Canon 70-300 IS

[bobs4c]

I bought a Canon 75-300 USM lens with my EOS 300 film camera a few years ago and have been using it with my 350D. I realise this is a 'kit lens' and quite cheap, so was looking at purchasing something a bit better - the 70-300 IS f4-5.6 although it is in short supply at present (one on e-bay). Has anyone any knowledge of this lens?

Financially the 100-400 IS and 70-300 DO IS are unfortunately not an option, but would it be worth hanging on?

Bob

[Podie]

I've got it on my 300D. Been very happy with it. The IS is worth a few stops... and you can get photos the non-IS lens will lose.

That said, it's not the best at full extension, and not as good as the non-IS lens in very bright sunlight.

Couple of pics I've taken with it...

[GregE240]

Nice pics lad

[Podie]

GregE240 said:

Nice pics lad

ta


Bob - it's about 200g heavier than the non-IS lens, but I've not found that an issue on the 300D, but the 350D is a fair bit smaller (the missus has one).

Edited by Podie on Wednesday 29th November 15:11

[bobs4c]

Thanks Podie and yes, nice pics just the type of image I would be using the IS for. Most of the pictures I take end up in low light conditions, in fact most venues were wet this year and I really struggle:



, where I believe you can switch off one of the IS modes if necessary when panning - trying to compromise by only buying one lens.

Bob

[altrezia]

I've got one of these lenses - they are top! The quality is lovely for a budget lens.

[Podie]

You can switch off the IS, but it's not as quick as the non-IS lens.

Personally, I like it though.

[black5]

Would the 70-200 f/4L not be a better option?

[bobs4c]

black5 said:

Would the 70-200 f/4L not be a better option?

Yes, I think for moving subjects that could well be a better lens to go for, there are so many.

Bob

[Tuna]

I've got one and so far have been disappointed with the results. I started a thread on it, but other distractions have prevented me from taking some proper test shots to work out if I've got a bad one. The lens itself seems to be fine, but the pictures I'm getting are nowhere near as sharp as I'd expect. If light is good tomorrow I'll get some test shots and put them up to show you.

[Podie]

Tuna said:

I've got one and so far have been disappointed with the results. I started a thread on it, but other distractions have prevented me from taking some proper test shots to work out if I've got a bad one. The lens itself seems to be fine, but the pictures I'm getting are nowhere near as sharp as I'd expect. If light is good tomorrow I'll get some test shots and put them up to show you.

I'll go and have a nose.

Would you be unhappy with the results I posted below..?

[speed8]

bobs4c said:

black5 said:

Would the 70-200 f/4L not be a better option?

Yes, I think for moving subjects that could well be a better lens to go for, there are so many.

Bob

Here's a couple of pics I took at Le Mans with the 70-200 f/4L.

Bear in mind I had only had the lens for a few days when I took these pics and I am very much an amateur at the bottom step of the amateur ladder. In that respect I'm sure I don't do the lens justice.

These are unprocessed and only cropped to 750 for the web







I was happy with them for a first attempt.

[RobDickinson]

70-200f4L is a top lens but just about discontinued now with canon doing the IS evrsion for about 300 quid more, almost the cost of their f2.8 monster. Not IMO value for money.

The 70-300f4-5.6 IS is supposed to be 90-95% of the image quality, is just as fast as the f4l for most of the range (f5.6 only 200+mm or something) but a lot of early examples had softness porblems at 300mm portrait which canon are fixing. Build quality is a million miles from the f4L.

I have access to the f4L when i need it , I'm probably going to buy they 70-300 for the extra reach and IS (and because its lighter than say the sigma f2.8).

Edited by RobDickinson on Wednesday 29th November 19:31

[havoc]

I've had this lens on order since March, and Warehouse Express have been rather unhelpful - I've mailed them every few months to be told 'still waiting', and finally got the response back in September 'It'll be next year before you'll get it', which co-incidentally was around the same time that a chap from Canon told me they'd resolved the build quality issue and I should be getting it soon.

One of them is telling porkies, but I've no idea which one! Regardless, i'm rather frustrated at the wait for it - had to get a 2nd-hand 75-300 to tide me over, but it's not the same.

[jwyatt]

I can tell from the pics posted about that the newer 70-300 is a lot better than the 75-300 IS, I had one of those and it was really, really soft at the edges at anything much over 135mm:



By comparison the 70-200 f4 L is a peach:

[Gemm]

If you are on a low budget, 100-300 USM is another option to consider. It has far better specs than 75-300 and better quality. It also uses internal focus and ring USM, which means AF is faster and quieter and the front element doesn't rotate while focusing. You can use full-time manual focus feature too, which is a must for me personally. I don't think even 70-300 IS does that (correct me if I'm wrong!).

[poah]

trying to find a 100-300 might be difficult though

[monkeyhanger]

poah said:

trying to find a 100-300 might be difficult though

Mifsuds.co.uk have a used one (USM version) for £159

[bobs4c]

Thanks for all the info, much appreciated. Unfortunately the stitching on my rear window gave out last week necessitating a new panel So there will be a slight delay before I purchase.

Bob