Canon EF 70-300mm L Review

[@getdesignonline]

Watching this 12 years later! For people watching this because they consider buying this lens: you will not be disappointed. I agree with Jared, if you NEED the blown out backgrounds in all your shots when you photograph sports like in this video, this lens is not going to do that for you. But if you need the reach of the 300mm the f/2.8 version will set you back quite a lot more money. And this lens does blow out the background with an amazingly smooth bokeh when the background is far enough away from your subject! I Have the 70-200mm f2.8 (version 1) and I love that lens and it's my go to for indoor. But this 70-300mm beats it (in my opinion) in sharpness, contrast and vibrancy and to me it's not even close as much as I like that 70-200mm. The pictures are amazing straight out of camera, it's one of my sharpest lenses and I take it out on hikes when I only want to have 1 lens with me that can get me all these different types of pictures. What is also a huge advantage of this lens is that you can focus at 1.2m at 300mm, which allows you to take very good close-up shots, I have gotten many good shots of insects with this lens. I bought mine years ago for 300$ because it was dropped very hard and was all messed up inside (outside didn't have a scratch!), but had it fixed for another 300 and saved a lot of money that way back then. It was amazing on my DSLR's but I notice I use it even more now with my R7. So if you're considering a used copy of this lens today in 2023 for a very reasonable price, knowing and accepting the limitations of the (variable) aperture, go get it. If you don't drop it from 2 stories high on a hard surface it will last you a lifetime, it is built like a tank.

[@ZachAshcraft]

Smelling it and saying its overpriced before you even use it? Lovely review

[@ericcooper4557]

I brought this lens about 8 months ago used, half priced and loving the results. This lens is a tank and it's heavy but the images are sharp.

[@key00992233]

He is the only reviewer that is honest. Thanks Jared.

[@yehoshuafeinstain2749]

2019? And still FROKNOWSPHOTO!!!

[@BuckfaceMcCoy]

The 70-300 f4-5.6L IS is nearly 500g lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Then if you add another 250g for the 2x teleconverter the 70-300 is roughly 750g lighter. That is ALOT when Trekking and Back-packing.The 70-300 also packs up much smaller and is still sharper at the 300 end. In Australia the costs are roughly $1500 vs $3000 (for both tele-converter and 70-200 lens). Yes, the 70-200 is a "better" lens in its range but its twice the price (atleast in Australia) and a decent amount heavier and more bulky. Thoughts?

[@MrRensan404]

A quality built lens, sharp from corner to corner, good focal length, image-stabilized, and compact in size to easily carry in the camera bag.

[@jonowhitfield]

Ive been using it for landscape, Not an issue at F11, super sharp

[@yamfish6]

I don't think most people will miss the tripod collar. I tested it with my old T3 (super lightweight) on a Manfrotto Befree tripod, lens hood on, zoomed to 300. Tripod legs were fully extended and centre column was up. Still seemed reasonably stable, and that's the worst case scenario I could think of (apart from using a sketchy cheapo tripod). Might not trust that set up on a very windy day, but I also wouldn't have the tripod maxed out in that case). The lens has a smaller barrel than the ones that come with a collar, and the extending portion is plastic, so while it's heavy, it's fairly balanced.

[@thesharpercoder]

The 70-200 weighs 3 lbs. This 70-300 weighs 2 lbs. This lens is much shorter, which means it can fit into more bags while still mounted to the camera. The lens is better suited for landscape photography, and larger wildlife, than sports photography. BTW, he mentions Nikon has a similar 70-300 for $500 USD. He fails to mention that the Nikon is not weather sealed, and that Canon had a similarly priced 70-300, which is not weather sealed, either. Nikon did not offer a weather sealed 70-300, and still doesn’t.

[@RealtorRod64]

I know this video is 9 years old, but I have this lens personally and I own it because it is way superior to the slightly smaller 70-300 DO which I used to have and this lens is heavy but SUPER short in length when zoomed to 70. It's literally half the size of the 70-200 2.8 L so it takes up very little space in my bag :) Jared you didn't really emphasize the size much and that is the real "big deal": with this lens. Optically it is razor sharp and the IS is bullet proof!

