70-300 IS USM on 5Dmk2

futureal33

futureal33

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I have a gap in my equipment for a 70-X00 lens (200/300 etc).
This would mainly be for landscape purposes, as my only zoom lens at the moment is a 17-40 L.

Im just wondering, will I be disappointed with the 70-300 IS USM?

Reviews are quite mixed on it.

I would rather the 70-200 F4 L IS or even the new 70-300 L IS but they are a lot more money, which I dont mind spending if they are THAT much better.

I dont really do any sport photography or low light (got primes for that) so the fast aperture isnt massively important to me, so a 2.8 is out of the equation really.

Thanks for any help
 
The 70-300 IS USM is an OK ish lens but i'm sure its quality would be shown up by a 5D Mk2.

I had one and replaced it with the L version, which is a fantastic lens although quite pricey.

The 70-200L non IS version is meant to be very good and doesn't cost that much more than the 70-300 IS USM.

Edit: WEX has the 70-300 IS USM at £419 and the 70-200L non IS at £499.
 
Last edited:
the two lenses you mention are better than the 70-300 IS USM. the 70-300 is acceptable on the 5D2 but not what you would consider stunning. the 70-300 L is significantly better at the 300mm end and better over the rest of the range plus the build quality, AF and sealing is way above the 70-300. The 70-200 F4 IS is a peach of a lens and cheaper than teh 70-300 L
 
I'd go L. The price of 70-200 4L second-hand would be close to 70-300IS mkii.
 
I have the 70-300mm IS USM and it's ok but there are a couple of things to think about...

The USM isn't the "modern" sort that allows full time manual focus and when focusing the front rotates so that may give you issues if you are using filters. Other than that it's optically ok IMVHO and the IS seems to be very effective, you can pan with it too. Build quality doesn't seem fantastic but mine hasn't fallen apart so I suppose it's adequate, just not very sexy.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys.
I am also considering the older 70-200 F4 L (non IS) - but cant decide if I want IS or not, and if its worth £300 extra vs its IS brother.

Im trying to think when I really would use this lens.. I have a 135L for portraits, a 50 1.4 for indoor shots, I guess it would be for zoo trips, and landscape shots (currently using the 135L for landscapes and its proving tough!!) but it would be tripod mounted..

Hmmm
 
I had both 70-200 4 nonIS and the latest 70-300IS, in picture quality department these were very close, 70-300 was really good indeed, not as good in clolor and contrast but almost there. I sold 70-200 L mainly because I was missing IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top