USED Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

Okay, so I've played around with this lens with my 60D including some at-home personal tests and I must say that this lens is an absolute excellent performer. But is it the right lens for me and is the price justified? That I can honestly say I don't know.Sharpness is excellent at all focal lengths, even the difficult 300mm long end of the zoom. I wouln't say overall its sharper than the 70-200mm F4 IS but in the same league. Contrast is excellent starting at wide aperture and the CA are well controlled which contributes to a perceived sharpness that blows your mind. The IS stabilization works much better than the one in my 15-85mm lens. I would say the 4 stops equivalent is accurate. There is a switch to go from stationary to panning IS modes.If you haven't played with a white L lens before its hard to describe the feeling you get when you shoot with one. The build quality is just superb. Everything about it makes you fall in love.This lens is the first Canon lens to feature flourene coating over the front and rear lens elements, which make it easier to clean. It is the same coating used on the AA filter over the sensor.The focus ring is behind the zoom ring (closer to the camera body) which is my preferred ideal location. This is opposite from the other 70-200 L lenses. Since this is a full-time manual focus (quick shift) lens I can hold the focus ring even while it focuses in Auto mode.Speaking of the other 70-200 L lenses, I had a very hard time deciding which one to pick. I eventually was deciding between the F4 non-IS version, the F4 IS version, and this one. All lenses show excellent sharpness so I wasn't too worried about that. The F4 non-IS looked so enticing because of the price but I've played with non-IS telephoto lens before and its difficult without stabilization. Even a fast aperture F2.8 70-200 lens, despite sharp images due to faster shutter speeds, will still have a hard time composing/framing a shot while your hand shakes. If you use the tripod a lot, I say go for the F2.8 non-IS version versus the F4 IS version. But I like to take pictures on the go, so it was the F4 IS version for me. So then, I thought..well..the 70-300 L has 100mm more reach and to get the equivalent with the 70-200 F4 I have to put a 1.4x teleconverter (actually its 280mm). To me, the added item in my camera bag and risk of more dust particles taking off the lens wasn't appealing. Besides its not a full 70-300 focal lenth, its either 70-200 or 98-280. The final kicker was that I wanted something more compact, and the 70-300 won me over.I know the F4 version is constant aperture, but when you add the 1.4x teleconverter it loses a full stop of light so essentially it was similar to the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 anyway. And both lenses are weather-sealed, despite the zoom on the 70-300.So then the pricing....*tear. At 1500 bills this thing better be on the camera body 24/7, right? It is at least 200-300 more than the F4 IS version. But equivalent in price if you add the cost of the teleconverter so I get where Canon is coming from. Still, I find myself not using this lens enough to warrant the price. There are two other 70-300 versions out there that perfom decently in absolute terms, but great with respect to their prices. So does this lens perform? OH YES. Is it worth its cost? Not so much for the kind of photos I usually take. Will I sell it? The funny thing is...probably not, because I already fell in love with it.UPDATE 8/31/11 *******************Since my initial review I thought more about the cost vs worth factor. First of all, Canon does not include a tripod mount with this lens. I don't know whats up with that since this is one of their longer focal length zoom lenses, and its a pricey L lens at that. Shame on Canon. There are 3rd party mounts out there, but they are few and of low quality. For the most part though, the IS stabilization is pretty darn good to make up for it. Another note I should point out is that if one goes for the 70-200 + 1.4x converter setup, then you get the slightly better magnification ratio of (.21x)*(1.4x) =~ .30x or 1:3.4 (both the 70-200 and 70-300 have native .21x magnification ratio). Take heed though, that the 1.4x converter comes at the cost of added chromatic aberration (color fringing) and distortions. The 70-300 is not compatible with the 1.4x converter or any Canon converters for that matter. It does take extension tubes, but at the 300mm focal length its not that effective (the larger 25mm extension tube gives .29x magnification ratio). There is a Canon 500D 72mm close-up filter with +2 diopter power that can change the 70-300 into a very nice .81x close-up photography lens. You would need a 67mm to 72mm step up ring however, and unfortunately the hood would no longer slip over the 72mm size filter. Another thing that consumers need to know, this 70-300 lens is not exactly white. Its more of a greyish white. Its hard to know that just by looking at the pictures.The performance of this lens still amazes me. The zoom barrel extends and retracts fluidly and there's no wobbling of any sort. It too is all metal and white. The focus ring is smooth like silk on a baby's bottom, and it truly makes manual focus a divine experience. The throw is not too long or short (120 degrees), with just enough sensitivity to make minute adjustments. It does help that the focus ring is closer to the body since I naturally hold the lens at the base. One thing that may be the reason for not including the tripod mount was that, with it mounted, it may get in the way of reaching the focus ring since the mounting area is just right behind it. The autofocusing speed is very fast and silent. The bokeh from out-of-focus planes are beautiful, and is still quite easy to get even with f/5.6 aperture because of the 300mm long focal length and tiny depth of field.With all this in mind, I would recommend this lens if you really want that extra 100mm zoom without the hassle. Otherwise, the 70-200 F/4 IS may work for you if you can simply walk closer to your subjects. I have no regrets owning this lens because its a marvelous lens nonetheless!