[@froknowsphoto]

@EpicsodeOne Yes I shoot Nikon but even if I was shooting with Canon which I have a body and L glass on the way I would not buy this lens for one or any other F4 lens. There is a major difference between F4 with IS and a 2.8. Just because you have IS doesnt mean that its equivalent to a 2.8.

[@Случайныйсвидетель-ш5ж]

Дилетанты от фотографии не должны делать такие видео.

[@Darksagan]

Dude your videos are sick man, straight to the point, and funny.

[@xstncd]

Thank you Jared for making that clear, I am really fed up with a lot of people arguing about brands when really, its all about the quality and creativity of the photo.

[@mannixdavidmannix]

All grammar and spelling aside, I think he justified the reason why he did a review. It's being talked about as a great lens by many people. It is obviously way overpriced for what it is. If it's possible for you, go out and borrow/rent the 70-200 f2.8 and then this lens and see how you feel. When the price is almost the same you will think differently. If you think, "Oh, I wish I had more reach!" Then grab a teleconverter

[@CarRoy]

The kids in this football game are like 18 now, thats crazy

[@testchannel66]

Go to 15:11. He will tell you about information without yelling about price to much.

[@MrKnnknn]

Jarred, another reason why you get blur is because of the distance from the subject, I'm sure you already knew that, I just wanted to point it out. You could have a f/2.8 lens, if your subject is far, you won't get good blur.

[@swetstaaled3549]

I got this lens in like new condition for 650 Euro. Been using it for wildlife and general shooting and all I can say is that its great on my 90D. Images are sharp and vibrant, focus is fast and accurate , IS works superb and its short stubby shape is easy packing.

[@johnnathan2149]

Jared do you prefer 70-200 (f4) or 70-300 (f4.5-f5.6)... Noone compared them yet....

[@Arlantix]

Great video, well made and very informative. It was indeed helpful when I was deciding whether to buy this lens or not, which I finally did, in 2015, a great decision. I like the photo examples used and the analysis, they perfectly show what this optical jewel is capable of. I also like that you make a clear, well-founded and fair analytical balance on the lens, with its main pros and cons. I agree in that price is the main negative thing, but let's not forget that this is an L lens with a great reach, and that means top quality. Likewise, I can confirm, after using it for a few years now, that this lens is totally worth it, with a superb and outstanding image quality and sharpness, absolutely fantastic, mainly in outdoors photography in decent or good light, but it is not bad at all in bad light either. Yes, it is not an f/2.8, which by the way would cost an insane amount of money if ever built in this zoom range, but man, those extra 100mm (in relation to the 70-200 f/2.8) are very, very usable. In addition, the 70-300mm L is very easy to fit in a bag and it can be carried around all day without breaking your neck or your shoulder, unlike with the 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 100-400mm, which is a big plus. Of course the 70-200mm f/2.8 wins and beats the 70-300mm L in some specific conditions or situations, such as indoors, low light, portraits and bokeh, as you well argue in the video, but for other purposes I so much prefer the 70-300mm L. Each lens has its pros and cons, if only the perfect lens existed... The conclusion is obvious… you can’t have it all!. :)

[@vinvanid]

How's your 70-300L, still use it ? is it still great today ?

[@Arlantix]

@@vinvanid Hi there. Yes, I still use it and it is still great. The optics, sharpness, colours, materials, ect, are superb, of the highest quality. Very happy with my 70-300L. The Canon 70-300L lens is the best 70-300 lens, I believe. I also use it for macro and long exposure night photography, not only as a zoom lens. Size is great as well, not too bulky. It is an awesome lens. :)

[@vinvanid]

@@Arlantix Wow, still the best ! Thank you for your info, God bless 🙏

[@kdw75]

I have had this for almost a decade. My reason for buying it over the 70-200, was that I wanted to do a lot of outdoor shooting and the 200mm wasn't enough reach. I put this on my 7D and it is fantastic for nature shots. Yeah, I wish it was a wider aperature, but..... As for the price, have you seen what the RF lenses are going for?????

[@southerncharity7928]

Lol glad I'm not the only one watching 9 year old fro videos. Lol. BTW, just bought one for $600 brand new from Amazon. Are they any good?

