Canon 70-300mm F4 - 5.6 L Lens. Thoughts from a professional photographer with samples

[@ianbellert2154]

Just picked up this lens 2nd hand. I went to buy 70-200mm f4 but the lens was faulty. The guy had this one and I’d travelled a bit to get there and the deal was done. And whao what a lens! First few shots using 6D and I was blown away. Can’t wait for more shooting with it. So good. Cheers for the video mate.nice one

[@RoyRiley]

Glad it’s working out well for you. RR

[@sushimamba4281]

I have been using one of these lenses on a 5D Mark III since about 2016 at my workplace, mostly photographing theater and music kind of events in usually fairly low light (along with a L series 24-70mm 2.8). It's a great lens and I plan to buy one for my personal kit. Thanks for the review, it's great to hear your take on it.

[@martinbache3410]

I agree with all your comments about this lens. I use it with my 5D MK III and it produces very sharp images with nice contrast. Image stabilisation works really well across the focal range.

[@RoyRiley]

Glad to hear you are having a similar experience. Thanks for your comment. All the best. Roy

[@MrRensan404]

I totally agree with your assessment about this lens. It is light, sharp, built well, with a good focal length,and portable enough to bring around especially when traveling. To me this lens is a keeper.

[@RoyRiley]

Yup! Bit of a hidden gem in the canon line up

[@joshmobijohn]

Love your channel! All your videos are straight to the point and super informative. Thanks for the help 🍻

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Josh! Glad you find this useful. Hope the world is treating you well. R

[@doniehurley9396]

I bought one secondhand a year ago with no high hopes but combined with my D1 X I consistently get jaw-droppingly sharp Beautifull shots I seldom take it off the camera a truly brilliant useful piece of kit

[@RoyRiley]

Thats a sweet set up you have. Powerhouse!

[@TomalBhattacharjee]

Hi. I’m considering a longer zoom range as I have a EF 24-70 f2.8 L II. Two options without breaking my bank is 70-200 f4 and this lens. My purpose travel photos, events and occasional portraits. But Lens should be sharp and fast as good as the 24-70.

[@doniehurley9396]

@@TomalBhattacharjee My 70~300 is incredabily sharp honestly for a travel lens you wont get better not for the price anyway

[@SenorGancho]

I really appreciated linking your performance/handling issues to practical real world examples. for me it really helps drive home the point. I've gone between my 70-200 and this one when shooting indoor hockey. I quickly bailed and went back to the brighter 2.8, but I'm going to give this one another go and kick up the ISO. You've motivated me to problem solve and try it again :-) Thanks Roy, nicely done

[@RoyRiley]

Haha! Thank You.. but for indoor sports I would go with the 70-200 2.8 too…

[@bryanbaskett4010]

Based on this review, I picked one of these up second hand, shipped from Japan, was in mint condition and price was around $600. Fantastic lens! I have a 70-200 F/2.8 but I shoot a lot of High School Track and Field and was wanting something with more Zoom. With my Canon R7 crop sensor this thing is a beast! Image quality is fabulous even at full zoom. With the R7's built in stabilization combined with the lens stabilizer, video at full zoom is fantastic. Thanks Roy for another awesome, spot on review!

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Bryan! This lens with the R7 is a powerful set up.. small, light and simple but holy smoke.. great reach and great flexibility. Strong choice. Wise choice!

[@MarcusDolby]

I am just an amateur photographer, but I love this lens. I’ve used it for wildlife, landscape and portraits. I recently used it for a friend’s daughter’s senior photos and while I did not use as many photos from this lens as I did a 56 mm F1.2, it still produced some wonderful shots. I purchased it secondhand and have experienced zero problems with it.

[@Mitcheb4]

Thank you for this insightful review. I currently have the 70-300mm f4-5.6 II, and this video is what I needed to confirm for me that the "L" upgrade is what I need. The Mark II version of the lens has great optics, IS, and fast focus, but the build quality constantly has me worried I'm going to scrape or crack it. Given that I shoot in suboptimal weather frequently, then the added durability and weather sealing (along with further improved optics) in the "L" lens looks to be exactly what will work for me. Cheers!

