|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on April 17, 2021 Pros: Sharpness,autofocus speed,bokeh,construction,is,compact and not too heavy Cons: For me nothing Opinion: I gave inside the 70-200 is f4 to have it and I didn't regret it. Having already had an excellent optics I was afraid to downgrade but comparing the images I found that the 70-300 is not lower in the same focal range. Satisfied since the 100 mm more are convenient. It's built very well, it's crisp and the blurry is good. In the last 20 years I have often changed lenses and kits and this is the longest-running lens in my possession. |
  | sent on March 07, 2021 Pros: Compactness, construction, versatility. The price is (today) performance-adjusted. Cons: Nothing, in my opinion, except incompatibility with the original Canon dupliciers Opinion: Bought after many hesitations, discarding in the choice the very good 70-200 F4. The compactness of the construction convinced me... and then those extra 100mm are really convenient (even at the cost of losing half a diaphragm). The lens is very solid, well balanced. The lack of the bracket is regrettable, which is absolutely essential because the sealing ring falls exactly on the palm of the hand and therefore it is easy to accidentally change the focus. The original one is sold at an absurd price: better to search in the vast world of the WEB... The sharpness is convincing, even at full openness. On FF it obviously maintains the original focal length, but mounted on an APS-C it becomes a 112-480 to be used with satisfaction in many areas (portrait, nature photo, sport) |
  | sent on January 07, 2021 Pros: sharpness, not too heavy Cons: Nobody Opinion: taken used by RCE and I must say that I am hyper satisfied. I had almost abandoned nature photography because I didn't have a decent canvas and switching from DOIS to this was a phenomenal leap. In combination with the new MKII M6 it is a pleasure to see the focus speed and sharpness of the photos. Having taken it used I also had the advantage of taking one that had already understood the bracket (not original), but for 940€ it was an absolute best buy. |
user90073  | sent on December 11, 2020 Pros: crisp blurry compact Cons: the bracket is missing Opinion: I've been owning it for three years, and I've been carrying it in my bag, and I've taken thousands of pictures. Compact and tropicalized, very sharp even at f4, it does not smear the edges and colors are perfect, and then creates a very beautiful blurry, closed to f8 becomes perfect. The focus is very fast even with little light and it is also very precise, I wanted to change it time ago with a 70-200 2:8 to acquire more quality and light, but considering the 100mm lost more weight and larger footprint and price I kept it and did it well, because reviewing the enlarged photos I said to myself "but I'm going to look"? |
 | sent on December 11, 2020 Pros: Weight and compactness Cons: Not compatible with Canon extenders Opinion: Comfortable lens, fast and precise MAF. Too bad it's not compatible with Canon extenders, it would have been the top. On APS-C it allows you to get very close to the subjects. Used on 7D II it does not miss a shot, perfect for freehand use and thanks to the weight contained in the doubt it is always in the backpack. It was my first Hawthorn and I don't have the heart to part with it. |
 | sent on June 16, 2020 Pros: Short from closed, solid, precise, sharp, excellent stabilization. And why not? Nice. :D Cons: Almost nothing. Opinion: It's a 70-200 f4 in all respects, but with 100mm more traded for a negligible fraction of diaphragm in less canvas side. Very solid, very precise, sharp already at TA at all focal points, well stabilized. The portion of the MAF ring with the inscription "Macro" allows beautiful closeups that with 70-200 were completely foreclosed because of the ridiculous native RR. A little may seem excessive weight, but a multiplied 70-200 f4 weighs the same while being longer and darker, so the weight can not be counted among the defects. Once I would have said the price but currently not, on the used if one wants mm amateurs of absolute quality on FF is a best buy. The fact that you can't multiply is absolutely irrelevant, virtually no 70-300 is able to multiply serenely so you know what you buy and why. Unique, small against? Maybe unbalanced with the ring mounted forward... But... just mount it backwards. :D |