[@kdw75]

@@southerncharity7928 Sure happy with mine. Nice and sharp and the IS works great!

[@sedward1261]

@@southerncharity7928 The L version still runs $1350 new, used about $1000

[@southerncharity7928]

@@sedward1261 I got the L version. from Amazon. it was 600 US bucks - unreal right?! Probably a misprice. I see they normally sell like U say on eBay.

[@sedward1261]

@@southerncharity7928 yes that's a steal if in decent condition.

[@froknowsphoto]

@GrimsditchImages correct!!! And people love love that lens.

[@shademanirvanipour6870]

I got one of these canon lenses and I use it for Portraits/Fashion/Sports/Wild Life /Macro photography/ Video recordings and I had it for 6 years now and is a good lens to have and well built

[@MrDigitaltraveler]

I personally hear great things about the tamron 70 - 300 VC, image quality is super sharp from what I'm reading. And the price is around 400 dollars? Would like to see the Nikon/Canon/ Tamron next to each other! Keep up the great reviews mister Fro!

[@MrKnnknn]

5.6 isn't so bad outdoors up until late in the afternoon (California, summer season), this lens isn't meant to be used in-doors anyway. The only issue is lack of blur.

[@Guderian0617]

I think Canon is just sticking a red ring on random lenses and painting them white in order to overcharge consumers. Optically it cannot possibly be four time better than the non-L version to justify its price. Nikon has got it right in the sense that the only variable aperture gold ring-ed lens is the 80-400, which is an awesome lens.

[@hunterVworld]

9 years ago? I'm searching Affordable Lens for Canon R6. Would you recommend this?

[@gran_turismo_fan]

I would recommend it if you have the money or you do photography as a job where you need a compact telephoto lens or need a sharp high quality lens that performs really good. I think this lens really shines in full frame sensor cameras. Crop sensor cameras are good too.

[@HeroShotz]

This lens is $500 used now is it worth it ?

[@damo.hutchinson]

Yes 100%

[@nicholassantrizos9092]

I'm 100% with you on this review. Im a loyal canon fanboy and this lens is frankly not a worth while L lens and its existence is frustrating. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a superior lens in brightness, the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 L out does it in versatility and quality & is roughly the same. There is a 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM for around the $700 price range that would be roughly the same quality on anything but a pro body. I would maybe get this on a 7d for wild life but other than that i see no reason for it.

[@froknowsphoto]

@woohoodoh your right, but this is a small small market. I really liked the results I got and it is a very tempting lens. I bet the paps will like it eh.

[@bryanbaskett4010]

You can pick up a used one online, mint condition for about $600 now. Awesome zoom lens! Using for High School track and field and Cross Country races. The Crop sensor giving me 484mm saves me a LOT of leg work at the events, Great review, thanks!

[@awesomeheavendac]

Sometimes they are in the $400s/$500s now which is a STEAL, no reason for the 70-300 is ii which is similarly priced when the L is right here

[@froknowsphoto]

@schumionbike I shoot at 1/4000 or 1/6400 someitmes when i am at 200 IS and shooting at 2.8. Shutter speed doesnt effect the quality.

[@JerryChang-m6d]

Thanks for sharing! How is the image quality compared to EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM?

[@TheRocketdrone]

I think this is intended more for the shooters who shoot the 100-400L because of the similar apertures and design elements. Canon already has 4 versions of the 70-200 so I don't think they were targeting that segment.

[@froknowsphoto]

@hcoll thats a good question, i think it was low down there in the zoom which isnt to good.

[@TylerMarsh87]

Personally Im torn between the 70-200 f/4 is or the 70-300 f/4-5.6L. Photography is my hobby not my career so I would love to get a 70-200 f/2.8 ii but the price after taxes is gonna cost me over $1000 more than these other two and the size of that lens is also hassle. I think I'd be better off with the 70-300L and a 50 f1.8 or f1.4 for indoors if I ever needed it. Inside a house with lights on f/4 is usually enough for a decent image anyways. especially with a high quality L lens with IS.

[@marcanthonyskidmore4131]

I use this lens all the time now and after watching this review it was not the best choice back in the day. However now it is a perfect telephoto lens to use as it is much cheaper and still performs well.

