Anyone have experience with Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens?

coldyn8w

coldyn8w

Suspended / Banned
Messages
158
Name
George
Edit My Images
No
Im looking at upgrading my (really poor) Sigma zoom with a Canon and find the IS and 300mm on this to be fairly inviting.

I understand that for only about £20-30 more I could get the 70-200L F4, but I wont be using this a ton so something thats more versitile and has IS might be better than just paying for the image quality of L glass.

Anyone else had to make this same decision?
Anyone actually own this piece of kit?

TIA.
coldy
 
I used to own one of these and found it to be a fantastic lens.

Have a read of the review here.

The Photozone review summary describes it as a "hidden L Lens" :)

The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new ** element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens.
 
cool thanks grendel, I seemed to have found quite a few good reviews for it after having a good look around.

looks like a good purchase
 
I have one of these which I find "adequate". I make that comment as, after using a 100-400L and 70-200L lenses I realise that the focus could be a bit sharper and the colour depth could be a bit better.

However, it does a damn fine job in most cases. Most of the wildlife & motor sports photos in my gallery here, and on my Flickr account have been taken with this lens (with the exception of the big cats - that was a 100-400).

I'm considering selling mine and buying the either the 20-200 f2.8L & X1.4, or the 100-400.... I'm still at the thinking stage right now though.

Steve
 
coldyn8w said:
Im looking at upgrading my (really poor) Sigma zoom with a Canon and find the IS and 300mm on this to be fairly inviting.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the new Canon 55-250 IS lens. On a crop sensor you get 88-400 mm equivalent. It's a great lens for the money.
 
I had one of these for a while and for the money it's a very nice lens, decent IQ and not too big for walking around with.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Have a look at the new Canon 55-250 IS lens. On a crop sensor you get 88-400 mm equivalent. It's a great lens for the money.
Click to expand...

that does look great but I have a full frame upgrade Im trying to keep in mind and therefore are avoiding EF-S lenses
 
I've had mine for quite a while and I don't think you can touch it for value for money.

IMHO its better than a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in terms of IQ and sharpness and it also has 3 stops of IS... oh and another 100mm thats ok (if not great)...

Take a look at my postings, most are done with the 70-300 IS....
 
coldyn8w said:
that does look great but I have a full frame upgrade Im trying to keep in mind and therefore are avoiding EF-S lenses
Click to expand...

Do you have a FF body now ?

Avoiding EF-s lenses if you have FF bosied is obvious but remember, horses for courses.

There are a number of situations where full frame isn't as useful as cropped sensor and vice versa.

Best have both, ime, and the fact remains that the 55-250 is an award winner for a reason.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Have a look at the new Canon 55-250 IS lens. On a crop sensor you get 88-400 mm equivalent. It's a great lens for the money.
Click to expand...

But the 70-300 will give up to 480 equivilent and still work on FF when needed.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Do you have a FF body now ?

Avoiding EF-s lenses if you have FF bosied is obvious but remember, horses for courses.

There are a number of situations where full frame isn't as useful as cropped sensor and vice versa.

Best have both, ime, and the fact remains that the 55-250 is an award winner for a reason.
Click to expand...

yes I will probably keep my 350D as theyre only worth about 100 pounds now anyway.

But I would still like whatever I buy to work on both....
 
Hi coldyn8w,
I own a 70-300IS (largely because I couldn't afford the L lens at the time).
I find it useful as a walkabout lens (not too heavy and inconspicuous because it's not a white lens), good for a trip to the zoo or an airshow.
here's a couple from it:-
00251.jpg


2805667611_13db5f64a8_b.jpg
 
mbscad said:
Hi coldyn8w,
I own a 70-300IS (largely because I couldn't afford the L lens at the time).
I find it useful as a walkabout lens (not too heavy and inconspicuous because it's not a white lens), good for a trip to the zoo or an airshow.
here's a couple from it:-
Click to expand...

Thanks mate,
I actually really dislike the look if the white L's as well. inconspicuous alright!
 
I have one of these and it's great - don't have any experience of the 70-200 or 55-250 but I'd certainly give the 70-300 a thumbs up. The main reason I got this over the 70-200 F4 was due to not wanting to lug a big white thing round (mainly) London, and the 55-250 wasn't released yet so this wasn't an option.

Given your current lens I'd be surprised if you were disappointed with the Canon.
 
I`m selling a 100-400 if any one is interested.
 
Yes, re the 55-250.... its:

a) EF-S (which may or may not be a problem)

b) Its non-USM

I did wonder when it came out how they'd done what they had done, but both of those things explain it.

That definitely makes it a fair bit less than the 70-300 IS, well, if you are planning on taking photos of moving stuff...
 
I have this lens and its been great for everything I need to do.

I've found it to be a good compromise between price and quality, at the time I bought it I wanted IS and the extra 100mm which the only comparable lens price wise, the 70-200 f4L couldn’t offer me and the IS version of this was out of my price range. Sure it doesn’t offer low light capabilities of the expensive f2.8 lenes but then they cost way more, its horses for courses to be honest.

Anyway a lot of the Costa Rica Pictures I took on my site were with this lens and I think they are perfectly acceptable for an amateur :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top