 | sent on October 16, 2019 Pros: Sharp, compact, well built. Cons: You choose it for compactness by giving up a high brightness. Opinion: I have used it many times and I confirm a feature reported in many reviews: the sharpness is from true L. Even at TA and 300mm the yield is good, it becomes excellent at the lower focal points and even with 1.4X Kenko Pro multiplier the yield is maintained at more than acceptable levels. Almost non-existent distortion, light TA vignette, minimal CA and anyway everything easily correctable, excellent stabilization. The construction is compact and massive, transmits solidity, the mechanics is sufficiently fluid without significant games. When you're not using zoom blocking, it's a little space in your bag. I think it is a very successful lens with a high Q/P ratio. |
 | sent on August 13, 2019 Pros: Relationship between compactness and quality, quality acceptable to all focal points Cons: Sensitive to extreme openings, a lens that makes it best when used for easel or strong light. Opinion: I would like to confirm what Mr. Chancellors has just written. The various 70-200 besides being limited are very heavy and if you consider the 70-200 f4, it's really not worth it! If this zoom is flanked by a 135 or in 85 lights, they form an extremely effective and quality set. I consider it a panorama goal: the best diaphragms of use are around f8 or more closed. It is true that open diaphragms are to be considered as a real L-series target, but they are not the best. Of course if you use planting it firmly on easel is better! Nothing forbids being used freehand for sports photos or anything like that, but it's much better to wait as long as possible, shorten the times as much as possible and turn on the very effective stabilizer. The micromovement is always lurking even at the shortest focapi! |
 | sent on July 16, 2019 Pros: Size and weight, crisp at all focal points, tropicalized, 4-stop stabilizer, colors, AF speed Cons: nobody if you know what you buy, in the past the price was high Opinion: I start from the end, the biggest criticism in the past was the price and in fact it was high, currently it is under 1000 euros even in Italy so I would say that the criticism is exceeded. A featherweight compared to the various whites and smaller (closed) of the various whites. You can take it anywhere without too much trouble. I would say an excellent handyman's telecoms zoom. The 70-200/2.8 L IS II or III have a better optical quality but weigh a lot and stop at 200, the quality of the whites 70-200 is quite comparable but without the extra 100mm. The construction and stabilizer are series A, it is very pleasant to use and the 4 stops are completely realistic. I have been using the classic white 70-200 for years then replaced by this 70-300L - 135L , I find myself much better and I cover a greater range of needs: either one, or the other, or both. Convenient lock to prevent involuntary stretching. Diam.67 filters, the tripod ring I do not use but I took a compatible one for less than 20 euros. The direct competitors: I would say that the 70-200/2.8 and even the 70-200/4 retain some reason to be preferred to this 70-300 within the limits of the above, in short, absolutely around there is better but if you already have a good fixed in that range of focals it is difficult to have more. |
 | sent on May 21, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, portability, barrel structure, fast AF, stabilizer. Cons: Price a bit altino. Opinion: I like the races of MotoGP superbike cars etc. I started with the Tamron 70 300 VC USD good price but from 200 to 300 not much. Changed with the Canon 70 200 F4 smooth a notch above in detail lens barrel light FANTASTIC lens!!! An L series. Since I was always a little short on the track with the 200 with my 80d I opted for the 70 300 L is. Same sharpness, detail, AF fast to hook the subject as the previous, with 100 in more barrel at the tropicalized top is 4 stop. I am satisfied with the purchase and I really like it I find it excellent even the blurry. I recommend it also for a generic use or for a trip given the weight not excessive is very versatile. Great NICE LENS!!!! |
 | sent on January 28, 2019 Pros: Incredible sharpness, stabilization and sense of robustness Cons: Nobody Opinion: I recently purchased this lens after reading several discordant reviews, using it on a 6d Mark II and I was amazed by the results. Very nice blur effect, sharp at all focal lengths. I have not found any defect, but besides the L series was already synonymous with a great build quality and image. Recommend the purchase! |