[@aaronbrrrrr]

Hey Brian, by any chance did you upgrade to the "L" version of the 70-300? I'm currently trying to decide between the two and have been looking for someone who has owned both. There's about a $350 difference (used) so I'm trying to decide if the L is worth the extra money and weight. Any thoughts? Thanks!

[@khanceptbelal]

Thanks for sharing. I'm renting this lens next week!

[@RoyRiley]

Good luck with it!

[@rares9283]

Wonderful review of the lens. I am really thinking about this lens after watching you review regarding the extra range and portability (being lighter than 70-200 f/2.8 lens which is also my favorite lens) but being also in the 300mm range. And the 300 f/4 lens that are you mentioning is excellent and light. One of my favorite lens that I am owning since starting to shoot sport events professionally in 2017 is the canon 400mm f/5.6L. It is an older design lens like the 300mm f/4 but with a very durable body and simple optic L lens design that still produces sharp images.

[@RoyRiley]

Thank you. Yes I agree the 400mm f5.6 is a very under rated beast of a lens! It has always been on my wish list and I guess would make a great addition to the 70-300 if extra reach is required.

[@guyphoto9437]

Good analysis of the lens and comparison to the 70-200. I too am a professional photographer and have a 70-200L, 100-400L and 28-300L. I had not really considered the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L until watching your video. The lightness of it kind of pulls me toward it. I'm going to check it out the first chance I get.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for your comment. Certainly worth having a look but you already have a great set up there! All the best. Roy

[@johnklunder1968]

Thanks for a very helpful review, I appreciate the passion and knowledge you bring to them. I bought this lens partly based on your observations and very pleased I did. Still need the faster and/or longer primes for specific duties, but this together with a 24-70 makes an excellent travel kit.

[@tonymarchese408]

Having had this lens for the last 8/9 years or so (also bought 2nd hand) i have been really pleased with it. I used it on my70D and 7Dmk2. Recently bought a R6mk2 and was thinking i needed a faster lens. Stumbled on your video while looking at the 70-200mm f2.8 video. Think i'll hang on to it. Great video. Liked and subscribed.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Tony! I have been looking at lots of options for telephoto zooms for the R cameras.. while there are some great tempting lenses out there ( 200-800 / 100-500 and even the 100-400 RF lenses) I still wonder if this 70-300 L lens might still offer the best bang for bucks for a lens that will get most jobs done.. I guess if you need the extra reach then maybe that 200-800 could be worth saving up for!

[@erwindegier7797]

I have both the 70-300 and 70-200 2.8 and the second one is extremely heavy and big. The 70-300 is very nice to work with and easy to take with you, fits in smaller bags as well. The 2.8 is more a niche lens for low light.

[@jordanbell1565]

Hey, Roy! Great review as always. Just picked up one of these second hand. Looking forward to shooting with it. Also, let's get your channel to 15K! Almost there! - JB

[@Pmeyer1226]

I love the extra reach of this lens over the 70-200 lenses, as well as the sharpness. I just wish Canon would come out with a lighter RF version 70-300 w constant f4 and the same fine optics.

[@RoyRiley]

All things come in time my friend..

[@ItzDerrik]

I just bought it and adapting it to the R8 and I am beyond stoked. I love variety in a zoom and the extra 100mm means the world to me. I wish there were a much newer RF version with constant f4 BUT I know that would be a $3500 lens easily which adds to Canons repertoire of mostly unaffordable RF lenses for most users

[@sammorganmoore]

Nice chatter Roy. In the post 2.8 era it is worth considering the 70-200F4 which I have - it is so small and cheap - a great swap for the 2.8 as ISO gets better and the back gets worse. To some extent I consider these 'royal visit' lenses where you are pinned in a position and your subject distance changes out of your control. In more controlled environments one may also consider a prime 180 or 135 that may be both light and small and fast. Of course at the other end there is the 200/2 costy and heavy.. and a bit awesome!

