall, I feel the 70-300mm L would be a better overall match as the extra weight of the lens will help with additional stability at 390mm equivalent. Any thoughts on the two lenses in terms of optical quality- but mainly continuous AF reliability? My reasoning is that the Mark IV will be a bit more reliable with continuous AF with the L vs. the newer more budget/prosumer model. Anyways I'm preparing a review on the Mark IV for my blog, and thought I'd reach out in advance. I'll have my L in a couple of days but thought your readers might want to see your comments as well. -Carl
The 70-300L is a little more special in the color and bokeh, but the newer Nano USM lens (IS II) is not fair behind in terms of sharpness and overall focus speed.
excellent review, thank you. question... which other lens would you pair this with that would be of equivalent quality or better optically from your experience? something with a wider aperture of no more than f4 constant. thanks again
Thanks for the review. The flower photos were very nice!! Do you prefer using this lens for flowers versus a macro lens? I have the 180mm macro lens that I use for insects and extreme close ups, but maybe better flower results can be done with this lens?
Dustin Abbott thanks for the response!! It’s nice that you connect well with your subscribers. I appreciate it. Regarding the 70-300L, I have debated selling this lens for the newer 70-200mm f4 is II lens. Do you think the newer lens is that much sharper and better color than the 70-300L? Have you tested the new version, and is it a worthwhile upgrade? I know it doesn’t pack in the bag as easy as the 70-300L, but it’s less weird with the zoom ring. Any opinion on this thought? Thanks!!
@@MrGflan I extensively covered the new 70-200 F4L II if you search on my channel. That's a hard call for me. Both are excellent lenses, so it comes down to whether you prefer the extra reach or constant aperture.
Great reviews, Dustin! Excellently professional. Can you tell me how this compares with the older 70-300 IS non-L? I have this older model and am wondering if switching up to this is significantly better. Thanks.
Dustin Abbott Thank you for your time in answering this question. I really want to get it. I watched your Canon 100-400mm mk 2 USM (well done video btw) and you said you would trade this in and another lens for a 100-400mm. Is this still your feeling?
rrrrrrtt1 I did do it, yes, but not because there was anything wrong with this lens. I loved it and it gave me fabulous results. I felt the focal length of the 100-400L II suited more what I needed.
Im wondering is this lens good for anything besides travel? for that price and apperture I wont be able to use it much for anything I think. The 100-400 IS II version is a much better bet imo besides the weight though.
Equossanos Until the new 100-400L II this was the best optics of the affordable tele zooms. They are still roughly equal at most focal lengths. I've found no end to the usable applications for this lens, but am working on purchasing the 100-400L II as well. This lens will always be the better of the two for travel, though.
thanks for the great and detailed review! i just want to ask if will you recommend this Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens over the Tamrom 70-200 f/2.8 G2. the price is so close, i will be using this on my canon 80d primarily for shooting video and wedding photography. which one should i get. thanks in advance:)
It's hard to recommend a lens like this to a wedding shooter (though I have shot one with it in a pinch). The f/2.8 lens is so much better in dimly lit churches or venues
Hi Dustin. Just a quick question, should i go for this lens or canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM (1st version) . Looking for some landscape photograph and some family pics. Thanks
Great review, I'am thinking about buying some telephoto lens for my 6d but I'am not sure if I should by Sigma 150-600 C or used ( but in great condition ) Canon 70-300 L - you have or have test both lenses so which would You suggest that I should buy ? many thanks. Davor
+Dustin Abbott " Is it enough reach for you?" - I dont know :) I dont know how good is Sigma on 400-600mm maybe if 70-300 is much sharper on 300mm is better to crop to 400-450mm and get same results as Sigma on 400-500mm, or is better to take Sigma and dont crop ?
+VooDooZg the Sigma still has quite good image quality over the remaining range. The AF isn't as good as the Canon, and it is considerably larger, obviously. There are pros and cons to both.
What's really interesting about this lens is that Canon has become their own worst competitor by introducing a budget-priced lens in exactly the same focal length and aperture, a very similar form factor and about five times cheaper! Now clearly the Canon EF 70-300 IS II USM does not have the same build quality as the "L", but the picture quality and functionality (zoom, autofocus, image stabilization) are so close it's really hard to say hands-down the "L" series is better. This is coming from a die-hard "L" junkie - I ALWAYS buy the best and most expensive glass, but in this case the comparisons and reviews were so compelling, I actually bouight my first and only non "L" series Canon EF lens. Now I'm sure people who are more familiar with both will find ample reasons why the more expensive one is worth it, and I won't contest it - but it would seem the budget lens - being a decade younger - may have a few generational advantages over the senior competitor as well, when it come to autofocus systems particularly. I'm sure if my photography had more frequent need for a moderate telephoto zoom, I probably wouldn't even have asked the question, and bought the more expensive one. But so far I'm really liking the one I got, and I would not expect to hear myself say that about a "budget" lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I perfectly expect there is. Or maybe it's just a bit sharper, or quicker. I just meant they are competing with themselves - but then, they might also feel the other lens has lived its commercial life, and they will get more sales with a newer version aimed at a different customer.
Thank you so much for this review. I bought this lens from Japan on a lim without doing any research for my 700d (amateur photographer over here) I hope it goes well together!
I'm searching for my first telezoom lens, the maximum focal length that I have is 100mm from my Canon macro lens, I need 300mm at least because I like to do bird photos (I have made it with the 100mm but you'd imagine how tricky it is), I have seen your review of 150-600mm lenses, but they look too big / heavy and not versatile enough for my use (backpacking alot). This 70-300mm looks like the best for me, even if it's "only" 300mm for birds, it can do nature, landscape and bird with reasonable size / weight to carry. The only other option I see is the Canon 100-400mm but I don't have the budget for it. What do you think about all this? Thanks you for all theses helpful reviews.
The 70-300L is a fabulous lens, and the high resolution from the lens gives you some space to crop and still have great results. It was only the 100-400L II that made me personally budge from it. I loved the lens!
Yes, I will go for the 70-300L, it's the best to fit my need. I will reconsidere the Sigma 150-600mm if a day I need the extra focal length, if I go more into wildlife photography, for now it's just too much of "if" !