 | sent on November 02, 2018 Pros: Excellent sharpness at all focal lengths, solid construction from tank, tropicalization. Cons: Frankly no one. Opinion: I took this lens used at a reasonable price by replacing the 70-200 F4 is. I have not regretted, indeed, the sharpness is equal and 100 mm more are useful. The stabilizer is even better in my opinion. It weighs a little more, but from a feeling of remarkable reliability and then it is much shorter and there is also on a small backpack. Used with the 5d Mark 3 and 6d Mark 2 has produced very nice files, crisp, excellent micro-contrast and blurry very pleasant and then stop! A BIG stabilizer! I read some bad review on this lens and frankly I don't understand! I am a professional and I have used several optics, for goodness sake the fixed have a gear in addition, but I assure you that this zoom as zoom is very nice! I did a test (tripod, focus on the screen to be sure) I compared it with the 100 macro is that in my opinion is one of the sharpest optics of canon, the sharpness in the center is (heard) identical! Only at the side edges more distant cala of a breath! What more do you want from a zoom of these focal lengths? |
 | sent on January 26, 2017 Pros: Compact, low weight, sharpness, excellent construction, very effective stabilizer. Cons: Tripod ring not supplied. Opinion: I've had this lens for a few years and I've always liked it right away. A good leap in quality compared to other Canon lenses of similar focal but not L, it has good sharpness from the maximum aperture and allows you to make excellent quality photos at all focal lengths. For me the real strong point is in compactness, this lens really surprises for the quality it offers with dimensions that allow you to carry it even in relatively small bags, to support what I wrote I can say that I meant to sell it after The purchase of 70-200l f/2.8 II But I kept it because of the ease with which I carry it on every occasion, the 70-200 2.8 is certainly superior (except in the construction and the stabilizer) but it is big, heavy and expensive, I prefer it for sports and Portraits but for landscape or generic use the 70-300l does not make me regret leaving home the 70-200l. Among the merits I would also put a very nice fuzzy. Update: I sold the 70-200 F/2.8 and held the 70-300l, a choice matured mainly for the lowest weight and overall dimensions of the latter. |
 | sent on October 04, 2016 Pros: Construction, solidity, general quality Cons: Focus reversed compared to zoom Opinion: I just got this lens (replacing the bianchino) by a member of the forum ...... after some initial tests are really excited !!!! It 'a pleasure to shoot ...... very solid, a real number L .... spectacular stabilizer, focusing lightning ...... And then the most important thing ..... beautiful Returns file .. .... Straconsigliato |
 | sent on June 27, 2016 Pros: build quality, sharpness, stabilizer 4-stops, AF performance, versatile, weather sealed, compact. Cons: nobody Opinion: After much indecision, 70 300L entered in the bag after trying the excellent "Whitey" and "legendary" 135mm f / 2; if you think streamline kit is a factor to be considered, I can say this telephoto zoom makes versatility its strong point ... I use it for photos during football matches, scenery and (hear hear) portrait ... nothing to do with the superb 135mm f / 2, but honestly I do not feel the lack of a diaphragm so open to close up from 135 to 200mm, where to aperture f / 5 gives razor-sharp images and excellent blurry; also irreplaceable and especially for travel photography, a true luxury all-rounder for the range of telephoto, the 6D does not miss a beat and requires attention only for indoor use only, where of course we can not expect miracles if we need much time fast. I would absolutely recommend and do not be afraid to take it instead of the 70-200mm f / 4, there are no reasons for such 'objective to give up to 100mm in exchange for a halt. Highly recommended. |
 | sent on June 19, 2016 Pros: Size, sharp at all focal lengths, light weight, compact, weather sealed, stabilizer 4-stop, fun colors, af very fast. Cons: Compatibility with extenderrnrnrnrnForse the brightness a bit but you can not expect everything ;-) Opinion: I purchased this objective because I wanted a high quality in a canvas that was not particularly bulky and heavy. Mounted on 7D II behaved admirably giving me great satisfaction for general use, photographic stalking and portrait, razor sharp even wide open, beautiful colors, very similar in size and weight to my 24 70 the first series, it is a decent lens you has pleasure to carry it around with ease is not attracting people's attention, the only small flaw can be the brightness but with the reflex of the latest generation are unable to safely bring home great shots even in low light. |
