Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens

[PalHal]

Hi,

Looking for advice on which of these 2 lenses to purchase. Would team it with my Canon EF IS USM 28-135mm lense as 'walk about' kit. I currently have a Canon 5D mark II.

[Geoff F]

The L version is better than the standard option; it is also considerably more expensive.

The standard version is quite a decent lens for the money but if cost doesn't matter, then the L model is really excellent.

And if cost is of no consequence, there are a number of L lens (and equivalent) models to upgrade the 28-135 lens as well.

But, like the standard 70-300 lens that 28-135 is also a good piece of kit for the money. Its all relative though; if you want the very best it will cost a little more.

[GrahamS]

Optically, the performance of the two is pretty much the same. The non-L lens has a micro-motor for the AF which is noisy and not very quick, and no focus distance scale window. The L version is weather and dust sealed, is built tough and has a real USM ring motor for the AF which is quiet and very quick.

[Glenn NK]

Graham has nailed it.

And to quote a few bits from Photozone:

Non L version:
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS is one of the older IS lenses available today.
The build quality of the lens is about average.
The various switches feel a little cheap.

New L version:
The build quality of the lens is nothing short of outstanding - that's probably the very first time for me to praise a ~300mm zoom lens like this.
The ring-type USM AF is blazingly fast and near silent.


Glenn

[KeithM]

If you already have the 5dii then treat it to some good glass. As they say - buy cheap buy twice. I have both lenses and the L series 70-300 is a great piece of kit. Solid build, superb IS, weather proofed and pin sharp. no contest IMHO

[rpcrowe]

The 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is a good but, not great performer. It is least good at either end of its focal range. I used one for a long time and then when I began shooting with the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens, I soon purchased a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens which I used for many years until I switched my package to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (I shoot 1.6x crop) and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses.

The same "might" happen to you when you shoot with the 28-135mm next to the 70-300L. However, the 28-135mm lens was certainly good enough for some very nice 8x10 inch prints which is the largest I ever printed to at that time.

OTOH: if he 70-300L was available when I purchased my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens, I would have had a hard decision to make.

[PalHal]

Want to thank everyone for their input. Looks like I should seriously consider the L lens. The real hangup is the L lens is about 4x the cost of the non L lens. Again thanks everyone,

Hal