Great review, I am very interested in purchasing this lens and use it on my EOS RP. Main target is nature/landscape/wildlife at sunset and sunrise. At F5.6 I`m getting a little sceptical about the performance when its not bright daylight. Maybe you can tell me how it performs when there is natural light but not "daylight" Thanks for a great channel!
Spot on. i have this lens, bought it couple of years ago. I was checking out the 70-200 F4 IS and found this in the store. The store guys was saying the 70-200 F4 is better but after testing, I bought the 70-300 L. there was something nice about the output... i dunno, the subject isolation looked very 3D like. I have used it to take some portrait shot at 70mm (F4), image looks very... natural and yes sharp. There were many review person at the time said negative stuff but that's the quality of those review channels.
hey Dustin.. i love to travel with this lens, but some reviewer say, this lens is very poor in background blur.. but in you photo it is great. please let me know your idea. as well, is canon 70-200 f4 giving you much shaper image than this?
Another great review, Dustin. Thank you for sharing. I do have two questions. Firstly, does this lens really deliver such an amazing bokeh?! From your pictures it looks stellar! Secondly, I am considering changing my Canon EF 100-400mm Mark I for this lens. Do you believe it would be a step up in image quality and maybe handling in general as well? Not that I'm disappointed by the (center) image quality of me lens, but it's nothing special, the push-pull zoom still isn't my favorite and the image stabilisation is a bit outdated to be honest. Weight isn't a thing but a couple of fewer grams wouldn't be bad as well.
+dorosG9 I traded this lens for the 100-400L II (which shares a lot of its best characteristics), but yes, I do think the 70-300L is a very special lens that has flown under a lot of people’s radar.
Great review, thanks Dustin. Please can you give me your view. My wife and I are in the middle of a 3 year caravan tour of Southern Africa, spending most of our time in game parks on self-drive safaris, currently interrupted by Covid-19. We own 2 x Canon 7D MkIIs, on mine I have a 150-600mm Sigma Contemporary (photographing mainly birds and distant animals) and are looking for a lens for my wife. She will use it for a combination of closer birds, animals and videoing. We are down to a choice between the Canon 70-300mm reviewed in this article (our first choice) and the more modern Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS II. We primarily photograph from in the car using beanbags and door mounts and mostly on reasonable weather days. My only concern is the 5.6 of the 300 (at the further end of the range) vs the 4.0 of the 200 plus the additional 250gms weight on the 300, particularly when videoing. Your thoughts would be appreciated, many thanks. Cheers John
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for taking time to respond Dustin, I've taken your advice and manged to buy an excellent condition 2nd hand Canon 70-300mm with about 500 clicks on it for USD575 (I'm currently in Australia)
Jason Larzelere That's going to depend on your needs. If you need the wider aperture (lower light), the prime might be better. The zoom has better IS and gives you the flexibility of all the other focal lengths. I prefer the zoom overall, but it depends on your specific needs.
I too am at a fork in the road. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM with x2 teleconverter or the lens you review EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. The x2 would give me 400mm in bright light. The 70-200 f/4L has really good reviews at being one of the sharpest zooms. That is important to me and one of the reasons I am looking for a new lens. I don't have any L glass. What is the aperture at 200mm for the 70-300mm? Would it be as good as the 70-200 in lower light with both at 200mm? A single lens would be convenient!
I haven't. I haven't had this lens for a number of years (replaced it with the 100-400L II). I suspect it is better than ever there, though, due to the amazing focus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I went out and got a copy with the standard canon adaptor. Autofocus on the tiny dot option next to tracking is very slow, but changing it to a bigger zone it’s quite good. Tracking is a little noisy, auto focus isn’t Sony FE 1.8 fast by any stretch, but it’s faster than Fuji 56 1.2. Extremely usable for general photography, fast moving sports or wildlife might be a stretch but looking forward to test it. I can’t find any firmware updates for this lens released from Csnon over the past ten years. I bought the lens because size and weight was very important to me, I regretted getting the Sony 200-600 over the 100-400, and the RF 100-500 was just going to be seldom used due to size and weight. I can’t wait for an RF 70-350 F4-6.3 I think they’ll do it.
Is this lens still a good option today over the Tamron 100-400mm VC USD lens? The tamron seems weather sealed and both weigh just over 1kg. I am trying to decide between the two lenses.
Both lenses are good, though the Canon does still have a slight edge in overall rendering and build. The Tamron is a great alternative, though, if you want the extra reach.
Amazing after almost 8 years there are so few youtube videos about this gem of a lens..... This is totally one of those sleeper lenses that will blow many right out of the park!
I think I already know your answer, but image quality more so than the added reach, which is the better lens? this 70-300L or the recent Tamron 100-400mm VC ?
thanks for your hard work on this great review. I bought this lens second hand & I am completely agree with your review. it's a great all-round lens. fits nicely in any bag. keep up your work.
Do you often need reach longer than 300mm? If you don't, the 70-300L is cheaper, more compact, and produces beautiful results. If you do need a longer focal length, the 100-400L II is the way to go.
That is the 64000 Dollar question !! I already have a 55-250 lens which gives me some good images, despite being a Budget lens !! I just feel that a 300mm lens would not give me much more range, and would probably regret not getting the 100-400 in the end !!
Depends on which system you are referring to. If you are comparing Canon EF mount versions of both lenses, I would prefer this one as the autofocus is much, much better.
I got one of these canon lenses and I use It for portraits/ fashion / sports / wild Life / and landscape / video recordings and I had it for 6 years now and is well made and gives good photos results
Hi-I have a Canon 70D with a 70-200mm F4L [Non IS] and I now want to increase the focal length - I can't decide between purchasing the EF 1.4x III extender or the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6L IS USM or the the EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM [Non IS] - would welcome your comments and suggestions - thank you
+Ron Powell The extender is your cheapest option, obviously, but I would say your best option is to go for the 70-300L. I replaced a 70-200 f/4L IS with it and never regretted it.