  | sent on May 05, 2016 Pros: compact, excellent build quality, good AF, stabilizer Cons: very high price (compared to the performance), dim, image quality is not at the level of obiettidi similarly priced Opinion: Taking into account the cost and the fact that it classifies as a Canon 'L lens', frankly I expected better. Let's start with the positives: the build quality is very good, solid as you would expect from Canon's professional lenses, but at the same time rather compact; Autofocus is fast enough and has a great stabilizer. The image quality is good, but - by my standards - not great; improves stopping down by 1 stop. From an objective that costs 1200 € I expected better: if we compare it to another perspective of the same range, the Canon 70-200 f / 4 L IS, the build quality is equal but in terms of image quality 70 -300 (or at least the specimen I tried it) does not reach the excellent sharpness of the 70-200 f / 4 IS. Personally I would prefer the 70-200, possibly leading to a multiplier 1.4x to cover focal lengths up to 280mm, unless the maximum compactness circles, where the 70-300 has a certain advantage (closed misura against just 14cm 17cm or 20cm 70-200 70-200 + 1.4x). |
 | sent on March 07, 2016 Pros: autofocus speed, sharpness at full aperture and at all focal lengths, fantastic stabilizer, focal length and color rendering. Cons: Nobody. Opinion: I bought this lens still used as collateral. And 'ideal for both FF that APS-C. Great for stalking and stalking in the shed if the "prey" are moving towards and away. 5.6 to 300 mm is not at all a problem. I use it with the 7D and I am fully satisfied. The ring for the tripod is not original to less than half the original price Canon. |
 | sent on February 13, 2016 Pros: Sharpness at all focal lengths, stabilizer 4 very effective REAL stop, versatility of use. Great alternative on APS-C who needs no focal long. fast AF Cons: If it had been F4 at all focal CANON would have dug the market Opinion: I do nature photography with longer focal lengths, but every time I needed a versatile lens to use freehand in the forest or in short spaces and unplanned, constantly rediscover the quality of this light. The autofocus is the height of a number L, the stabilizer is impressive, steady images and allows many sins to my hand not always steadfast. Sharpness at the highest level, I never go over F8 - F11, I always feel that the quality of the picture worse when I push myself to smaller apertures. The weight is not excessive, it is commensurate with an objective to tropical robust execution. Well-sized lens hood. For those who want to duplicate it recommend the Kenko 1.4x DGX Pro300, for those who wish to learn I posted a detailed proof in the specific site section Juza. It 'a lens that by its brightness will never be praised by professional photographer. If the Canon had made a constant F4at all focal lengths, he dug out the market. If we had done a 70-300 F2.8 constant ... open up the sky, you say ... fiction ??? This is crazy !!! Mah! I daydream a photographer, so ... do not pretend that some reflections have their feet planted on the ground |
user37793 | sent on November 18, 2015 Pros: Excellent sharpness throughout the entire zoom and even at full aperture. Compact, well built and sealed. The autofocus is very fast and quiet, excellent stabilization. Cons: Position of the ring for manual focus than to zoom. We have to get used to it otherwise you may change the focus unintentionally. Even the supplied case is not very good. The ring for tripod should be included, and instead is a rather expensive option (one hundred Euros) and you feel the lack of compatibility with the Canon Extender. Opinion: It took me a bit 'of time to buy this light because I wanted to wait for it attested on prices correct than exaggerated the period immediately following its release. Finally I found it less than 1,200 euro and I decided to put their wallets. What to say? Despite the bad reputation that this lens has on various forums (only Italian though), I feel really paid off from my economic sacrifice! Than the non L I had before (and that still did its dirty work) the comparison is absolutely impossible. At 300 mm, the 70-300mm f / 4-5.6 IS USM is much sharper at full aperture brother