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers Sam. Yes I agree the 70-200 F4 is a great lens. Packs a big punch for a relatively small price. Hope well. R

[@bawtreerd]

Have the 70_200 2.8 and I am glad you bought up its value in low light but am looking for a walkaround lens this may be the one Thankyou for this great review

[@minnesnowtan9970]

Too much maskorovka (subjects). Looking at 70-300 for my 35mm sized sensor. Focus breathing issues? I appreciate your story of the ship/speedboat, your experience brings much value. Thank you!

[@yohannaftali2480]

hi roy, i think you have got many years experience from professional photo assignment, maybe it's interesting if you share some of your unique project, a little behind the scenes, & the final result... i love your work, keep creating vid for thic channel. love it :)

[@RoyRiley]

Very kind of you to leave this comment. Thank you. I have plans to make loads more content and as you say there are quite a few years of experiences to talk about! I will do my best! R

[@nebdoc1234]

I have been using this lens for sports, primarily cross country and track & field on both a R6 and 7D MkII body. It is very sharp, nearly the equal of the 70-200 f2.8 and the EF 100-400L II from a practical standpoint. Much lighter and easier to carry than either of those lenses.

[@RoyRiley]

I still think, even in the world of RF lenses that this little zoom really does punch well above its weight. It’s probably the most versatile telephoto zoom that canon have produced so far! Thanks for sharing your experiences

[@smmerz56]

Thanks for posting this video. You reaffirmed what I was thinking this is a versatile and high-quality lens. I am an amateur landscape photographer and the options Sony had for zoom telephotos were either too expensive or they had a compromise somewhere. One of the reasons I liked this lens was its close-up image quality. I am hopeful that if I attach a modest extension tube, I will get a little closer and its floating element will help keep image quality high. I bought what looks to be a good copy second hand last night and I should get it on Sunday. I can't wait to use it! Thanks again mate!

[@RoyRiley]

Wishing you every success with your new lens. All the best. RR

[@nebdoc1234]

Just picked up a used copy of this lens, planning to use it for daylight sports, primarily cross country. Should be the perfect range since on most courses you can get relatively close to the runners and still sometimes need that zoom to get a tighter framed shot.

[@RoyRiley]

Should be perfect for cross country!

[@Wilbafarce]

Hmm was thinking of shelling out for an ef 100-400 vii, but the lightness and smaller expense of this seem a no brainer.... Great review 👍

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers. That 100-400 is an amazing lens though.. if you need the reach then it’s hard to beat..

[@eziitis8]

I used to have 18-300mm sigma for my old canon 600D. Decided to upgrade to EOS RP with RF 24-105 F4L kit lens. Definitely lacking the reach I had with old system. So I bought the cheap version of the 75-300 for £80. While the reach is appreciated, there is noticeable colour fringing and lack of image stabilization is making me avoid using it. So I've finally decided to bite the bullet and get myself the 70-300L. Can't wait to try it out.

[@RoyRiley]

Let me know how you get on with it! R

[@FAMEAcademyNY]

I had the 75-300 Got it free with a camera I purchased. I used it a few times. I got good results but at the time I never needed 300mm. I sold it for $75. Now I shoot conferences and sometimes Im 50-100 feet away and need a longer zoom than my 18-135. Im gonna purchase another lens. I see a FEW in the B&H used dept. Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.5 III $150 Canon EF 70-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM $199 and something I never saw before Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 DO IS USM $388. I may go with #2. Headed down to test them out. Canon 70-300

[@AndySnap]

Another of your excellent pro' user reviews. I haven't used the 70-300, but there have been numerous occasions when that bit extra range over the 70-200 would have been handy (solved by cropping in a bit). Now if only they could come up with a 70-300mm f2.8, as compact as the 70-200...?!