+Dustin Abbott Can I ask you to give me your reasons - I reside in Portugal on the Algarve where the light is invariably good - cost of the 1.4xIII £314 - cost of 70-300mm L is £876 - appreciate 1.4x cheapest but at full zoom hand held with no IS possible shake/blurry - 700-300mm by comparison very heavy - can afford the 70-300mm L but will I as an amateur and as a hobby really notice any difference printing maximum photo size 10 x 8 inches - please see here for the type of photos I take www.ronniepowell.co.uk/p1031871499
Ron Powell Sell your 70-200 f/4 (I didn't realize it didn't have IS) to help finance the 70-300L. The 70-300L gives you extra reach, stores more compactly, and is beautifully built. It is a great travel lens, too. Switching out an extender is a bit of a pain. You won't regret the switch.
Hi Dustin I own a 70-200mm 4 L IS that I'm using on both 6D & 40D. That's a fantastic lens but sometimes it's too short so I bought a 1.4x TC. Sometimes I'm also loosing time in switching because of short range 70-200mm. So I'm interested in selling my lens + TC and by this 70-300mm 4-5.6 L IS. I saw also the 100-400mm version II reviews. So I'm hesitating because this one looks gorgeous. More expensive & heavier for sure but seems to be better in terms of quality and I think it will allow me to do new kind of photos like wildlife. I'm wondering if it worth the 2200 € of the 100-400mm II compare with the 1150 € of this 70-300. For 2200 € I can also upgrade my old 40D to 80D. What do you think of combo 6D/40D + 100-400mm II vs 6D/80D + 70-300mm ?
thank you for fast answer. well with 40D 70-200mm + TC max I get is 280mm so 448mm eq on FF and this is OK. My issue is range and switching between with & without TC. that's reason why I'm interested in these 2 lenses.
Christophe Carriere I'd go for the 100-400L II then, with the long range plan to upgrade to the 80D, too. Then you could use your 1.4x TC and have even more reach.
![Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS ['Nano'] USM II lens review with samples (Full-frame and APS-C)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Iws0RqitJUc/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate this great review. It highlights the strong features and the minor cons that really don't matter on balance. I also like the sample shots you presented that show its awesome imaging capabilities.
Well said!
Bought this today and it is absolutely phenomenal!!! Thanks for the observation for the 70-300 L, Dustin. WOW!
+rrrrrrtt1 It is a sweetheart! Enjoy
On shooting macros with this lens, if you use a canon 12mm extension tube with it then it cuts the minimum focus distance in half plus the lens can still focus out to approx 18 feet.
It's a sweetheart of a lens
I've watched this video a few years after it was issued but found it extremely helpful. I have pretty much worn out my 70 - 300 IS USM and need to replace it. Having watched your reviews on both this lens and the 70 - 300 IS USM ll I am convinced by the detailed reviews and your personal experience with the L version that I need to go with the more expensive option. Thanks Dustin.
I think you will thoroughly enjoy the lens. It is pretty special.
Hey Dustin, I've watched millions of camera reviews and am quite jaded, but this was quite nice. And usually I laugh at the example pix but yours here really stand out--I'd be proud to have shot almost any of them.
That's nice feedback.
Just bought one of these on EBay in almost new condition. Looking forward to using it, especially on trips abroad. Thanks for the review.
It’s a lovely lens.
Thanks Dustin for your reply. Well there couldn't be a much clearer answer to my question than that. I'm getting clear that I don't want to be tethered to a tripod , but like the versatility and portability the 100-400 brings. I respect your opinion and love your reviews for their down to earth ability to boil down equipment functionalities to their essences. Thanks again
+Robert Bohnaker My pleasure. Both lenses are excellent, so you can't really make a wrong choice. Just make the one that is right for your needs
Thanks for mentioning the focus breathing at the MFD. Many reviewers completely forget that point in their reviews. I bought the recently release 100-400 M2 only to find that it is only about 177 mm at MFD! Shocked to learn that, even though the magnification is real and still very useful (and large for a non-macro lens). I just think it should be mentioned more in reviews.
Anthony Martin It's the little things that can make a big difference. Thanks for the feedback.
I'm an amateur..can you please explain to me what MFD is and why it's important? ..
@@TheRTM MFD == minimum focus distance. The small distance to a subject that a lens can focus. Each lens has its own MFD. Some have really large MFD, some smaller. A MFD if say 4ft is much better than on of 12ft or 18 ft, in terms of how versatile a lens is when using it. HTH.
I have been thinking about this lens for several months now.Looking for a lightweight, sharp travel type lens for my Canon 5Dll and 7D.Do mostly landscape/nature stuff that is very much like some of your shots.Good to see you using it under cold conditions.I like to get out and about in the winter here in Manitoba,where as you may have heard can get cold! Of all the reviews I have seen re this lens I think yours is one of the most down to earth/common sense ones around.
Tom White Glad to give you something of value. A lot of people seem to appreciate "real world" reviews.
Brilliant review! I agree 100% It is also one of my favorite lenses especially for travel.
+Thomas Spinner Absolutely. It is a great lens!
Well done dude - very good review. Excellent image examples and tellingly you say it like it is without the degree of self promotion that other popular youtube Camera reviewers seem to do. Thanks
+Jon Rees That's very kind feedback. Thank you, Jon.
I also have this lens. Just love it! Thanks for the amazing review!
It was one of my favorites.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Great to know. Thanks.
One thing that amazed me about this lens is that at 300mm you can focus down to about 5 or 6 feet. You can fill the frame with a field of approx. 100x67mm. (on an APS-C camera). Almost macro.
I love lenses that can do this, as it adds so much versatility.
Hi Dustin I know this is an old video but I wanted you to know I still use this lens in 2022 and have found it to be fantastic on the EOS R with the adaptor. It performs better to my eye than the 28-240 RF native len. Thanks for the review. Cliff.
It's a lovely lens.
The one thing is that when on a tripod and extending the lens, the AF ring is pretty sensitive and in such an awkward position. Still a great lens, but a little clumsy to use.
Another great review from Dustin Abbott, my camera reviewer of choice.
My pleasure.
