Canon 70-300 IS USM

Ricky T

Ricky T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
284
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,


i've not posted much on here yet but thought i'd fill you all in and get some feedback.

My fund is nearly complete ( and the price has come down by £70 !!! )

for canon 70-300 IS USM.

I have jessop vouchers, curtesy of my wife so i am stuck with the shop to go to.

Does anyone else have this lens ?

i have heard good reviews, and have been swayed by reading forums, reviews and friends to go for this instead of the 75-300 Mk 3 i was going to go for but much cheaper. I decided the IS USM is better glass and i'm more likely to change camera not glass.

I aim to use it mainly for Birds, but also general things at the 70mm end.

Any feedback would be great, thanks.

Think i'll be in jessop Boxing day if they're open LOL.

Come on Christmas Day !!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
I have this lens and although I will be selling it at some point as I bought the 100-400mm it is a fantastic bit of kit for the money.
 
Ricky T said:
if i got 75-300 Mk 3, ill only want to upgrade at a later date.
Click to expand...

Would agree with that, probably quite soon after as well.

The 70-300 IS lens is a very good lens and highly rated, you won't be disappointed with your purchase.

Don't forget, you should be able to get Jessops to price match easily to a store nearby if they are cheaper. Depending on your store, it seems a bit hit and miss if they price match to the internet shops - but definately worth a look and try.

Having said that, a quick look on camera price buster shows Jessops are the cheapest at the moment for the lens :thumbs:
 
Ricky T said:
I have jessop vouchers, curtesy of my wife so i am stuck with the shop to go to.
Click to expand...
You don't have to see it like that. If another retailer were offering the lens at a much better price, you could (political consideratons aside!) buy it there and put the vouchers to some other use.

As it tuens out, though Jessops are extremely competitive for this lens (according to Camera Price Buster).
 
I also have this lens and although I have now bought others that cover the same focal lengths I just cannot part with it. As already mentioned it is highly rated, producing very good pictures and I have really enjoyed using it. It is very compact for the zoom range and the IS is superb. Great value for money and one of those lenses that nobody has a bad word for.
 
The IS is rather dear I have to say compared to the price going for the 75-300 III USM. Infact think eventually Ill be upgrading this lens before the others I found it a waste going IS USM especially from reviews I saw the difference is rather minimal
 
recently got to play with the 100-400 IS next to my 70-300 IS.
I was pleasantly surprised that my 70-300 IS, although not as good as the L glass canon was really rather good. Handheld, moderate light.
so although it wasn't as good, it was close and frankly a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to wield.
would still love to upgrade one day though :P
 
P-Chan said:
The IS is rather dear I have to say compared to the price going for the 75-300 III USM. Infact think eventually Ill be upgrading this lens before the others I found it a waste going IS USM especially from reviews I saw the difference is rather minimal
Click to expand...

The difference IS minimal if you can hold a camera rock steady, only shoot at relatively high speeds and don't crop your pics and only print small shots.

Apart from that, if you're like me and find that holding a 300mm lens rock steady at 1/100th sec is almost impossible, then IS is a MUST, so much so that I now have 3 lenses with IS and am VERY pleased with them!
 
P-Chan said:
The IS is rather dear I have to say compared to the price going for the 75-300 III USM. Infact think eventually Ill be upgrading this lens before the others I found it a waste going IS USM especially from reviews I saw the difference is rather minimal
Click to expand...

IS is going to help you out more than you can imagine on lenses this long. Have a look at the Flickr set mipevo6 posted in this thread. He was using shutter speeds of 1/50s at more than 250mm and is getting shots good enough for the web and probably small prints, too. I don't think you could manage that with a lens at that focal length without IS.

Without IS, to get sharp images your minimum shutter speed for handheld shooting should be 1/f (where f is your focal length). So at 300mm, you should be shooting at 1/300s but 1/500s is the closest. IS on this lens apparently gives you three stops worth of stabilisation so, if your subject is stationary, you should be able to get away with shooting at 1/60s.

George.
 
P-Chan said:
The IS is rather dear I have to say compared to the price going for the 75-300 III USM. Infact think eventually Ill be upgrading this lens before the others I found it a waste going IS USM especially from reviews I saw the difference is rather minimal
Click to expand...

From the reviews I've read, this lens walks all over the 75-300 in terms of IQ and AF speed. And in real terms, comparing images from my mates 75-300 to my 70-300, quite noticable too.

Add in the benefits of IS as explained by BadgerLover (although you forgot to account for the crop factor in the shutter speed calculation ;)) then I'd say the difference is massive, and easily justify the increased price.

It's a great lens, you won't be dissapointed!
 
I've got this lens and it's absolutely awesome! IS at 300mm (or four hundred and something taking the crop factor into account) is invaluable. The only reason it's going up for sale next week is to raise funds for a 100-400 (although that probably won't be for quite a long time to come :(

Having used the lens, I'll not be considering anything over 200mm without IS, it really does make the difference!
 
Another vote for this lens. The below picture was taken on a moving boat at full zoom attached to a 400D. I've just bought the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS bit i'm still holding onto this for when i need the extra reach (plus my wife uses it too :D)

Image4.jpg
 
I have this lens.

I think that optically it's good but mechanically it seems like a clunky old thing as the IS growls (although you probably wont notice this unless you're in a quiet environment) and the end rotates when focussing.