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers Andrew! I know what you mean about cropping in a bit! interesting thing about this lens for me is how powerful it is when you stick it on a crop sensor camera like the the 90d. Holy smoke I wish I had that combo back in my daily news days! Hope the world is treating you right. Roy

[@spost26]

Thinking about this for weddings vs 70-200 f4 L IS

[@RoyRiley]

@@spost26 70-200 2.8 is the one for weddings in my opinion.. big, heavy and expensive but it gets the job done when the light is poor.

[@spost26]

@@RoyRileythank you!

[@mvp_kryptonite]

I’m on the hunt for this lens now, think it will be a winner for me when I don’t need 70-200 2.8 II. Great video

[@briankennedy9040]

This lens can be found used for such a reasonable price now. Highly recommend it. The contrast and bokeh make beautiful images and it's a very useful range and not too heavy.

[@RoyRiley]

We share the same opinion! Nice one BK! Best wishes. RR

[@andychandler3992]

I've found anything inside f4 on a zoom and I'm getting some slight vignetting. I had the option of an f2.8 on a 24-70 or an f4. Went with the f4, no regrets

[@AlexLancashirePersonalView]

Just sold my R6 and 70-200 f/4 L to buy the new R6 mk2 when it comes out. In the mean time I have bought this 70-300 lens to use on my M6 mk2 with an adaptor. I love this little camera with it's 32mp sensor. Will probably use the lens on the new R6 instead of buying the more expensive RF lens.

[@RoyRiley]

Nice move Alex.. That M6.2 Is an interesting little camera.. got my eyes open for one some time soon. Good luck witht he R6 mk2. RR

[@AlexLancashirePersonalView]

@@RoyRiley182 views Dec 13, 2020 These were a few of the birds regularly visiting the peanuts during the Summer in SW France taken from my office window usin the Canon EOS M6 mkii and a Canon EF L 70-200 lens with a Viltrox adapter and a Canon 2x extender. The last part is on the Canon M5 using the 18-55 kit lens. All as out of camera, no colour adjustment. Some digital zoom in Black Magic Design DaVinci Resolve 17. Free music by courtesy of Peter McKinnon and freinds. A contributer worth watching from my favourite Canadian city, Toronto. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXS2e5xmd9l9eJo

[@shademanirvanipour6870]

I had this canon 70/300MM F4/5.6L since 2017 and is still works well and does gives good quality photos and I did have the canon 70/200 MM F2.8 Mark 2 for a while and I got ride of it and got the 70/300MM lens and for indoor photography I have the canon 35MM F1.4L Mark 1 and the canon 50MM F1.2L lens which works well in LOW LIGHT at all times ok my canon 80Ds cameras

[@RoyRiley]

Nice set up! All the best. R

[@The_Algorithm_]

Hey Roy, I'm shooting my first event this coming spring. Pretty lowkey event for my brother-in-law's wedding. I generally shoot mostly landscapes and animals, but have been interested in branching out a bit. Would this lens do alright with a spring time outdoor wedding event? Or would it be more worth my time/ money to get a 70-200 2.8 Mark II for a little bit of reach in unknown weather.

[@RoyRiley]

Well the 70-290 2.8 has been the darling of many wedding photographers because of its ability in low light environments such as churches and dimly lit wedding venues. Really it depends on what you’re hoping to achieve. In an ideal world I would go for the 70-200 but I also think the 70-300 will do a good job if coupled with a decent full frame camera. Hope this helps. Rr

[@Peterbenham56]

Hi Roy, great review yet again, love this lense, surprised that you didn't mention that it also has some macro capabilities

[@ronwade6252]

This lens has been a star for years.

[@mrbob4u495]

Appreciate the information. Looking for a zoom to mate with my 5D Mark II. Not a pro, but I like quality. This may help me make a decision. Thanks.