It is not for nothing that you only have likes and no dislikes! I bought this lens secondhand and I have the same experience with it that you describe so well in this review! There is one little thing about this lens and Canon lenses witch came out after this lens was introduced. There is no info anymore when and where the lens was made. Never understood that from Canon. But hé, awesome lens and review.
It is a fabulous lens, and I felt it was time to bang the gong again on its excellence.
Mr. Abbot: I have been looking for a suitable sling bag to carry my Canon RP with the same lens you reviewed for the last 2 years and come up empty. I look at your review the 3rd time this morning and finally noticed the sling bag you were using. Would you please share with me what made and model of the sling you showed in the review? By the way, it was your good review which encouraged me to acquire this lens and it took me a very long time to find a used one in reasonable shape at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately that sling bag was one that I found at Costco a decade ago and I don't think it is available anymore.
Thanks for responding, and greatly appreciated.
I don´t own this lens and I don´t see myself buying it any time soon but I appreciate that you took the time to review it. I own the 100-400 II and love it especially for birds and small critters.
Thanks so much Dustin and Diostillrocks for your replies!
Today I bought one! Thank You for giving us such a wonderful review.
+Marko Gligorijevic My pleasure, Marko. Enjoy a great lens!
I just bought a used copy for a great price to complement my RF 24-105 F4 and 15mm F2 prime on my R. This lens is tack sharp, and the focus is incredible. I doubt Canon will release an RF variant of this lens anytime soon, did not want to wait any longer to buy an affordable, quality telephoto option. The range is great in a relatively compact and light package. This made more sense for me than buying the RF 100-400mm that I borrowed before, both image quality wise and build quality wise.
I've just about pulled the trigger on several occasions to buy myself another copy of this lens for my R5, but just haven't had the free cash.
Thank you, Dustin. Can you share what sling bag you are using here? Fitting a telephoto and a 24-70 sounds perfect for such a small bag.
It's an older bag that I actually got from Costco - it was sold under the Victorinox (Swiss Army) brand. I doubt you could get it at this point.
Hi Dustin, can you tell me if the pictures from 8:49 till 9:05 are taken with a full frame or an apsc camera?
Full frame, Kathrin
Thank you!
thank you sir i just loved it the way u described it. iam gonna buy too and iam glad i watched this video!
Glad to hear that
Excellent review! I really like the camera bag that you're using in this video. Could you please tell me the brand or give a link to it? Thanks!
It is a sling bag from Swiss Army, actually.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You're still being too general. What is the Name of the bag? Specific?
I have this lens for a couple of years now and I fully agree with you. It is just great!
It is!
Excellent review Mr. Abbott.
David B Cossini Thanks, David.
Great review and beautiful pictures. I have this lens as well and couldn't agree more with you.
+james flames Thanks a lot - it is definitely a sweetheart!
Nice review
Is this lens better than 70-200 f4 for travel lens ?
smart games I personally think so. It is shorter when not zoomed out, and stores more easily - including in something like my sling bag shown here. That extra reach comes in handy, too.
Dustin Abbott BTW, I actually replaced a 70-200 f/4L IS with this lens and have not regretted it for a moment.
I'd say definitely. You could almost think of it as a 70-200/4 that in effect has a 1.4x teleconverter mixed in at the long end. With this lens available, I don't think I'd even consider a 70-200/4.
What a great and real world useful review! Thank You! I'm looking forward to seeing some more of your Videos!
+Putrifying Eagor Sounds good!
Dustin, thank you. Do you think this would suffice as a good portrait lens as well? I have the 24-105 that came with my Mark II, but I’m looking at taking a “one and done” with me on my son’s graduation. He will be at times 200-300 ft away from the bleachers. What’s your thoughts? Thinking I will bring that 24-105 with me anyways for a backup or different types of shots. Thank you again!
Subbed to your channel btw
I've used it for portraits. I even shot a wedding with it because I was traveling and asked at the last minute.
Dustin Abbott thank you again for your reply. Going to make the purchase for my 6D Mark II.
Have you done a review on the Canon 300 f4l lens I'm thinking about getting it for my 77d crop sensor camera and wondered what you thought of that lens and is it okay to use it on the crop sensor will there be any diminishing of quality thanks so much keep up the great videos
I actually never reviewed the 300mm. I considered it, back in the day, but never got my hands on one.
The audio output level in your video is quite low compared to the average video on UA-cam.
With my not so great hearing, a noisy fan in the room, and my Macbook Pro 15 Retina I couldn't hear your video very well, but I can hear other videos on UA-cam just fine.
Just a note for you to use on your future videos.
Richard's World Thanks for the feedback.
+Richard's World your audio is bad then
Great review, i am really thinking about to buy this lens.
+René Kopeinig It's a sweetheart!
Great review, and also wonderful engagement in your comments, thanks!
paddymcsquirrel Thank you. I try to help out when I can
Well thought out and presented review. Thanks.
Jeff Liss My pleasure, Jeff. Thanks for the taking the time to give me feedback.
I bought one of these a few years ago and I love it. I use it on my 7D and the results are excellent. I've used it to shoot race cars at Laguna Seca from the car corral and from the stands and the range is just fine on crop frame cameras. I typically set my camera on aperture priority with the shutter speed anywhere between 1/800 and 1/5000, and set the ISO between 800 and 2000 depending on conditions to stop to action. My only objections are that it's heavy and that Canon doesn't include the tripod mount ring with the lens. Instead, you have to buy it separately as an accessory. It fits just fine in my bag along with my EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5, EF-S 15-85 f3.5-4.5, my flash unit, and my 7D body. I give this lens a 9.5 out of 10
It's a sweet lens, for sure!
The best review I've ever watched. Thank you very much Dustin...
Wow! Thank you
hi, I'm trying to decide if this is worth getting. Iv been playing around with my friends 75-300 by canon and I must say I love it. this seems to be a good choice. all I have is my lens that came with my T5. its alright but over time iv come to be in need for a little more, I also plan to get a pentax SMC 50mm. 85% of my photos are of nature and some closer shots of animals. would you say those two are good choices?
