70-300 4-5.6 IS L

[KenC]

I just got one a few days ago to replace my 70-300 4-5.6 IS, a pretty good lens in itself. I wanted the advertised better IQ, especially at the long end, closer focusing, and better IS. I'm not disappointed. I've taken sharp shots at 300 mm and about 1/25. Here is a shot at 300 mm and f 5.6 (not at a slow shutter speed), which is pretty much the Achilles heel of the non-L lens:

Only the upper left of the stone and some of the grass next to it are in sharp focus, but this is definitely better than the non-L does wide open. It's a little heavier, but not so much that I really felt the difference carrying it. On the plus side it's not any longer than the non-L and actually extends less when zoomed out to 300.

Since I've never had an L lens before I suppose I should complete my testing by hammering some nails with it.

 

[weepete]

Looks pretty sweet to me. Nice one!

 

[Braineack]

Only the upper left of the stone and some of the grass next to it are in sharp focus

so next time shoot something perfectly straight on, or close the aperture to increase the DOF.

 

[KenC]

Only the upper left of the stone and some of the grass next to it are in sharp focus

so next time shoot something perfectly straight on, or close the aperture to increase the DOF.

This was just a test shot to see how the lens did at 300 wide open, which is the weak spot of the non-L, so there was no point in narrowing the aperture. I can see from the grass on the left and from other shots that it's sharp near the edges at 5.6.

Bigal - I don't know if it's way better, I guess that depends on ones definition. I'm happy with it because I use it at 300 wide open or near wide open and it's clearly better there. The IS also seems to be a little better, maybe even the full stop they claim.