[@froknowsphoto]

@wilbertcs both of those lenses yes as long as they are on the pro end bodies. On the lower end body def the 70-200

[@motokokusanagi85]

Hey Jared, Ive just seen the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM for £898 from a web company based here in the UK and I'm thinking that's the way to go. Totally agree with the opinion on using f2.8. One comment I'd like to make is that you guys have things relatively cheap compared to us. The EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM Lens is £1339 here. Based on the current exchange rate, that's not so hot! ($2149 equivalent)

[@diamadragonz]

thanks for the review am buying this lens this week for my mark3 and would be shooting alot of landscape videos and pictures ! cant wait to get this baby 70-300 L

[@froknowsphoto]

@flowremix That may just end up happening but a lot depends on the d7000 compared to the canon. I shot some of the Flyers warm up tonight with the t2i, it even gets 29 min continuos recording.

[@kimurafrank]

you mentioned 3 prime lenses you could get for the same money... with a 2.8 blend.. which lenses were you talking about?:) thanks for the great review! how's the IS noise on the 70-300 while filming? i saw a video of the 70-200 f4...and the noise of the constant IS was very disturbing, if you wanna keep the cam-recorded sound!

[@froknowsphoto]

@EpicsodeOne im not talking about black blur or anything im just talking about a 2.8 has more features that lead it to have better pictures than an f4 even with IS. They tend to be built better have better optics have more optics which means images shot at F4 will be better than images shot with the f4 lens.

[@ParallaxFPV]

Certainly for sports this lens has some significant drawbacks, but for someone like myself who shoots wildlife more than anything else f5.6 really isn't an issue, I'm stopping down to f6-7 anyhow so it's all about what you want out of a lens. And for me, fast focus, sharp images and versatility are what matter. I agree it'd be nice if it was at least a constant f4, but i think it certainly has it's place in the market.

[@harleyrider9166]

It would have been nice if you quit comparing it to a 2.8. It’s not s 2.8 so to continually go on about blowing out the background was getting a little irritating. F/4-5.6 lens usually don’t blow out backgrounds anyway. Other than that great review. Blowing out the background is getting to be old hat like splashes of colors on Black and White photos. The benefits of this particular lens go far beyond the ability to blow out a background at maximum official length, which you did cover a little.

[@woohoodoh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't think this lens is aimed towards the amateur market, but instead made for those professional journalists and photographers who wish to have a travel lens with a long telephoto range, which isn't to big, but still produces great image quality and still has a professional build quality! This lens shouldn't be considered by amateurs, and is really only made for professionals and those with special needs...

[@MrKnnknn]

In the video, you asked who would want to buy this lens, I had been searching for an outdoor sports lens with IS and has good reach, the 70-200 just didn't cut it, add an extender? I will end up at the same aperture as the 70-300 more or less, so I decided to get the 70-300, it's an amazing lens, excellent optical quality and has everything I need without sacrificing image quality.

[@kwiggy69]

I commend you for not giving a glowing review here. I get tired of reading and watching reviews from people who are afraid to say anything bad about the product being reviewed. However, I do think you are a tad unfair here. Remember, It is considerably less heavy than that 70-200 f/2.8 L. It is also reasonably compact (compared to other off-white L lenses). So I'd say that this lens is a good lens for an outdoor photographer who can't/doesn't use a tripod like a backpacker or birdwatcher.

[@froknowsphoto]

@billdowis i was the guy with the hair shooting with a canon and recording video with the nikon and no one said a word.

[@waarce]

I got that same lens for $1000.00 used. I don't know if I should buy the newest version of the 70-200 since I don't want to have too much redundancy by having the 70-300mm and a 70-200mm. Any advice?

[@Diostillrocks]

Get prime lenses in the 70-200mm range if you need them for low light. For the price of a 70-200mm 2.8 you could get a 85mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.0 L plus a 1.4 extender for the 135mm and have a couple of hundred of dollars left over.