This is an exceptional lens. I do t have any problem recommending it to anyone
what about the pentax 50 mm, you familiar with that one?
+Gage Lloyd I own several of them. I'm a big fan of the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4
Hi. Wanted to know your views on image quality and sharpness when comparing canon 70-300mmL with canon 100-400mmL ii when used in their common focal length range. I am using the 70-300mmL on a 650D for aerospotting. Thanks in advance.
They are more similar than different over their shared focal lengths.
Hi Dustin great review, I always feel this lens is underated as everybody seems to go for 100-400, I thinkwith my budget i will go for this lens, I have a Canon700d will it be okay to use with this camera body ?
Awesome images and great review!
***** Thanks, Kris.
Great review as always! I recently picked up a used copy in excellent condition from my local camera shop for around $600. I got this to go with my R7 as a smaller lens. I already have the fantastic RF 100-500L, but always loved the 70-300 focal length and always wanted this lens. Let's just say that it's absolutely fantastic on my R7. Tack sharp and fast AF. IS works well and it's just a great lens. It's very close in sharpness to my 100-500L, which is my favorite all time lens. For the price, this is a great option when I don't want to carry around the 100-500. Definitely recommend if you can get a good used copy.
I’ve been really leaning towards picking one up to use with my R5. I always loved that lens.
Hi Dustin. Is this lens still a part of your kit? Or has another lens taken it's place? I'm trying to decide between a used copy of this lens or a new Tamron 70-210 F4.
I actually picked up the 100-400L II, though I remained torn for a while because I loved the 70-300 so much.
Just purchased a lightly used copy of this lens, in large part due to you review. Looking forward to using it for general purpose and especially cross country races.
I suspect you'll fall in love with it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Just finished shooting our state track & field championships and used the EF 70-300L along with the EF 70-200L II f2.8 on a R6 and 7D II and the 70-300 holds it's own against the 70-200 f2.8, which is a known exceptionally sharp lens. Nice to have that little extra reach
Hey Dustin, years on now, would you still recommend this lens? Kinda thinking about either having only a 70-200 2.8 iii, or having both this lens plus the new 135 1.8 that’s coming out. Have you ever tested the old 300 f4? To see how wide open 300mm sharpness compares? Thank you 🙏
I've actually been considering picking up one of these again for my R5. There's some good deals for them out there.
I love this lens, my travel companion!
It's an excellent travel lens. Built like a tank
Hello Dustin,
I had it earlier on the EOS 5D MK II / III and the EOS 7D but got it used again at a reasonable price and will use it again on the R5/6 in the future. Very compact lens with very good image quality properties. I'll see how it works with Canon's R-Mount.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
Hi Dustin,
got the lens yesterday and the Meike adapter, since this is not available from Canon at the moment here in Germany.
Today I took the first pictures with my R6 and can confirm that it works fine. The very good image quality I knew from the time when I had it on the 5D MKII/III and the 7D.
Also here on the R6 it looks very good already in the first pictures with this lens.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year 2021 from Germany. I continue to look forward to your as always very good and informative reviews in 2021.
Best regards
Oliver
www.riwodot.de
Great Review, thank you! I purchased this recently for ice hockey pictures. I'm an armature and heard this is not the best lens for the job, but this was my price cap. Do have recommended settings using a Canon 80D with this lens for ice hockey?
A lot of times I will set up the camera for AUTO ISO and set your desired shutter speed (keep the aperture wide open). I'd recommend a shutter speed of 1/250th or more. Put the 80D in AF Servo focus mode, and focus on following the action.
Dustin, I’m sorry to be aggressive on commenting here, but I can’t find anything online comparing this lens to the newer version (model II) Have you used the newer model? If so is it worth the upgrade from the old when comparing price as well?
If you search my channel, you'll find my review of the 70-300 IS II. It's not an upgrade from this lens, however, but rather a version II of the more inexpensive 70-300.
Dustin Abbott I think there isn’t an upgraded version to a secondary model for this lens from my understanding. It’s noted on Canon’s site this is the only 70-300 f/4-5.6L version available. Sorry for the confusion. It seemed that there were two different L style versions but I was mistaken.
@Mr Dustin I have a query I am using canon 7d and looking to upgrade my lens I have short listed 2 lens canon 70-300 L and the new canon 100-400 l is ii
Want to know your valuable advice .
Which one should I go in for .
+kamleshwarpednekar I personally chose the 100-400L II because of more versatility.
Thanks
Great review, and i enjoy your videos .. thank you for that.
..would you chose this one vs 70-200 f2.8 is ii ?
+Zaydi amine That would depend entirely on what you primary subject matter is and how you intend to use it. Both great lenses, but with two very different purposes.
+Dustin Abbott thank you so much :) .. just need a good telephoto lens for multipurpose :)
Zaydi amine
What is more important to you - more compact size and more reach, or a faster aperture for bokeh and low light performance?
+Dustin Abbott can't have it all :D im going for more reach / compact :) thanks for you help .. you are awesome :)
Hi Dustin, have you ever tested the canon 70-300 L on mirrorless?
Unfortunately no. I had changed lenses before Canon introduced FF mirrorless.
Mr. Abbott. I need to know how it operate on EOS R. please
I suspect it will work just fine, though I haven't had a chance to test that combination.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you.
I have to wait native RF7 0-300 mm. Sorry for my bad English.
Hey Dustin! I know this is an older review, but just wanted you to know you covered all questions and concerns very well. I picked up a Mark IV within the last month that I'm doing a review on, and have been using the 70-300mm IS USM (499.00) model. While the pair seem to be very good overall, I feel the 70-300mm L would be a better overall match as the extra weight of the lens will help with additional stability at 390mm equivalent. Any thoughts on the two lenses in terms of optical quality- but mainly continuous AF reliability? My reasoning is that the Mark IV will be a bit more reliable with continuous AF with the L vs. the newer more budget/prosumer model. Anyways I'm preparing a review on the Mark IV for my blog, and thought I'd reach out in advance. I'll have my L in a couple of days but thought your readers might want to see your comments as well. -Carl
The 70-300L is a little more special in the color and bokeh, but the newer Nano USM lens (IS II) is not fair behind in terms of sharpness and overall focus speed.
excellent review, thank you. question... which other lens would you pair this with that would be of equivalent quality or better optically from your experience? something with a wider aperture of no more than f4 constant. thanks again
I would suggest the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It's a stunningly good lens.
perfect, thank you!
dustin i have a canon 70-300 lens which is black all over is there any difference i go to air shows and i find it a great lens
That's quite a different lens from this one. The L lens is optically stronger and has a much higher grade of build.
