|
|
06-10-2018, 03:34 AM
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1041-canon70300f456is2
The AF is quite unbelievable on this one - it's as close as it gets to "instant".
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji 
06-10-2018, 10:58 AM
Wow, I was getting ready for a "bloodbath" seeing as how this is a non-L lens tested on the (lens killer) 5DSR but this looks good. As always, such a long wait for a review that's been devoured in less than 5 minutes in my case.
 I have spotted a few issues with the text (being the designated Mad Proofreader and all) but I'll get to those later... if you don't mind. Oh, and the only gripe with the review per se is that I wish there had been the fourth datapoint at - say - 135mm. 70 to 200mm is a long stretch, and I know that my Tamron 70-300 VC works great at 135mm (even as a 135mm f/4.5 prime if the situation warrants).
(06-15-2018, 08:33 AM)eltoucan Wrote: What is the point getting the 70-300 IS L over this lens today ? It is weather sealed, it is tougher, and most important it will maintain image quality much longer, it is easier to service, this lens is quite good brand new, but after some heavy use how much will it maintain of the quality? Can it bear shooting harsh conditions, if it gets sprayed by champagne during a wedding will it survive ? If it acquires decentering after heavy use for years, is there a way to easily readjust ??, the L version has all that, and for a professional that's what really matters. That's why for most professional wedding photographers here any Canon lens that doesn't have the red ring is a no no with a few exceptions for some primes like 15mm fisheye and DO lenses .
06-16-2018, 11:06 AM
Getting the photographer sprayed with champagne while they are shooting with a tele lens would be an impressive feat of drunken mischief.
06-16-2018, 04:19 PM
(06-10-2018, 10:58 AM)Rover Wrote: Wow, I was getting ready for a "bloodbath" seeing as how this is a non-L lens tested on the (lens killer) 5DSR but this looks good. As always, such a long wait for a review that's been devoured in less than 5 minutes in my case. Well the original 70-300 wasn't a 'bad' lens but this one looks a bit improved but i guess that is why it is a II instead of a I It would be nice if the reviews could compare the lens with previous generation but I suppose that would be a huge amount of work esp since the older lens are frequently tested on older bodies..
06-18-2018, 06:28 AM
(06-16-2018, 11:06 AM)Rover Wrote: Getting the photographer sprayed with champagne while they are shooting with a tele lens would be an impressive feat of drunken mischief.Well actually is does happen more frequently than you think, the wedding habits in Lebanon are rather extreme and spending in weddings is also extreme, typically there are at least four photographers for instance. Just before cutting the cake some things that are unimaginable to you are regularly done here, I can send you photos, most of the time the couple are highly placed, one of the photographers is at their level near them, another one is taking pictures from ground levels, and usually both of them are sprayed  Doing wedding photography in Lebanon has nothing to do with what you are used to see...
08-31-2018, 08:19 AM
I can't find this review on the Canon page, only through the link in this thread. Am I doing something wrong, or is there really no link on the page?
08-31-2018, 11:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2018, 11:32 AM by Brightcolours.)
" and most important it will maintain image quality much longer" that part is without merit.
In the verdict: "... of the best tele lenses across all classes and that also applies to the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS II" Obviously the "L" is in error. "Of course, a Canon tele lens wouldn't be complete with an image stabilizer." Wouldn't be complete without <- |