[@L4Topher]

@MikeyMcArthur93 Yep, as stinamarie said. I'm not a Nikon user, but I'm pretty sure the 50mm f/1.8 was made for older bodies which actually housed their own focus motor; the motor was not in the lens itself. The D3000 doesn't have a focus motor, so you would be mounting a lens without a motor on a body without a motor, causing you to manual focus only.

[@froknowsphoto]

@Pugyxandrew that is a blue yeti.

[@ShuPortraits]

good review. i agree with you on about 80% of what you're saying. i just bought this lens and think it's totally worth it, but i'm going to be using it for higher end gigs where the quality difference matters. for a beginner, get the other canon 70-300, which is the equivalent to the nikon vr you referred to. both are about the same price and build quality. i now have both canons and the quality difference is striking. $1200 would be nice but it's a new design so it's going to be expensive.

[@ramonperezsanchez]

Thank you for posting this.

[@svtcontour]

I've got the 55-250IS and I can say its very good given its price. I think shooting sports would be fine with it as long as its a bright sunny day since the max aperature at 250mm is 5.6. Just be aware that its an EFS mount so it wont fit a full frame like the 5D series down the road.

[@froknowsphoto]

@mikenyesi123 not for my stills, but the video in the t2i is pretty impressive.

[@gbsailing1]

Jared, I have to agree with you re the price, the 70-200 f2.8 would be the preferred choice for my money. I noticed your comment about not having a vertical grip. I often shoot with my right hand low turning the camera the other way. In your situation sitting there you can then use your elbows to for a kind of tripod effect between both arms. Just my input...

[@nunaubusiness4840]

What are the 3 lenses you would suggest that are better than this lens? You mentioned it several times and I'd be interested in hearing what those are.

[@FrontSideBus]

How much was it again?

[@truknayr23]

FrontSideBus 16 hundred dollars! LOL! ^_^ it's as if Jared could not say it enough eh.... ^_^ Cheers!

[@mrrobinson1975]

Canon has a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS for $500. Which is a very solid lens, some even call it a baby L lens, that is the one you should compare to this one and the Nikon 70-300.

[@unknownKnownunknowns]

If you could get this lens used, good copy, for $400, or the 400 f/5.6 for $500, which would you recommend? - sports shooter. Already have a 70-200

[@froknowsphoto]

@estudio100rafa I have all the nikon glass myself and I will be making full reviews very soon!!!!

[@DeanFuller1960]

Great review. I DO shoot Canon. The reason I do shoot Canon is the L glass. IMHO it is the best glass...BUT it is pricey. I DO hope you do more reviews on Canon as I enjoy your take on things. BTW...I try to stay with f2.8 lens for the reasons you state. I do have a 24-70 f4L as a walk around lens. The ONE thing Nikon has right now over Canon...their higher ISO looks to have much less noise...hope Canon comes around soon with that. Lets see some more Canon reviews FRO..!

[@chrissetian]

Do you think that if we use Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L (non IS) with a 2x teleconverter will be better than this 70-300 ?

[@sharonsmith6750]

It's a great lens. Image quality is second to none.

[@cockyjeremy]

f/4-5.6 is why i bought the 300 f/4. I shoot in low light and the 5.6 isn't going to cut it. f/4 at a high ISO is perfectly fine though on my Mark II.

[@froknowsphoto]

@meinDummerNutzername i would go with the 2.8 over both for the same price.

[@2lolol3]

Hey Jared awesome video... I'm looking to get a Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM non-L that is pretty soon and here it goes for about £400-£500. Son far i have the standard kit and the 50mm 1.8 so i'm still a beginner. What do you think?

[@donsullivan6199]

I would like to see how it compares with the canon 300mm f4 L prime

[@nimrod208]

I would really like to see how this stacks up against the EF 70-300mm f/3-5.6 IS USM and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 DO IS USM. Interested to see what the difference in price offers.

[@optikalefx]

If you are looking for 300, maybe you shoot animals a bunch, would you recommend the DO over this guy?

[@nepalistrings8778]

Hello Jared Polin!!. I have a question. Canon 55-250 mm IS STM lens or, Canon 70-300 mm IS USM lens??. Which is better?. I want to purchase a new lens and want to jump from 18-55mm kit lens. Help please!!😊

[@OptiFixHindi]

9:45 is that 70-300mm ? its awesome background blur... can i get same result with nikon d5300 ? with same lense ?