[@RoyRiley]

Glad to be of some help. Hope you get a positive outcome whichever way you go!

[@mrbob4u495]

@@RoyRiley Thank you.

[@johnherzel718]

I have this lens (70-300 f4-5.6 L) and it's my favorite for anything telephoto. I have a 70-200 f2.8 that I almost never use and Sigmas 150-600 when I need more reach. But the 70-300 is the sweet spot. That and the 17-40 f4L. I almost always take these 2 lenses and maybe a fast 50. I can't find any thing about this lens I don't like other than the focus/zoom ring position. It works even better adapted on my RP. And this only a hobby for me!

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks John. Pleased to hear we share a similar opinion of this lens! Good luck with your photography.RR

[@JaySilva88]

The 70-300mm isn't a low light lens. It's a versatile sharp lens for day to day shooting. On a crop sensor it can be a wildlife lens, on a full frame a versatile portrait lens. If you really need to take pictures within dim lighting conditions without using flash, go with fast primes like 85mm f1.4 and other similar stuff. Just take 2 or 3 fast primes within the focal range you think you'll need and you'll have a good time.

[@RoyRiley]

Nice if you have the fast glass! Not everyone has the budget and this lens is in my experience a reasonable compromise that can cover many options but you are right, fast primes will win when light is low!

[@mashifkalik888]

Great review.I use this lens with my 650D for aircraft spotting. Now wanting more reach, do you think I should change to Canon 90D with the same lens and crop my images.Or change the lens to a 100-400mmLii to be used with the 650D? Thanks.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks. In theory either option or in fact both would give you more reach / a bit more detail. However in the real world what you already have is a nice portable setup. I guess it really depends on what you can afford. Good luck whichever way you go! RR

[@davidcollins3756]

I wonder how it would go on the EOS R with EF/RF converter....??

[@RoyRiley]

Works fine on my R5.

[@hywel3143]

Thanks for another useful and entertaining review, Roy. I've been looking to buy this lens for a month or so now, based on your review and reviews authored by some other pro reviewers who concur with you about capabilities of this great lens. Many of the used ones from the reputable mainstream retailers are described as having light dust inside, which is stated to not interfere with the image quality. Is having light dust present part and parcel of buying a used copy of this type of lens, and is it anything to be concerned about please? The current used price is around £420-530 depending on cosmetic condition, but it's still quite an investment for a retired amateur photographer. I'd prefer to get a copy of this L lens even if it is slightly paint chipped rather than one of the other used EF fit options, because of image quality, sharpness, weather sealing and probably longevity. Any advice gratefully received...

[@The_CGA]

I find myself inhabiting the 70-300 space in the Fuji system with a similar feeling of man-machine connection

[@RoyRiley]

Nice!

[@ricknicholson5894]

I use to be of the school as everyone else that lower or lowest ISO was the best way to go hence as you say f2.8 is still a necessity. This thinking came from the film days where most pics were taken at 200 ISO or lower with the bulk of them taken at 100 ISO and lower. Older National Geographic photos (slides) were a good example of this thinking. Then when digital became dominant but still the early days, higher ISO's were possible but even so the image could be compromised, hence the advise - lower ISO is best. But now with the quality of higher ISO's out there on cameras, getting a client worthy or published photo worthy image can be accomplished using higher ISO. When the entry level drug into the birding world of photography with the Canon 400 f5.6 L was first released in 1993, an f factor of 5.6 was an issue. In 1993 shooting film at ISO 400 was considered racy, and no real professional photographer would use a speed of 400, that was for the newbie amateurs to use. If you go into Flicker and look at photos taken with the 400 f5.6 and check out ISO's used, you will discover significantly higher ISO's than in days gone past. I do a lot of night urban street photography and with today's cameras (my 5D 4 and Fuji X 100f) I set my f stop and shutter speed and set ISO on auto. I have linked a photo taken by Ken Rockwell at ISO 52,000. Is the photo perfect? No. But the photo is usable, lets say his client was the guitarist, I think the guy would have been happy with this shot: www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/images/x-e3/sample-images/FXE31401.JPG All this to say, I don't think f5.6 is the issue it used to be. For me the appeal of f2.8 is for bokeh rather than speed.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this Rick! Its always good to look back in order to understand how we have arrived where we are today. really interesting history you outline here.. I touch on some of this in my 70-200 F2.8 video. I was one of the 100iso film gang back in the day.. Thanks for your time and comment. Roy