I am an experienced photographer with a good selection of equipment. I switched to the so-called "crop" sensor bodies, since that is where the best bang-to-buck ratio lives. A bit over 10 years ago, I switched to Canon digital equipment and have never looked back.This lens is NOT a walk-around lens and it is unlikely that I will carry it with me on any trips that require air travel (unless I have a very specific reason). It is MUCH heavier than any of my other lenses.It nicely filled a gap that I had due to a recent malfunction with my normal walk-around lens (which has since been fixed). I first tried to fill that gap with the less expensive non-L 70-300 cousin and found it totally unacceptable. That lens may be ok for an inexperienced photographer, but I'm not even sure about that. I decided to try this "L" lens before I switched vendors. I'm glad I tried it.Since this lens is designed for a full-sized sensor and I use it on cropped sensor bodies, I cannot speak to how it performs at the edges. I'm a long way from ever getting to that point with my current bodies. It would be interesting to see how much weight could be cut by a redesign of this same lens specifically targeting the cropped sensors.If you have chosen this lens properly and use it for its intended purpose, I don't think it can be beat in this price class.The common complaint that it doesn't come with a tripod mount, while true, is irrelevant for this lens. The internal stabilization gives you at least a two stop advantage, and probably gives you the three stops that is claimed. If you need a tripod, get a different lens... you are not using this one to its best advantage. In the alternative, you could simply put the camera (with the mounted lens) on the tripod. This lens is short enough that a tripod mount on the lens is probably not necessary (presuming you are using a quality tripod).The common complaint - it is heavy: Sure, but that is why I don't use it as a walk-around lens.The common complaint - it is not good for portraits: Well, I wouldn't normally use it for that purpose, but based on my recent work at a wedding, it nicely covers that range if you are pressed. Otherwise, get a lens for that purpose (smaller zoom or primary, perhaps 80-140, with wider aperture).The common complaint - it is grey (or white, or whatever): Sure, I would have preferred a less-obtrusive lens, but get over it. If this is the basis on which you are making your decision, you are either not serious enough for this lens, or you are extremely serious and have a lot of money to burn.The common complaint - it comes with a cheap cloth bag rather than a case: So what? If you decide on this lens, you probably have (or should have) a collection of other lenses to cover closer ranges. This requires some sort of carrying case anyway.The occasional complaint - you must always use the lens hood: completely false. You are completely misusing your camera if you think a lens hood is always, or mostly necessary. Under the vast majority of circumstances a hood only adds "bragging rights" because it makes the lens look bigger. You only need that hood if you are pointing toward (not into) the sun. You must be aware of the angle of incidence, but if the sun is behind you (or you are indoors), you never need the hood. As the sun approaches an angle where it may reflect off the inner barrel of the lens, you might need to consider it. As you start to shoot head-on, you have other issues that the hood cannot even begin to help you with.The occasional complaint - you cannot use it with an extender: Why on earth would you want to? It's all physics! An extender will amplify any faults of the lens by the same ratio that it extends it by. It will also reduce the effective aperture by the same ratio, not to mention that IS will be much less effective and probably cannot cancel any mechanical "noise" that may be introduced by the extender (yes, at these ranges it matters). It is extremely unlikely that you would need a lens that is double the range of this lens. If you do and you are serious, save up for the appropriate lens, get a tripod, and get a remote shutter release. Don't screw up the excellent optics of this lens!The bottom line: this is the right lens for the right reason! If you have any doubts, rent it first. It is a lot of money to put out if you are not going to use it as it was designed.Would I buy it again? You bet! In fact, I cannot wait to justify my next "L" series lens. I just won't be able to buy it tomorrow.