Thanks for the review. The flower photos were very nice!! Do you prefer using this lens for flowers versus a macro lens? I have the 180mm macro lens that I use for insects and extreme close ups, but maybe better flower results can be done with this lens?
I suspect the 180mm may still be better. There are applications where a longer working distance is nice, though.
Dustin Abbott thanks for the response!! It’s nice that you connect well with your subscribers. I appreciate it.
Regarding the 70-300L, I have debated selling this lens for the newer 70-200mm f4 is II lens. Do you think the newer lens is that much sharper and better color than the 70-300L? Have you tested the new version, and is it a worthwhile upgrade? I know it doesn’t pack in the bag as easy as the 70-300L, but it’s less weird with the zoom ring. Any opinion on this thought? Thanks!!
@@MrGflan I extensively covered the new 70-200 F4L II if you search on my channel. That's a hard call for me. Both are excellent lenses, so it comes down to whether you prefer the extra reach or constant aperture.
Dustin Abbott thank you!! Constant aperture is nice. As is internal focusing. Compact is also nice, of the 300. I’ll keep tossing it around.
Great reviews, Dustin! Excellently professional. Can you tell me how this compares with the older 70-300 IS non-L? I have this older model and am wondering if switching up to this is significantly better. Thanks.
+rrrrrrtt1 In every way the L series lens is much better. Image quality, build, autofocus, bokeh - you name it!
Dustin Abbott Thank you for your time in answering this question. I really want to get it. I watched your Canon 100-400mm mk 2 USM (well done video btw) and you said you would trade this in and another lens for a 100-400mm. Is this still your feeling?
rrrrrrtt1
I did do it, yes, but not because there was anything wrong with this lens. I loved it and it gave me fabulous results. I felt the focal length of the 100-400L II suited more what I needed.
Dustin Abbott Thanks, again. Great, helpful videos and I appreciate your time in answering my questions. Have a great evening.
Great video. But I'm confused by the term 100% crop. What does it mean? I had a look online to find the answer but still don't get it.
100% crop means that I'm showing a crop from the image at a pixel level (100%)
@@DustinAbbottTWI does that mean you're zooming in on an uncropped image?
I just ordered one and thought that perhaps I should check out a review to see if I made a good choice. Turns out I have, thanks for your review!
Glad I could help
I know this review is old, but do you know if this holds up to the high resolution bodies like the Canon R5?
Im wondering is this lens good for anything besides travel? for that price and apperture I wont be able to use it much for anything I think.
The 100-400 IS II version is a much better bet imo besides the weight though.
Equossanos Until the new 100-400L II this was the best optics of the affordable tele zooms. They are still roughly equal at most focal lengths. I've found no end to the usable applications for this lens, but am working on purchasing the 100-400L II as well. This lens will always be the better of the two for travel, though.
Fantastic review and impressive Lens! thank you. Regards
You're welcome.
Great review! How well does this lens work on Eos RF mounts with the adapter?
I don't own it anymore (bought the 100-400L II instead), so I haven't tested it on RF.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for getting back to me. Cheers!
thanks for the great and detailed review! i just want to ask if will you recommend this Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens over the Tamrom 70-200 f/2.8 G2. the price is so close, i will be using this on my canon 80d primarily for shooting video and wedding photography. which one should i get. thanks in advance:)
It's hard to recommend a lens like this to a wedding shooter (though I have shot one with it in a pinch). The f/2.8 lens is so much better in dimly lit churches or venues
thank you sir dustin for the advice...'m going for the tammy;)
seams like a fine lens. which glas is the equivalent to this lens in the Nikon world? may u know. thx
I don't really know that.
the review was really good and the details
Thank you!
Hi Dustin can you please tell me where I can get one of those sling bags.
Hi Brent, unfortunately I can't. I got that many years ago at Costco and haven't seen any in recent years.
Hi Dustin. Just a quick question, should i go for this lens or canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM (1st version) . Looking for some landscape photograph and some family pics. Thanks
If you are not shooting a lot in low light conditions where you need F2.8, I do think this is a fantastic choice.
Great review, I'am thinking about buying some telephoto lens for my 6d but I'am not sure if I should by Sigma 150-600 C or used ( but in great condition ) Canon 70-300 L - you have or have test both lenses so which would You suggest that I should buy ?
many thanks.
Davor
I love the 70-300. Is it enough reach for you?
+Dustin Abbott " Is it enough reach for you?" - I dont know :)
I dont know how good is Sigma on 400-600mm maybe if 70-300 is much sharper on 300mm is better to crop to 400-450mm and get same results as Sigma on 400-500mm, or is better to take Sigma and dont crop ?
+VooDooZg the Sigma still has quite good image quality over the remaining range. The AF isn't as good as the Canon, and it is considerably larger, obviously. There are pros and cons to both.
What's really interesting about this lens is that Canon has become their own worst competitor by introducing a budget-priced lens in exactly the same focal length and aperture, a very similar form factor and about five times cheaper! Now clearly the Canon EF 70-300 IS II USM does not have the same build quality as the "L", but the picture quality and functionality (zoom, autofocus, image stabilization) are so close it's really hard to say hands-down the "L" series is better. This is coming from a die-hard "L" junkie - I ALWAYS buy the best and most expensive glass, but in this case the comparisons and reviews were so compelling, I actually bouight my first and only non "L" series Canon EF lens. Now I'm sure people who are more familiar with both will find ample reasons why the more expensive one is worth it, and I won't contest it - but it would seem the budget lens - being a decade younger - may have a few generational advantages over the senior competitor as well, when it come to autofocus systems particularly. I'm sure if my photography had more frequent need for a moderate telephoto zoom, I probably wouldn't even have asked the question, and bought the more expensive one. But so far I'm really liking the one I got, and I would not expect to hear myself say that about a "budget" lens.