[@Mrsvaughan61]

Hey Jared.. that lens would be more useful for nature shots.... plus I heard that the canon 70-200 4 L is sharper than the 2.8 version.. and it is about 800 dollars cheaper.... But I do know the advantages of the aperture of 2.8... It all depends on what type of photography that you do......

[@oldproji]

I have to agree. Background separation is an important factor in sports and portraiture, so this lens would be a waste of money for most, amateur or pro, in my view.

[@myhealthtoo]

Have you ever tried using the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens on a 60D or even a rebel series body?I bet you still get great images.

[@marcosufelipe]

3 lenses for beginners? Which ones?

[@a-cold-wind]

Is there a reason you prefer Nikon over Canon?

[@drguffey]

I tried out this lens & hope Canon will come out with a Mk II with the Zoom Ring & Focus Ring reversed. I never use Manuel Focus. I would prefer the Zoom ring closer to the camera body. I opted for the 70-200 F4 L for now.

[@mythos14]

its made for fullframe, why testing it on a crop? background would blur more right?

[@schumionbike]

hey Jared, I wonder why you set your shutterspeed so high, it almost seem like it's unnecssary. 1/2500 seemed a bit high for a kid soccer game. I would think 1/1000 would be plenty. I like to keep my ISO as low as possible ( I shoot a Nikon D40) so I was a bit surprise that you bump the shutter up that high.

[@froknowsphoto]

Please by all means upload your review for all of us to critique. thanks,

[@PdxMotor]

Distance between the subject and the camera, distance between the subject and background also affect blur. Aperture has the most effect.

[@aruna5967]

Thanks or the video..is canon 70-200 f-2.8 is mark2 +1.4x combination gives you same sharper image or lower?

[@Jacoues]

first time i see a review! looks awesome!

[@dsan45]

three 2.8 lens under 1700 tamron 28-75 2.8 tamron or sigma 70-200 2.8 whatever standard prime you want if you choose non is versions of two zoom and do a really good search online you may keep it under 1000. excluding third lens.

[@DonAle_97]

Classic 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and no more, best bang for the buck even when used and after callibration and reallingment, tack sharp at f3.2 and sharpen than a knife at f/5.6

[@froknowsphoto]

@rinceresource I will have to get my hands on that to test out.

[@froknowsphoto]

@fotografjura90 i dont own one and got my hands on this one to play with for a little.

[@gbsailing1]

Seems to me, from your evaluation of the shots, that the lens is actually out performing the sensor in the T2i. Perhaps the lens would be better on a 5Diii. But you basic gripe still stands, and I have to agree with you there. Having said that, Your getting great colour performance. SO what do you do? buy a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 tele-converter to give you the same reach? Not sure what that performance is like...Probably not as good, so it fills a niche.

[@mythos14]

seams like a fine lens. which glas is the equivalent to this lens in the Nikon world? may u know. thx

[@froknowsphoto]

@TotalBizcut i do not use them personally.

[@froknowsphoto]

@carlallenpetty nope, thats the fro knows photo t shirt.

[@froknowsphoto]

@jpoloh I know I noticed that I cut about 20 more out of there lol.

[@justanailartlover1599]

what lesn would you recommend for an amature for wild life photos? i have a canon f4.5 75-300mm telephoto lens that came with my canon d1300 also came with a 18-55mm f5.6 i think, so yea what would you recommend to me ? on a seriously tight budget but would save for the right lens

[@VidPro95]

Hi I just got the T2i and I plan on shooting video with a film look. I was woundering. With the kit lense that comes with my camera is zooming to 22mm going to give me the same look as a 35mm due to the 1.6 crop factor. By the way very nice lense.

[@froknowsphoto]

@MellowSkateTeam good reasons for not using the lens hood this time around. I always use the lens hood just this time couldnt get marks on the hood so didnt want to risk it

[@froknowsphoto]

@motokokusanagi85 ur right.

[@givemore658]

What are the other 3 that you recommend for for less than 1600?..i need zoom and 1.4 lenses..thanks

[@njrivetelite]

get primes if you want 1.4