I'm not aware of any 70-300mm f/2.8 lenses from any manufacturer. Such a lens would almost certainly be extremely heavy and expensive (based on Canon's recent super-telephoto zoom prices, I'd estimate it would cost $6,000+).
I'm also not aware of any 70-300mm f/4 lenses. Canon do a variable-aperture 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 lens, in both their consumer and professional range, but not a fixed-aperture f/4 zoom in this range.
If you want a fixed-aperture zoom in this focal length range, then the closest available are probably the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, the Canon 70-200mm f/4, the Canon or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, or the Canon 200-400mm f/4. The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is a respectable lens if you can live with the 120mm wide end, the weight (you won't be carrying it around your neck), and the price.
@abirkill@angiec As Alexis says, only respectable for the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. I tried it on my Nikon and was quite underwhelmed. US$3,600 (promotion?) and almost 8 pounds, you won't hand hold this baby, so why bother with optical stabilization? It's a newish lens and I haven't seen a great body of consumer reviews one way or the other.
I bought the Sigma 120-400 4.5-5.6 (two stops down from f/2.8). At 1/2 the weight, you can hand hold this in all but the worst light with the excellent Optical Stabilization. And 1/4 the price! Nicely sharp and consistent - the MTF charts tell the whole story - throughout almost the whole range. In practice with my APS-C D7100 I don't have any issues with the edges at all.
@swilde 61 ounces I believe the spec sheet says. Not inconsequential but manageable. The weight appears to be balanced well so it can be swung around as you "track" something moving if you have to.
There is also the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. If you are prepared to lay out the cash then the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a super lens but it is a bit weighty.at 1490g (3.3 lb)
@abirkill@frankhymus@swilde@frankhymus@steampowered Thank you all so much for very valuble information and advice. I am so glad I posted this question as your replies have really helped to start ironing out my dliemmas. I will be looking into the 120 - 400 as I have an 18 - 200 f/3.5 - 5.6 (which I love!) @abirkill I did mean f/4-f/5.6 lens (and not f/4!)
Canon buddy is an app used in the past...it doesn't seem to be to bias, as in it has all the lenses listed and specs then reviews and examples on each one...really I use it just to tease myself but If I could absorb information it would be useful too
I was so excited to see this conversation showing up under latest topics because I have just been considering this lens: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Here's my dilemma: I just got back from a nearly three week trip to Macau-Hong Kong - China,and my hand hurt at the end of each day from holding up the Canon 6D with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM on it most of the time, and my "other" lens I took was the 16-24 wide angle. I also had my 50, 1.4 which quit working on this trip -- focus problems. I never had a zoom beyond the 70. I have a small hand (I'm only 5'0") and I need a traveling lens to pair with the 24-70. I do own the 70-200 f/4.
So from what you all know and have experience with, is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good choice for a carry-around lens? Most of the lenses you've mentioned already in this post are gigantic and heavy.
Hi Junko, Presume you are talking about the DSO lens. I do own one of these and at first with my Canon 7D cant say I was pleased with the results. However I now have a 5d MkIII and the results are totally different. For carrying around much lighter than the 70-200 and not so obvious as it is black not white. Hope this helps
@jyokota My own experience with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS on a 7D mirrors @padlock but I ditched the lens in favour of the 70 - 200mm f/2.8L IS II USM so I can't say that it would make a difference on the 1D-X. The other thing was that my 70-300 back focussed immensely (I use a LensAlign Pro set up to check new lenses) and took all of the microadjustment that the 7D would give me before giving a reasonable result. Had you thought about a Tamon 18-270? It is a comparable weight.
@jyokota As you're probably noticing, it's important to make sure we're all talking about the same lens.
There's three 70-300mm lenses that Canon do:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, which I think is what you're referring to.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, which I think is what @padlock is referring to.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens
I would very much recommend against the first lens for use on a full-frame camera -- while it is a full-frame lens, the quality is frankly pretty appalling, requiring it to be stopped down to f/8-f/11 for even vaguely sharp results, and with an autofocus system that has a huge amount of 'slop' in it.
I would also personally steer clear of the DO version on a full-frame camera -- while it's a little more acceptably sharp, and has a better autofocus system, it's still only a lens I'd recommend for crop-frame use due to its limited sharpness and contrast. It's also very expensive for what you get. If you are absolutely desperate for a light telephoto zoom, then you may find the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but I'd advise renting it first to make sure you can live with the quality.
The lens you really need to match the quality of your full-frame 6D is the L version of this lens. This is only about $300 more than the DO version, and is exceptionally sharp at all focal lengths and apertures -- it's very usable wide open, where the other two, in my opinion, absolutely need stopping down to reach acceptable sharpness.
It is a heavier lens, although at 1050g vs 720g for the DO version, it's not a ridiculous difference, and is absolutely a lens you can handhold for an entire day's worth of shooting (it's considerably lighter than a 70-200mm f/2.8, which is a very handholdable lens). I cannot in all honestly recommend any of the other 70-300mm lenses in Canon's range for use on a full-frame camera, given the tradeoffs.