[@iEatRawPotatoes7]

Well done 👍 I’m proud 😊

[@RoyRiley]

How kind of you to say. 😀

[@planetdee3587]

This lens is no longer produced but I would have loved this lens as it would fit my shooting desires a lot. I have a 70-200mm f4 IS but the length on that is short for me wanting a compact telephoto. I have a Sigma 150-500mm but when I want to travel lite, the 200mm is just not preferred. But since they do not make it anymore, I will probably just deal with it.

[@RoyRiley]

Maybe look on the second hand market? I know they are quite old but plenty of good ones around still. I got mine used for a good price and it was like new.

[@planetdee3587]

@@RoyRiley I just checked how much I could get for my 70-200mm f4 IS on the used market and it is very low vs what I paid. Maybe about $500 vs paying $1100 new many years back. I will just try to make the best use of the lens I have. I don't have the free spending money I had when I was younger with no responsibilities.

[@RoyRiley]

@@planetdee3587 I understand. To be honest your 70-200 is a great lens. Stick with it and everything will be perfectly fine

[@jswiggy1072]

Hello I don’t know if your still answering comments on this but I’m just starting out and I don’t want to break the bank.. so I’ve been looking at this lens and wondering if it would be good enough for indoor sports like volleyball and basketball? Heard it isn’t good in low lights but I feel a gymnasium is lit enough for it?

[@RoyRiley]

You could make it work but something with a wider maximum aperture would be better for indoor sports. These things are all about compromise unless you have deep pockets!

[@Visualsthatgohard]

Hey is would you recommend it on live music fewstival during the day?

[@RoyRiley]

No problem using this for live music if the light is good. The perfect lens for music for me would be the 70-200 2.8 IS as it will cope well as the light drops and also make it possible to shoot at 2.8 to throw the backgrounds a little more out of focus. Obviously you would not have the 300mm length but could throw on a 1.4 converter if budget allows

[@fabiobars3739]

Io ho una Canon 7d e devo scattare foto sportive di ginnastica ritmica e pallavolo nei palazzetti quindi con scarsa luce cosa consigli? 70-200 2.8lo 70-300 4-5,6l?grazie

[@RoyRiley]

70-200 2.8 best for indoor sports. Hope this helps. grazie RR

[@mslimani7478]

I like your professional review

[@directorbones]

Another great video. Simple, perfectly done.

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers man! It really does help to know that people find this stuff interesting.. I am never sure how well these things will be received but I just try to keep it real and speak from experience. Hope you are keeping well. Thank you for your support. All the best, Roy

[@ryandeskar1555]

Am I missing out on anything besides an additional 100mm of zoom by not getting the 100-400 version II?

[@RoyRiley]

100-400 is bigger, heavier and a bit more expensive but has the extra length. 70-300 is as I describe in the video. Both are very good optically. We each make our own choice based on our own individual requirement.

[@gautamrana31]

I want to buy 70-300mm lens for my canon m50 mark ii. Is it good to buy ?