cheapest closed F.8. In general, the image quality is excellent at all focal lengths and apertures so much so that the files produced are indistinguishable from those of my Canon 400mm f / 5.6 L USM. Certainly it is a perspective that is used in certain areas (outdoor and in particular travel and nature photography) and that is appreciatedfor its compactness and ease of use freehand. I think it is on the same level of the Canon 70-200mm f / 4 L IS USM (more light at higher zoom range). The new Canon 100-400mm f / 4-5.6 IS USM II provides, thanks to the higher zoom range and compatibility with Canon Extender, major points in favor for nature photographers but it must also emphasize that it costs almost twice! |
 | sent on June 24, 2015 Pros: Sharpness in all lengths, build quality and very high mechanical, fast and accurate autofocus, excellent quality of blurred. Cons: Much heavier than the "normal" 70 to 300, but the quality is of an entirely different category. It lacks series ring for tripod. Price a bit 'high, but worth every penny of its price. Opinion: Taken to replace at once the 70-200 f / 4 and is a Tamron SP 70-300. The decision has paid off in full shopping! Crystal clear, with a phenomenal optical quality, does not regret the 70-200 and never get to 300 while maintaining a really good definition. The quality of the blurred left me very pleasantly surprised. It seems to me better than the 70-200! Even the stabilizer performs well, I do not know whether even better than the "mythical" stabilizer Tamron. The autofocus is also very fast and accurate. Missing serial adapter ring for the tripod, but overall it is not a serious flaw. And 'quite heavy, but the construction is all metal, solid. A 70mm is still a lot more compact and also the Tamron 70-200 70-300. E 'expensive, but after seeing how he works are certainly worth its price down to the last penny. |
| sent on January 04, 2015 Pros: Fast autofocus, stabilizer very effective, very good image quality. Aesthetically efficace.rnHa the catch-zoom. Cons: Nothing against, is pesantino but it is consistent with its optical and mechanical qualities. It does not pass inosservato.rnL'anello tripod is expensive but it is an object of high quality and stabilità.rn Opinion: I came to this goal by the excellent starting phenomenal 70-200 f / 4 L IS, but I wanted to have a longer focal length, not to have to put on and remove the multiplier Kenko 1.4.rn (This multiplier also works with the 70-300 f / 4-5.6 L IS, maintaining autofocus and stabilization.) rnPrima to take it, making a change with my 70-200, did some hundreds of photos with both lenses and saw that the quality of the images taken with the 70-300 are very similar to those taken with the 70-200, never less, equal contrast and sharpening equal, and I have to say a little more vivid and brighter (all things be improved in Camera Raw Photoshop) .rnll reason for my change is therefore, I repeat, the Most focal length, + 50%. ', and the evidence of not sacrificing the quality of foto.rnPosso therefore refute the opinions fairly generalized not benevolent around this goal. Why, what the defect found? Rnih many cases the criticism is ridiculous, like "Ring treppiede is not included ", the hood is bulky, but no word on the picture quality. Photozone.de also did laboratory tests, which do not say anything. Instead I saw on the Web against the 'Juza' that is made of 100 clippings rni % in various focal and various stop; this kind of evaluation has also some gaps, perhaps too technicist but better of abstract discourses on chromatic aberration, barrel effect and the like, which remain on paper and do not provide evidence to human sight. |
 | sent on October 26, 2014 Pros: a good tele very bright tropical conditions excellent lautofocos, stabilizatore, Cons: a little heavy lack of the ring for three pedi Opinion: a telephoto lens with a canon of quality cke only knew realizare, sharpness you notice when you first use the colors are very vivid, double stabilizazione to use the telephoto lens with tripod eliminates the micro moved to lunche focal, auto-focus in a very fast and accurate, and also tropicalizato, recommend it for nature photos. |
 | sent on October 08, 2014 Pros: razor-sharp, lightning-fast autofocus, good stabilizazione, Cons: ring three feet is not present Opinion: I use it for a year gives me a lot of satisfaction in this file as part naturalistic and very versatile, with a bright excellent, a good autofocus, would recommend to anyone who wants to take pictures of nature, the stabilizazione helps at maximum focal length. in a bun blurred, the colors are amazing as only canon can do. the weight is not too invadende moves with ease. |