Perhaps, though there's something about the rendering from this lens that remains special.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I perfectly expect there is. Or maybe it's just a bit sharper, or quicker. I just meant they are competing with themselves - but then, they might also feel the other lens has lived its commercial life, and they will get more sales with a newer version aimed at a different customer.
I would like to know if this lens can be used on a Canon 6D? And if so, do I need to buy anything additional?
Absolutely you can use it - nothing else needed.
Thank you so much for this review. I bought this lens from Japan on a lim without doing any research for my 700d (amateur photographer over here) I hope it goes well together!
I seriously doubt you will be disappointed. It's a fab lens!
I'm searching for my first telezoom lens, the maximum focal length that I have is 100mm from my Canon macro lens, I need 300mm at least because I like to do bird photos (I have made it with the 100mm but you'd imagine how tricky it is), I have seen your review of 150-600mm lenses, but they look too big / heavy and not versatile enough for my use (backpacking alot). This 70-300mm looks like the best for me, even if it's "only" 300mm for birds, it can do nature, landscape and bird with reasonable size / weight to carry. The only other option I see is the Canon 100-400mm but I don't have the budget for it. What do you think about all this? Thanks you for all theses helpful reviews.
The 70-300L is a fabulous lens, and the high resolution from the lens gives you some space to crop and still have great results. It was only the 100-400L II that made me personally budge from it. I loved the lens!
Yes, I will go for the 70-300L, it's the best to fit my need. I will reconsidere the Sigma 150-600mm if a day I need the extra focal length, if I go more into wildlife photography, for now it's just too much of "if" !
Great review, I am very interested in purchasing this lens and use it on my EOS RP. Main target is nature/landscape/wildlife at sunset and sunrise. At F5.6 I`m getting a little sceptical about the performance when its not bright daylight. Maybe you can tell me how it performs when there is natural light but not "daylight" Thanks for a great channel!
I actually found its performance strong in most all situations. I've even used it for weddings and church events before.
@@DustinAbbottTWI cheers for the input, strongly consider this as my next purchase
Spot on. i have this lens, bought it couple of years ago. I was checking out the 70-200 F4 IS and found this in the store. The store guys was saying the 70-200 F4 is better but after testing, I bought the 70-300 L. there was something nice about the output... i dunno, the subject isolation looked very 3D like. I have used it to take some portrait shot at 70mm (F4), image looks very... natural and yes sharp. There were many review person at the time said negative stuff but that's the quality of those review channels.
I always liked the look of this lens better. And yes, it has excellent micro-contrast and color, and images look fantastic!
hey Dustin.. i love to travel with this lens, but some reviewer say, this lens is very poor in background blur.. but in you photo it is great. please let me know your idea. as well, is canon 70-200 f4 giving you much shaper image than this?
The bokeh is actually fantastic from this lens - as you can see from my photos. No, the 70-200 is not sharper.
thanks mate.. could i know which body did you use to take these photos..
Mostly a Canon 6D, and some on a 5D Mark IV
thanks mate, much appreciate.
Another great review, Dustin. Thank you for sharing. I do have two questions. Firstly, does this lens really deliver such an amazing bokeh?! From your pictures it looks stellar! Secondly, I am considering changing my Canon EF 100-400mm Mark I for this lens. Do you believe it would be a step up in image quality and maybe handling in general as well? Not that I'm disappointed by the (center) image quality of me lens, but it's nothing special, the push-pull zoom still isn't my favorite and the image stabilisation is a bit outdated to be honest. Weight isn't a thing but a couple of fewer grams wouldn't be bad as well.
+dorosG9 I traded this lens for the 100-400L II (which shares a lot of its best characteristics), but yes, I do think the 70-300L is a very special lens that has flown under a lot of people’s radar.
This lens is much more portable than the 100-400mm L lens.
Hi Dustin... can I use canon teleconverter with this lens for some extra reach? Is it compatible?
Unfortunately not. A Canon TC won't physically fit at the rear of the lens.
Audio volume is very low, hard to hear you I'm all the way up on my laptop..
How would you say this lens would do for fast moving objects like horses?
+Haylea Greaves As long as you have reasonable light it will be great. The AF is very fast and very accurate.
Great review, thanks Dustin. Please can you give me your view. My wife and I are in the middle of a 3 year caravan tour of Southern Africa, spending most of our time in game parks on self-drive safaris, currently interrupted by Covid-19. We own 2 x Canon 7D MkIIs, on mine I have a 150-600mm Sigma Contemporary (photographing mainly birds and distant animals) and are looking for a lens for my wife. She will use it for a combination of closer birds, animals and videoing. We are down to a choice between the Canon 70-300mm reviewed in this article (our first choice) and the more modern Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS II. We primarily photograph from in the car using beanbags and door mounts and mostly on reasonable weather days. My only concern is the 5.6 of the 300 (at the further end of the range) vs the 4.0 of the 200 plus the additional 250gms weight on the 300, particularly when videoing. Your thoughts would be appreciated, many thanks. Cheers John
Hi John, for your application I would still choose this lens. That extra reach is wonderful, and the image quality of this lens is a treat.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for taking time to respond Dustin, I've taken your advice and manged to buy an excellent condition 2nd hand Canon 70-300mm with about 500 clicks on it for USD575 (I'm currently in Australia)
Quick question, for sports photography this lens or the 300 F4 L?
Jason Larzelere That's going to depend on your needs. If you need the wider aperture (lower light), the prime might be better. The zoom has better IS and gives you the flexibility of all the other focal lengths. I prefer the zoom overall, but it depends on your specific needs.
Which camera bag are you using? I am looking for one like that :)
It's a sling bag from Swiss Army, actually.
I too am at a fork in the road. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM with x2 teleconverter or the lens you review EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. The x2 would give me 400mm in bright light. The 70-200 f/4L has really good reviews at being one of the sharpest zooms. That is important to me and one of the reasons I am looking for a new lens. I don't have any L glass. What is the aperture at 200mm for the 70-300mm? Would it be as good as the 70-200 in lower light with both at 200mm? A single lens would be convenient!