If I was buying again I think I'd go for a f2.8, even if it meant dropping to 70-200mm. When you get used to fast lenses it's amazing how frustrating slower lenses can be.
 
BadgerLover said:
IS is going to help you out more than you can imagine on lenses this long. Have a look at the Flickr set mipevo6 posted in this thread. He was using shutter speeds of 1/50s at more than 250mm and is getting shots good enough for the web and probably small prints, too. I don't think you could manage that with a lens at that focal length without IS.

Without IS, to get sharp images your minimum shutter speed for handheld shooting should be 1/f (where f is your focal length). So at 300mm, you should be shooting at 1/300s but 1/500s is the closest. IS on this lens apparently gives you three stops worth of stabilisation so, if your subject is stationary, you should be able to get away with shooting at 1/60s.

George.
Click to expand...

The light was awful.... really grey and drab so getting anything was a challenge...

I haven't really played with these pics much (a bit of sharpening and a quick crop) and they come out pretty well I do have to say given the conditions....

IS really makes a huge difference on a lens this long in typical English weather..

I got a good deal from Kerso on this lens and so far I think it has been worth every penny....

Cheers

MIP
 
mipevo6 said:
The light was awful.... really grey and drab so getting anything was a challenge...

I haven't really played with these pics much (a bit of sharpening and a quick crop) and they come out pretty well I do have to say given the conditions....

IS really makes a huge difference on a lens this long in typical English weather..

I got a good deal from Kerso on this lens and so far I think it has been worth every penny....

Cheers

MIP
Click to expand...

While it may not be the same lens I own, I have to echo the sentiments about the benefits of IS with our british weather. I took this yesterday aboud dawn in some woods.
1/30th ISO1600 300mm

robin_is.jpg


Without IS there would be no chance if getting anything removely usable. IS allowed me to get the shot and it really is worth the extra you pay for it.
Sure, this is a resized shot sharpened for web, but the feather detail is still visible when pixel peeping and softness is more down to the little blighter moving than camera shake.
 
I have this lens also - had it for about 18 months now. Used it for motorsports, aviation and some general photography and I'm very pleased with it.

Here's a few examples from my Photobucket...

1) ISO 400, f7.1, 1/125th, 250mm, IS off
BrandsGP13.jpg


2) ISO 200, f16, 1/250th, 280mm, IS off
Testing037.jpg


3) ISO 200, f16, 1/160th, 235mm, IS off
BensonFD13.jpg


4) ISO 200, f11, 1/320th, 270mm, IS off
OldWarden10.jpg


5) ISO 200, f13, 1/80th, 170mm, IS on
OldWarden32.jpg


6) ISO 200, f7.1, 1/80th, 235mm, IS on
OldWarden01.jpg
 
Great photos Daniel, really looking forward to getting mine now!

I had the same debate between the 75-300 and the 70-300, ended up going for the latter. Hopefully I'll get some nice photos with it, sharpness looks pretty good to me those pics.
 
Hi guys,

got the lens only a few days ago. Done some test shot in garden and VERY happy with the IS. it steady's me shaky hands easily.
Ill get some pics on soon.

Thanks for everything everyone.
And all the pics on this posts are great.
 
I had commented on this thread about the IS being very dear hence why I got me the 75-300 USM non IS. I love taking birds and have to say that the images are somewhat lacking unless the bird is right under my nose. Taking of small birds even at 30 meters away can be a headache as once u magnify them on a computer the pic becomes sort of grainy.

For anyone having used both the IS and non IS do the IS one have the same issue with grainyness?

Reasons Im thinking of getting the 100-400 but is way beyond my price league. If this lens 70-300 IS sorts the problem of grain then I could get me one without having to wait forever to cover the price of the L lens.

Ricky hope u really enjoy your lens for mine with non IS leaves me somewhat empty inside :(
 
P-Chan said:
I had commented on this thread about the IS being very dear hence why I got me the 75-300 USM non IS. I love taking birds and have to say that the images are somewhat lacking unless the bird is right under my nose. Taking of small birds even at 30 meters away can be a headache as once u magnify them on a computer the pic becomes sort of grainy.

For anyone having used both the IS and non IS do the IS one have the same issue with grainyness?

Reasons Im thinking of getting the 100-400 but is way beyond my price league. If this lens 70-300 IS sorts the problem of grain then I could get me one without having to wait forever to cover the price of the L lens.

Ricky hope u really enjoy your lens for mine with non IS leaves me somewhat empty inside :(
Click to expand...

The grain is nothing to do with image stabiliser and everything to do with how much you are cropping. If you were to get the IS version then you would still have the same problem - you are not getting close enough to the birds.

30 meters is a long way for a small bird - even 10 metres is further away that I am happy work at with my 300mm lens. Try 4-8 metres and you will start to get shots you are happy with. Plus you get the rewarding feeling of having been tat close to nature and the bird accepted your presence (Or didn't know you were there!)
 
No, this is a Canon lens thread, not a Nikon one :)

The 70-300IS is a cracking lens. I still have mine to go with my 30D (yes, I still have some of my Canon stuff left).

The 75-300 USM is nothing like the same lens. Its not just the IS thats different, the whole damned thing is different.

The 75-300 CA's all over the place - I know, I have one from the dark old days of 35mm film and I have used it on digital too, but its really, blurgh.
 
It was the canon one i tried. In fact it was Riches on his camera :D. The look on his face when we checked the pics out was priceless. I think it was the fact that i tried harder to make sure i did it could have been part of the reason:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top