 | sent on August 18, 2014 Pros: Construction, sharpness, hike focal size Cons: Position of the ring for the change of focal length, maximum aperture Opinion: 2C then it's definitely worth ... RNE 'one of those lenses that could be metaphorically likened to a pack mule: if they speak little, no coat of arms, but always brings home his work ... a bit' as another famous L-series lens: the 17-40 ... compared to the latter, however, micro-contrast and sharpness are really eccellenti.rnAvere the 70-300 L in your backpack is a certainty, and if you have to report to a client , you know how important this is ... once you understand its characteristics and its "behavior" in the field, not tradisce.rnrnUn'ultima known for fotonaturalisti: the focal length is not very long, and those who want to "stretch" with a single lens, I feel certainly recommend the new Tamron 100-400 or 150-600 (I got them both and then I speak advisedly) ... vice versa, for those who love (like me) the small 400 f5.6 and the its excellent quality, this 70-300 might be an ideal companion camera body, 70-300 L, 400 5.6 and 1.4 multiplier could be a backpack beautiful and not too heavy (but a dark threador, then eye to the surrender at high iso) to go to photograph wildlife, with a lot of quality and great adaptability ... |
| sent on November 20, 2013 Pros: Autofocus, IS, focal length, weight and size Cons: Excursion to f5.6 Opinion: I bought my 70-300 L in August and I was amazed by its versatility. Certainly it is not a 2.8 but for outdoor or sporting events or whatever I have more than enough indeed! I am not a professional and my little experience in the backpack always close ... has caused a flight to down the scale.rnCosì, I thought I'd go to 70-200 LII, but I've done a number of considerations and this morning I decided to ............ buy back another 70-300! rnNe I felt greatly missed, especially when I have been to some sporting events with a loan Tamron.rnTrovo that has been designed just for my needs and if I do not it is essential to always bring him with me. The weight, compactness, speed of focus, the hike to 300, they know perfectly compensate for the lack of a fixed f4, otherwise it would have been perfect! RnNon feel the need of the collar because the extreme maneuverability allows me to take it anywhere and then to be even more comfortable, without cavalletto.rnRipeto, half a kilo less than the 50mm and 70-200 are really a lot and in my considerations, have had (again) a lot importanza.rnVale all his prezzo.rnP.s. A 300 is not the best, but remember that the others stop to 200! ;)) |
 | sent on November 01, 2013 Pros: Autofocus, sharpness, stabilization, zoom range, compactness, construction, multipliable (Kenko 1.4x) Cons: Dial position for maf Opinion: I express my ratings from former owner of 100-400 and 70-200 f4. I joined this zoom to 400 5.6 to have a view but versatile quality during long hikes and hunting photo exhibition; I must say I am really satisfied! I venture to say that the forum does not always help, in fact I tried it for yourself, and shortly after me are taken. Is criticized by price and brightness, it is certainly not a 2.8 by 5-10,000 €! I do not know that he had in the optical test Juza to express opinions both negative and say that the price is extremely high. The lens is compact and has the lock to prevent involuntary exit of the mobile part; unfortunately the bezel to the zoom is positioned so "abnormal", which creates some problems in the use in support (eg. bean bag) for maf manual. I regret a little 'the system to pump 100-400 much more immediate. With subjects detached from the background cmq able to make a good focus. It has a very effective stabilizer, a fast autofocus (I use it with 1DMk3) and multiplier Kenko 1, 4 going great for both automation and quality yield. Has characteristics defined macro even if macros are not (Rr 0,21x) that can be improved with the use of the tubes. I have tested with the pipe Kenko 25mm and lens keeps the stabilizer and autofocus (the latter within limits) useful for excellent close up stolen; I also tried combined all'1,4x + tube and does a good job, of course only on a lens treppiede.rnSicuramente undervalued and discredited by many opinions maybe "hearsay". Canon certainly support it could provide for the tripod in the price of iron instead of gold, although I do not care much and then there are models that are not original. Highly recommended! Rn |