[@RoyRiley]

Honestly I am no expert on the M cameras but I believe there is a range of M Lenses that for straight on the M50. The lens I talk about here is an EF lens so you would need an adaptor. I believe there maybe better options for you than this lens but if you have an adaptor then there It may well work

[@gautamrana31]

Thank you 😊

[@shademanirvanipour6870]

I got one of these canon lenses the 70/300MM F4.5.6L lens

[@RoyRiley]

Nice! Hope you get some great pictures. RR

[@goldog2816]

Great review good information

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers! Best wishes for 2022. RR

[@maryannv.cerbolles7549]

Would you recommend this for pet photography? :)

[@RoyRiley]

Honestly I am no expert in pet photography so cannot really comment with much experience I’m afraid. Trial and error and working out what works best for you and your personal style is really the only way to go. If in doubt, rent or borrow before buying and try it out for yourself. Hope this helps. RR

[@maryannv.cerbolles7549]

Thank you for the speedy reply :)

[@baje_246]

Simply nice review…

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks. Much appreciate your words. R

[@paintedmoments_]

Has anyone compared this to the 70-200mm f4L IS USM? I found it be a bit soft so wondering if the the 70-300mm is sharper.

[@RoyRiley]

I haven’t compared the two lenses directly but my experience of the 70-200 F4 has been that it’s really very good. Have you tried calibrating it to your camera? What camera are you sing? It’s not always possible. Also do you have your technique nailed down? Using a fast enough shutter speed and focusing with care? Sometimes lenses get noticeably sharper if you stop down a little from the maximum wide open aperture. All these things can really help and will save you money!

[@paulroberts9704]

For me its not the focal length of the lens or the f stops its image stabilisation most useful tool to sharp pictures

[@RoyRiley]

If the focal length is the lead singer, the aperture could be the guitar and the IS the drum kit… they all come together to make sweet music.!

[@sahilbrar7330]

REGARDS

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks

[@EDKsurly]

I only have cheap lenses and im ready to buy a big boy lens. But I can only afford 1. hmmm

[@RoyRiley]

What are you mainly wishing to shoot?

[@edwardsmith1432]

Why are you taking pictures of people with masks on their face? And then posting them. Why not try the back of their heads or the bottom of the shoes?

[@RoyRiley]

It’s a very good question and I guess what it’s really asks is why are we actually taking pictures of anything?? I have asked myself the same question many times over the years in all kinds of different scenarios. I will only know the answer when I am an old, old man so won’t try to answer for a good few years yet…Best wishes to you and your family. R

[@ivanwhitehall3899]

@@RoyRiley what a silly question. In case this fellow lives on another planet, there is a pandemic on the place known as Earth.

[@trevor9934]

Hi Roy: As always, I really enjoy your down-to-earth, no-nonsense approach to expressing your experiences and views on gear. FWIW, I posted a review of the Canon EF 70-300 range on the Canon Community forum, and I hope you will not mind me sharing a link to that, which includes not only my comments but those of other forum members. It should be noted that the images displayed had to be SERIOUSLY downgraded to fit the 5MP image limitation for the site. 70-300 Canon Lenses - Canon Community (or if that doesn't work): community.usa.canon.com/t5/Lenses/70-300-Canon-Lenses/td-p/262318 The 70-200MkII I have is, without doubt, a brilliant lens, and I have felt no desire to upgrade from it, but as you mentioned it was a tad short in the long end for the kind of work I do, which is predominantly wildlife. I got my EF70-300L lens back in 2011 for an extended shoot in the Canadian Rockies and loved its compact and lighter form. Since then I have also acquired the other two 70-300 non-L lenses and that is the theme of my comparative review - intended for amateurs and enthusiasts rather than professionals. That said, I would be happy to take the MkII version of the non-L unit on a shoot with me if I had to, although the pressure is off me now that I am retired! These days I shoot a lot with the Sigma 150-600C and 60-600S lenses as many of my subjects are at extreme distances. They are both amazing lenses, especially coupled with the new R5 and R6 bodies, using Animal Eye Tracking. They are both brilliant EF mount lenses and work flawlessly using the EF-RF adaptor.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Trevor. Interesting stuff! I will check out the link you included. I would like to give that non L 70-300 mark 2 a go. Looks very capable. Thanks for your most intelligent comment. I really appreciate it. All the very best. Roy