Canon 70-300 ... which one was the good one??

N

Noopz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
150
Edit My Images
Yes
I know there's several versions of this lens. The one I am thinking of is not the DO one.

I know there's two that are very similar, one is absolute rubbish and the other one is a pretty good deal.

Anyone care to enlighten me?
 
It's the:

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

:thumbs:

Avoid the non-is one, and the 75-300s! I believe the DO version is alright, but not the sharpest lens in the world and quite heavy for it's size. Useful if space is a real issue though!
 
Last edited:
I went for the 70-300mm. The IS rumbles and groans but seems to be effective, the USM doesn't allow manual focus in auto mode and the front rotates but optically I think it's good.

I've heard mixed reports of the DO but I think that the point of this lens is that it's compact and unobtrusive.

If buying a long lens now I might go for a f2.8. My dealer tried to push me towards one at the time but I wouldn't listen.
 
I tried the 70-300 IS. It's very good, optically, and excellent value for money, but I didn't like the poor build quality, rotating front element and the way it extends during zooming.

Bought the 70-200mm f4.0 L instead. I was quite happy to give up the IS and 100mm at the long end, but it's a personal choice.
 
Poor build quality is more than a little misleading to anyone but an experienced photographer who has used L glass extensively, maybe not L quality build which is designed for hard rugged professional use but "Poor build quality" is hardly a useful statement to make. I dont have a Bentley but that doesnt make a BMW, Audi etc "Poor build quality". We are talking about an optically superb Canon lens for just over £350 !
 
andyred said:
the 70-300IS is a cracker of a lens, esp for the price.
Click to expand...

Too right! I forgot to mention earlier that I had one too, only sold it to fund a 70-200 f/2.8. Absolutely loved it though, funny sounding IS, but they all do it and you get used to it after a while :D. I do miss the IS when using my longer lenses now, but 300mm+ f/2.8 IS lenses start to get rather prices, so I'll just have to improve my technique for now :)

Edit: And I for one was always happy with the build quality, sure it's not up to L standards, but it doesn't feel cheap whatsoever!
 
I have this lens,

And it's great Lens :thumbs:, I will post some images that i have taken with it,
 
chris321 said:
Too right! I forgot to mention earlier that I had one too, only sold it to fund a 70-200 f/2.8. Absolutely loved it though, funny sounding IS, but they all do it and you get used to it after a while :D.
Click to expand...

Can't say I've noticed mine making any funny noises - just works fine and for the value for money is great!

.
 
I started out life with a 70-300 non USM (cheapy zoom lens), which was so slow to focus, but the usm one isn't bad. The IS version is good too which I upgraded to.
The front element rotates as you zoom, which is only a problem with a polarizer

BUT, and it's a big but

I thought I was really happy with the 70-300 IS until I got the 70-200 F4 and couldn't believe the difference in colours and sharpness. It's an absolute bargain lens and lightweight and I'd recommend that over a 70-300 anytime.
 
Canon have produced multitudes of xx-300 EF lenses, many of them garbage, a few are notable.

Cheap grunge

All of the 90-300 and 75-300 non-IS lenses fall in this category. Also in here is the 100-300 F5.6.

75-300 IS (1995)
This one is notable, but only for being the first IS SLR lens (ironically, nikon had played with VR in a compact camera before this, but felt it wasn't a success). Optically this one is nothing to write home about, closely related to its non-IS cousin above.

100-300 USM
Optically this is barely any better than the cheapy stuff, but it's got ring-USM and is a bit more nicely built.

100-300 F5.6L
Unlike its non-L cousin, this one was optically decent. Horrid mechanics (AFD focusing, push-pull zoom), but it ended its life being sold at non-L prices. These days though you'd choose a 70-200 F4L with 1.4X TC for better optical performance without the mechanical compromise.

70-300 DO IS
A mixed bag. This was supposed to be the lens that brought the promise of DO to the masses. Had DO been everything that everyone hoped then the new L lens would never have been made. Optically reasonably sharp, but hampered by poor contrast and weird bokeh.

70-300 IS
A mid-range lens to replace the previous IS zoom, but offering far improved optics, definitely a step above the cheapies, if not quite with lenses like the 70-200 F4L. Very well liked lens, if only canon would give it ring-usm.

70-300L IS
The new, white one. As yet, no one really knows how this one is. Likely to replace the DO, as they are too close in price for both to live.
 
Noopz said:
I know there's several versions of this lens. The one I am thinking of is not the DO one.

I know there's two that are very similar, one is absolute rubbish and the other one is a pretty good deal.

Anyone care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Here are a couple of image I have taken with the Canon 70-300 IS Lens

Image 1

Image 2
 
I had one and found it could produce great results in bright light, but always struggled to focus when light levels were not so good.

Found it good for composed shots but not so good for quick stuff like when shooting wildlife. (Slow to focus/hunting)

Hated the way the front rotated and extended when focusing so swapped it for a 70/200 (which i hate the colour of ..... a black option would be nice).
 
idlemonkey said:
I had one and found it could produce great results in bright light, but always struggled to focus when light levels were not so good.

Found it good for composed shots but not so good for quick stuff like when shooting wildlife. (Slow to focus/hunting)

Hated the way the front rotated and extended when focusing so swapped it for a 70/200 (which i hate the colour of ..... a black option would be nice).
Click to expand...

I bought the f4.0 70-200mm after using the 70-300mm too. I agree with you about the focus, and the rotating/extending issue, but the poor build quality put me off as well. OTOH, the 70-300mm punches well above it's weight, and offers IS, which is pretty expensive on the 70-200mm series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top