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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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

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

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 :)

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.

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...?!

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.

I like your professional review

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.

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!

Another great video. Simple, perfectly done.

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.

This lens has been a star for years.

Well done 👍 I’m proud 😊

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 👍

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.

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.

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.

Great review good information

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

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

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!

Simply nice review…

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.

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...

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

REGARDS

Would you recommend this for pet photography? :)

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

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

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?

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.