+solarsynapse I moved from that lens to the 70-300L and never regretted it. Never.
+Dustin Abbott Can you tell me the maximum aperture at 200mm? Thanks!
f/4.5, I believe
Hi Dustin, have you tried this with the R5?
I haven't. I haven't had this lens for a number of years (replaced it with the 100-400L II). I suspect it is better than ever there, though, due to the amazing focus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I went out and got a copy with the standard canon adaptor. Autofocus on the tiny dot option next to tracking is very slow, but changing it to a bigger zone it’s quite good. Tracking is a little noisy, auto focus isn’t Sony FE 1.8 fast by any stretch, but it’s faster than Fuji 56 1.2. Extremely usable for general photography, fast moving sports or wildlife might be a stretch but looking forward to test it.
I can’t find any firmware updates for this lens released from Csnon over the past ten years.
I bought the lens because size and weight was very important to me, I regretted getting the Sony 200-600 over the 100-400, and the RF 100-500 was just going to be seldom used due to size and weight. I can’t wait for an RF 70-350 F4-6.3 I think they’ll do it.
Is this lens still a good option today over the Tamron 100-400mm VC USD lens? The tamron seems weather sealed and both weigh just over 1kg. I am trying to decide between the two lenses.
Both lenses are good, though the Canon does still have a slight edge in overall rendering and build. The Tamron is a great alternative, though, if you want the extra reach.
amazing review.thank you
My pleasure.
Thanks for the super review:)
Glad to help out!
Amazing after almost 8 years there are so few youtube videos about this gem of a lens.....
This is totally one of those sleeper lenses that will blow many right out of the park!
It's true. It's a special lens that many have overlooked.
I think I already know your answer, but image quality more so than the added reach, which is the better lens? this 70-300L or the recent Tamron 100-400mm VC ?
Sharpness is not incredibly different, but I think the rendering (bokeh, color, "bite" to images) favors the 70-300L.
thanks for your hard work on this great review. I bought this lens second hand & I am completely agree with your review. it's a great all-round lens. fits nicely in any bag. keep up your work.
+Mohammad Khan One of my favorites!
Hello Dustin, which would you recommend please, 70-300 L or 100-400 Mk II ? Thanks, Damian.
Do you often need reach longer than 300mm? If you don't, the 70-300L is cheaper, more compact, and produces beautiful results. If you do need a longer focal length, the 100-400L II is the way to go.
That is the 64000 Dollar question !! I already have a 55-250 lens which gives me some good images, despite being a Budget lens !! I just feel that a 300mm lens would not give me much more range, and would probably regret not getting the 100-400 in the end !!
I think you've answered your own question.
Hello again Dustin, how good is the new 70-300 IS USM II against this L lens please ? Thanks, Damian.
Would you rather use this lens or the sigma 100-400mm for wildlife?
Depends on which system you are referring to. If you are comparing Canon EF mount versions of both lenses, I would prefer this one as the autofocus is much, much better.
I got one of these canon lenses and I use It for portraits/ fashion / sports / wild Life / and landscape / video recordings and I had it for 6 years now and is well made and gives good photos results
It is a lovely lens.
Thanks Dustin! Great review, you've convinced me to buy this lens now, pairing it with my 7D, hopefully that's a good combination :)
Hope you enjoy it!
Hi-I have a Canon 70D with a 70-200mm F4L [Non IS] and I now want to increase the focal length - I can't decide between purchasing the EF 1.4x III extender or the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6L IS USM or the the EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM [Non IS] - would welcome your comments and suggestions - thank you
+Ron Powell The extender is your cheapest option, obviously, but I would say your best option is to go for the 70-300L. I replaced a 70-200 f/4L IS with it and never regretted it.
+Dustin Abbott Can I ask you to give me your reasons - I reside in Portugal on the Algarve where the light is invariably good - cost of the 1.4xIII £314 - cost of 70-300mm L is £876 - appreciate 1.4x cheapest but at full zoom hand held with no IS possible shake/blurry - 700-300mm by comparison very heavy - can afford the 70-300mm L but will I as an amateur and as a hobby really notice any difference printing maximum photo size 10 x 8 inches - please see here for the type of photos I take www.ronniepowell.co.uk/p1031871499
Ron Powell
Sell your 70-200 f/4 (I didn't realize it didn't have IS) to help finance the 70-300L. The 70-300L gives you extra reach, stores more compactly, and is beautifully built. It is a great travel lens, too. Switching out an extender is a bit of a pain. You won't regret the switch.
+Dustin Abbott Many thanks - In my heart I feel that's the best option
Ron Powell Did you end up trading your 70-200 F4? I'm in the same position.
Hi Dustin I own a 70-200mm 4 L IS that I'm using on both 6D & 40D. That's a fantastic lens but sometimes it's too short so I bought a 1.4x TC. Sometimes I'm also loosing time in switching because of short range 70-200mm.
So I'm interested in selling my lens + TC and by this 70-300mm 4-5.6 L IS.
I saw also the 100-400mm version II reviews. So I'm hesitating because this one looks gorgeous. More expensive & heavier for sure but seems to be better in terms of quality and I think it will allow me to do new kind of photos like wildlife.
I'm wondering if it worth the 2200 € of the 100-400mm II compare with the 1150 € of this 70-300. For 2200 € I can also upgrade my old 40D to 80D.
What do you think of combo 6D/40D + 100-400mm II vs 6D/80D + 70-300mm ?
How much do you need the longer focal length? Image quality is fairly similar where the lenses overlap.
thank you for fast answer.
well with 40D 70-200mm + TC max I get is 280mm so 448mm eq on FF and this is OK.
My issue is range and switching between with & without TC.
that's reason why I'm interested in these 2 lenses.
Christophe Carriere I'd go for the 100-400L II then, with the long range plan to upgrade to the 80D, too. Then you could use your 1.4x TC and have even more reach.
Nice review! Thank you!
+Fio Che You're welcome