 | sent on October 08, 2013 Pros: Focal length, compactness, stabilizer, out of focus Cons: No ring for the tripod Opinion: I was going to buy the 70-200 f / 4, but then go "discovered" this light and after some consultation on the forum I decided to prenderla.rnNon are minimally repented, indeed. rnOttica very compact, works well at all focal lengths can be used both for portraits for "hunting" lenses do not push too much. I've brought for a walk in the Abruzzo National Park for a week coupled with a 7D, it certainly is not light, but it is very usable in many situations (allows a little '"macros"). Rn |
user18686 | sent on August 30, 2013 Pros: Mechanical construction amazing - super stabilizer - versatility - very good yield and excellent at 70 between 135 and 200. Cons: Pesantuccio and not very ergonomic - tripod ring not included in the scope of optics - the yield decrease after the 200 (especially at the edges of ff) - selling price too high for the optical quality (though adequate to mechanical). Opinion: It 'a good compromise, perhaps the best 70 300 in circulation, but it lacks something to be counted among the best of Canon optical designs. The yield very good to excellent 70 gets between 135 and 200, then decays enough especially at the periphery on the format pieno.rnrnRispetto to 70 200 4is the impression is that the images are less brilliant, we say that he lacks the "wow effect" that has a little brother. The situation is different from the mechanical point of view because it is built in such a way impeccabile.rnrnIn conclusion for "general purpose" I feel much better than the 70 200 4is (with the 1, 4 X 300 are indispensable when) or 100 400 for those who practice naturalistica.rnrnrnrn |
 | sent on July 19, 2013 Pros: Compact and well made, stabilizer monstrous, amazing picture quality, convenient to carry without compromise, AF fast and accurate! Cons: Is not complete ring. Opinion: What about ... speaks a former owner of 70 200 f4 and 300 f4 is but when I tried this on my 70 300 6d I had no doubts: I found the lens of my dreams! Trasportabilissimo without compromising quality!! It 'a lens ductile, always keep in your bag! Seems very underrated Italian also reading many reviews on the internet; abroad is praised by all. I imbalance and release for the first time to date a nice 10 and praise. I forgot that 1200 euros for a lens for this are many but are well spent!! With the Kenko 300 pro dx goes great with maf automatic stabilizer and working ... Good photos! |
 | sent on February 03, 2013 Pros: Compact, clear, stabilizer generation, weight, construction, lock Cons: lack of support for the tripod Opinion: I use it mainly in the mountains as it is light and takes up little space, but in my opinion is also space within cittadino.rnEro very undecided between this and the POMPONE, but in the end I got it in full because soddisfava my esigenze.rnRispetto to POMPONE is much smaller and weighs less than 200g, which in total backpack always count .. RNA 300mm is sharper than 300 fixed. It 's true, do not get to 400, but in emergencies croppo (for me are few cases). RnTanti write will not get to 400, or would have been better all f4, true, but I would not have had that size / weight / price. rnPer regard to the price corresponds exactly to a 70-200/4 + 1.4 XII, with the disadvantage that a 200 is not f/4.rnLo stabilizer is incredible: I did not think to get pictures so good with the times so ridicoli.rnManca support for the tripod, if you feel the need concerning: depends on which focal utilizza.rnSe are undecided, do not read too (including the one I wrote): go and see it,touch it and try it yourself. |
| sent on November 17, 2012 Pros: sharpness, speed autofocus, stabilizer, weight, domensioni Cons: f4 could be over the entire focal Opinion: From my point of view is a great lens. Using for work many 300 fixed f2 / 8 that I can never afford, but this mini gun is not lacking anything to be considered professional. Fast, light, crisp, clean, has the only limit being a f4/5.6 but it is also the reason why has the price. Money well spent, I riacquisterei if I could go back. |