Here's a sharpness comparison of the 70-300mm non-L non-DO at 300mm, f/11 (the sharpest it gets), compared to the 70-300mm L at 300mm f/5.6 (wide open). Move your mouse over the image to switch to the L lens, and pay attention to the corner sharpness:
And here's a comparison of the DO version at 300mm, f/8 (the sharpest it gets), compared to the L version at the same wide-open settings. The DO version performs better in the corners, but the overall sharpness and contrast loss make the L version, at only $300 more, a much better value proposition:
@jyokota@steampowered Hi Yunko. That's one of the downsides of the current breed of the best DSLR full frame cameras, the camera is not light, even your 6D which is somewhat smaller than the 5Diii, and "big" lenses, especially good quality telephotos, can be heavy because of all the glass especially for small hands.
Paul, the Tamron I think you refer to is a cropped sensor lens, one of the new class super-zooms, so I think Yunko would not want to put it on the 6D.
Well, let me just say an ENORMOUS THANKS for your feedback, your candid opinions, your fine analysis and trustworthy guidance. I am enormously appreciative.
I'm glad I asked before I bought. . . because I was leaning towards buying the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM -- the very "slick" salesperson set the camera to ISO 1250 and f/11 -- and now I understand why he did that in broad day light to get the sharpness I would never have been able to otherwise.
@abirkill@frankhymus@steampowered@jyokota@padlock Thanks all so much for your help. I am so glad I asked. Like Junko, I'd probably have most likely gone for the first one mentioned by Alexis! I think I have decided on the 70''200 f.2.8. I want it for sports mainly so the extra weight shouldn't be too much of a problem. Thanks again and again...it's so not an easy decision and so great to have your support!!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I'm also not aware of any 70-300mm f/4 lenses. Canon do a variable-aperture 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 lens, in both their consumer and professional range, but not a fixed-aperture f/4 zoom in this range.
If you want a fixed-aperture zoom in this focal length range, then the closest available are probably the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, the Canon 70-200mm f/4, the Canon or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, or the Canon 200-400mm f/4. The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is a respectable lens if you can live with the 120mm wide end, the weight (you won't be carrying it around your neck), and the price.
I bought the Sigma 120-400 4.5-5.6 (two stops down from f/2.8). At 1/2 the weight, you can hand hold this in all but the worst light with the excellent Optical Stabilization. And 1/4 the price! Nicely sharp and consistent - the MTF charts tell the whole story - throughout almost the whole range. In practice with my APS-C D7100 I don't have any issues with the edges at all.
I was so excited to see this conversation showing up under latest topics because I have just been considering this lens: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Here's my dilemma: I just got back from a nearly three week trip to Macau-Hong Kong - China,and my hand hurt at the end of each day from holding up the Canon 6D with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM on it most of the time, and my "other" lens I took was the 16-24 wide angle. I also had my 50, 1.4 which quit working on this trip -- focus problems. I never had a zoom beyond the 70. I have a small hand (I'm only 5'0") and I need a traveling lens to pair with the 24-70. I do own the 70-200 f/4.
So from what you all know and have experience with, is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good choice for a carry-around lens? Most of the lenses you've mentioned already in this post are gigantic and heavy.
There's three 70-300mm lenses that Canon do:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, which I think is what you're referring to.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, which I think is what @padlock is referring to.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens
I would very much recommend against the first lens for use on a full-frame camera -- while it is a full-frame lens, the quality is frankly pretty appalling, requiring it to be stopped down to f/8-f/11 for even vaguely sharp results, and with an autofocus system that has a huge amount of 'slop' in it.
I would also personally steer clear of the DO version on a full-frame camera -- while it's a little more acceptably sharp, and has a better autofocus system, it's still only a lens I'd recommend for crop-frame use due to its limited sharpness and contrast. It's also very expensive for what you get. If you are absolutely desperate for a light telephoto zoom, then you may find the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but I'd advise renting it first to make sure you can live with the quality.
The lens you really need to match the quality of your full-frame 6D is the L version of this lens. This is only about $300 more than the DO version, and is exceptionally sharp at all focal lengths and apertures -- it's very usable wide open, where the other two, in my opinion, absolutely need stopping down to reach acceptable sharpness.
It is a heavier lens, although at 1050g vs 720g for the DO version, it's not a ridiculous difference, and is absolutely a lens you can handhold for an entire day's worth of shooting (it's considerably lighter than a 70-200mm f/2.8, which is a very handholdable lens). I cannot in all honestly recommend any of the other 70-300mm lenses in Canon's range for use on a full-frame camera, given the tradeoffs.
Here's a sharpness comparison of the 70-300mm non-L non-DO at 300mm, f/11 (the sharpest it gets), compared to the 70-300mm L at 300mm f/5.6 (wide open). Move your mouse over the image to switch to the L lens, and pay attention to the corner sharpness:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=4&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
And here's a comparison of the DO version at 300mm, f/8 (the sharpest it gets), compared to the L version at the same wide-open settings. The DO version performs better in the corners, but the overall sharpness and contrast loss make the L version, at only $300 more, a much better value proposition:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Paul, the Tamron I think you refer to is a cropped sensor lens, one of the new class super-zooms, so I think Yunko would not want to put it on the 6D.
Well, let me just say an ENORMOUS THANKS for your feedback, your candid opinions, your fine analysis and trustworthy guidance. I am enormously appreciative.
I'm glad I asked before I bought. . . because I was leaning towards buying the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM -- the very "slick" salesperson set the camera to ISO 1250 and f/11 -- and now I understand why he did that in broad day light to get the sharpness I would never have been able to otherwise.
@abirkill -- Is this the right one? I'd better start saving Christmas money and taking on extra jobs :) http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20589428.html?gclid=CL3i0YW8uLsCFYlAMgod9BUAPQ