Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM (1 Viewer)

[kneonlight]

I currently have a 7D with 400mm F5.6 lens.
However I am off to Mull soon and need a lens to photograph White Tailed Sea Eagles. Have been told that 400mm may well be too much.
As a result I am after a lens with less magnification. I was thinking of getting a zoom lens as it then gives me a bit of flexibility.
Does anyone have any experience with the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM?
This is the one I have been looking at and was wondering what people thought of this lens.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

My choice would be 70-200 F4 IS with the option of adding a 1.4 tc.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

I have just seen the for sale thread take it while it's a good price it would be a great flexible back up to your 400.

 

[BodyResults]

The new 100-400 IS II is a fantastic lens. What about selling the 400f5.6 and getting the 100-400 IS II and that way you won't need two lenses.

 

[Chris B.]

The new 100-400 IS II is a fantastic lens. What about selling the 400f5.6 and getting the 100-400 IS II and that way you won't need two lenses.

I couldn't agree more!!

I've owned the 70-300 L lens since it was released and it's one of the sharpest Canon lenses I've ever used. That said, even though I have that lens as well as the Canon 400mm f4 DO, I'm planning on acquiring the 100-400mm version II soon since reviews on it have been fabulous, and it will cut down on the weight I carry in the field plus give me more flexibility.

Chris

 

[hampers]

My choice would be 70-200 F4 IS with the option of adding a 1.4 tc.

I same combination but with the non IS lens and it is superb and great value for money. It will be used for exactly the same target as you in May.

Phil

 

[ternaround]

I've just returned from Mull and was on the Mull Charters boat trip twice, I used a 70/200 f2.8 non IS with a 1.4 EX, the same as I used last year. It is more than adequate for the job especially when the Eagles are taking fish off the water at no more than 15 feet away.