 | sent on July 20, 2012 Pros: razor sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures; effectiveness of the stabilizer, compactness and low weight; held in backlight Cons: absence of the tripod socket as standard; sharpness "crisp" in portraits Opinion: E 'in the migior purchase home Canon to cover the range of telephoto lenses. Yield is high on the Leica format that (I would almost say especially) on APS-C, which is one of the few lenses that can take full advantage of the talents of high density sensors (Canon 7D in the first place). With kit consists of a 5DII with 17-40 (or 24-105) L, a 7D and this 70-300L is faced with virtually any undertaking qualitative satisfaction fotonaturalistico reasonably be expected. Adding to the whole an achromatic doublet (Canon 500D close-up lens) you manage to get close-ups [see my gallery samples] high quality without the need for a specialized purpose. AF fast, istantanteo with the 7D. Very effective stabilizer allows shutter speeds simply unthinkable freehand with good statistics of success. I would not change anything about this goal. |
 | sent on March 03, 2012 Pros: excellent sharpness wide open at all focal lengths, the latest generation of stabilizer, autofocus fast, light weight, solid construction, weather sealed, free from aberrations, lens hood and carrying case included. Cons: not compatible with the Canon multipliers, available on the internet pretty much just because the huge difference between the prices of the shops. Opinion: I was almost two months to decide whether to buy this lens or POMPONE 100-400. I had a good opportunity to compare them both on the field taking pictures of evidence. The final choice between the two fell on the 70-300L due to three main factors that have made the difference, incredible sharpness, tropicalization and stabilization up to 4 stops. The only reason why saw well POMPONE was for the fact that up to 400 mm, while losing the sharpness if not closes the aperture of at least 1 stop. From this test I noticed two things: the 100-400 is not sharp wide open at 300 mm to 400 mm (which, moreover, are about 380 mm) and those who say that the 70-300L is not a clear goal, I hope to have had in his hands a defective part, because it is just the opposite: fully deserves the red band. |
user505 | sent on November 22, 2011 Pros: Excellent sharpness throughout the entire zoom, and even at full aperture. Compact, well built and weather sealed. The autofocus is very fast and quiet, good stabilization. Cons: Dial position for manual focus than for zooming. You have to get used to it otherwise you may change the focus unintentionally. Even the storage case supplied is not great. Opinion: It took me a little 'time to purchase this point because I wanted to wait for it to certifying on prices correct than exaggerated the period immediately following its release. Finally I found less than 1,200 euro and I decided to put their hands in their pockets. What can I say? Despite the bad reputation that this lens has on various forums (only Italian though), I really feel rewarded by my financial sacrifice! Compared to the L version I had before (and it was still his dirty work) the comparison is absolutely impossible. At 300 mm the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is much sharper wide open at his brother's cheapest closed F.8. In general, the image quality is excellent at all focal lengths and apertures so much so that the files produced are indistinguishable from those of my Canon 400mm f/5.6 L USM. Certainly it is a perspective that should be used in certain areas (outdoor and in particular travel and nature photography) and that is appreciated for its compactness and ease of use freehand. I think it is on the same level as the Canon 70-200mm f / 4 L IS USM (brighter at higher focal length) and Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (greater focal length against better image quality and Stabilisation). Which you choose depends only on the optical needs of the photographer but ... are always partridges! |
 | sent on November 19, 2011 Pros: The sharpness of the series for all focal lengths and all apertures, good zoom range, blow up acceptable, excellent construction, silent and powerful stabilizer. Cons: price a little high, it would be better F4 drive. Opinion: I think it's a good choice for those who make the big walks and no one wants to take equipment too bulky and heavy. I would see it well in tandem with the 15-85 is usm canon, two goals for equipment that is able to cover almost all requirements for a naturalist-landscape. I just bought and tried and I must say that I was pleased immediatamente.Da former owner of the harrier 100-400, I was surprised at the sharpness of this new lens, its focal massima.Peccato can not work with the 1.4 X . |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
