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

[r055]

sorry... yet another lens thread...
has anyone used this lens or can recommend similar/ better?
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_inf...

Id like it for trackday photography and showjumping but wondering whether its worth the money.

i currently have a TAMRON AF 55-200mm F/4-5.6 and the 400d kit lens. does anyone else use the Tamron?

[flat-planedCrank]

r055 said:

sorry... yet another lens thread...
has anyone used this lens or can recommend similar/ better?
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_inf...

Id like it for trackday photography and showjumping but wondering whether its worth the money.

i currently have a TAMRON AF 55-200mm F/4-5.6 and the 400d kit lens. does anyone else use the Tamron?

I have it I use it for motorsports / trackday photography.

Imo, you may want to save for something like the 100-400L if you want extra reach. For me, the 70-300 doesn't focus quite fast enough for motorsports work, i'm looking to move to a 70-200L to replace it.


For general use its great - its sharp (almost comparible to L series lenses if you stop it down a touch), and light to carry.



Hope this helps.


Cheers.

[4hero]

Can't comment on the 70-300, but I had the tamron 55-200 and 100% agree with flat-planedCrank that it's worthwhile saving for the 100-400, I love mine to bits, lovely lens

Edited by 4hero on Tuesday 1st July 23:14

[r055]

thanks guys. unfortunately i cant justify the 100-400L cost...

im getting decent shots with the 55-200 tamron, but still have to perfect them - nothing like some of your photos FPC!

will be a couple of months window shopping first though.
am i right in thinking you can hire lenses?

Ross

[VxDuncan]

Or as suggested a 70-200 F2.8 - the workhorse lens that everyone should have! Pro 'togs will have a wide range of different lenses, but I'd guess that 90% of them own a 70-200 F2.8 (or 80-200) lens...

Use with a 1.4x tc if you need a bit of extra reach.

[RobDickinson]

70-300IS is a fine (consumer) lens. Opticaly cracking, not that fast, and slow focusing compared to the USM L's.

Depends on your budget and what you want to do with it, its a tad cheaper than the 70-200f4L which is great from f4 up and fast focusing but no IS.

decide of you'd be happy with 200, 300 or 400 reach.

[Tuna]

I have it and have to confess I'm not that struck with it. I think it's mainly user error, but I struggle to get images to have 'zip' when zoomed in. It's been checked over (early models had a recall) and is apparently fine, but I'm just not excited by it.

It extends quite a bit when zoomed, isn't parfocal and the front element rotates, so if you're expecting to pull in and out whilst taking photos, it's slower and more fiddly if you want to use a polariser.

On the other hand, it's got a good optical reputation and I imagine if you're not a numpty like me you should get some nice images out of it. Do remember to get the lens hood at the same time if you do buy it.

When comparing lenses, I find using the pbase.com 'browse by camera' feature quite interesting. It allows you to browse pictures taken with specific equipment, so you can get an idea of what people are getting out of a particular lens.

[agent006]

I have this one too. I found that on my old D30 it would confuse the autofocus at full zoom, and it would just focus as far out as it could and then not come back.
On the 1d though it's been great, I've had as much success with ti as with my 24-105L. The IS is simply brilliant on the 300.

[havoc]

Used one for about 2 years, and agree with fp-C and Rob.

I've also had some (very occasional) focusing issues similar to Agent006, which is frustrating. Otherwise it's a good lens for the money, and IMHO the extra reach of it over the -200 f2.8 is very useful*.


* Re: 1.4 teleconverter - how does that affect the sharpness of the image?!? I'd have thought another lot of glass in the mix can't help...

[agent006]

havoc said:

* Re: 1.4 teleconverter - how does that affect the sharpness of the image?!? I'd have thought another lot of glass in the mix can't help...

I was reading something the other week (linked off here i think) which showed a comparison between the 70-200L with 2xTC vs the 100-400L. 100-400L was sharper in just about all circumstances.

[flat-planedCrank]

You would most probably lose auto-focus when using the 1.4x converter + 70-300 at full reach.

The normal af limit for pro-sumer (not 1D series) cameras is f5.6 - you lose 1 stop of exposure with a 1.4x converter, at 300mm its already f5.6, so af would probably just hunt back and forth.


I do occasionally get focusing gremlins when using the 70-300 at full stretch in poor lighting (evening trackdays), but no more than I would expect
Just reminds me to keep saving for a 70-200 f2.8


Cheers.

[x5x3]

r055 said:

sorry... yet another lens thread...
has anyone used this lens or can recommend similar/ better?
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_inf...

Id like it for trackday photography and showjumping but wondering whether its worth the money.

i currently have a TAMRON AF 55-200mm F/4-5.6 and the 400d kit lens. does anyone else use the Tamron?

I have a used one of these for sale if you are interested, it is unmarked and has a Hoya filter on it - drop me an email if you are interested

[corozin]

VxDuncan said:

Or as suggested a 70-200 F2.8 - the workhorse lens that everyone should have! Pro 'togs will have a wide range of different lenses, but I'd guess that 90% of them own a 70-200 F2.8 (or 80-200) lens...
Use with a 1.4x tc if you need a bit of extra reach.

The part you managed to miss was the price difference between the 70-300 F4.5 & 70-200 F2.8. Funny that.

But to answer the question I have been using the Canon 70-300 IS lens since last October for a wide range of subject including motorsport and it's a fine lens at it's price point. The IS really makes a huge difference when you have it wound out to 300mm.

A 200mm lens is ok for motorsport if you can get close to the action, but honestly if you're standing on the banking (where most of us find ourselves) then a 300mm, or even a 500mm is a far more useful piece of kit.

Edited by corozin on Wednesday 2nd July 22:44

[Zod]

I used this lens for several years and it served me well. It's good value for money.

I now have moved up to the 100-400mm L lens which is much better, but much bigger, heavier and more expensive.

[r055]

Tuna said:

I have it and have to confess I'm not that struck with it. I think it's mainly user error, but I struggle to get images to have 'zip' when zoomed in. It's been checked over (early models had a recall) and is apparently fine, but I'm just not excited by it.

It extends quite a bit when zoomed, isn't parfocal and the front element rotates, so if you're expecting to pull in and out whilst taking photos, it's slower and more fiddly if you want to use a polariser.

On the other hand, it's got a good optical reputation and I imagine if you're not a numpty like me you should get some nice images out of it. Do remember to get the lens hood at the same time if you do buy it.

When comparing lenses, I find using the pbase.com 'browse by camera' feature quite interesting. It allows you to browse pictures taken with specific equipment, so you can get an idea of what people are getting out of a particular lens.

this is useful tuna - thanks.

Does anyone have any sample photos i could see - prefarably using canon 400D...
Ross

[flat-planedCrank]

r055 said:

Tuna said:

I have it and have to confess I'm not that struck with it. I think it's mainly user error, but I struggle to get images to have 'zip' when zoomed in. It's been checked over (early models had a recall) and is apparently fine, but I'm just not excited by it.

It extends quite a bit when zoomed, isn't parfocal and the front element rotates, so if you're expecting to pull in and out whilst taking photos, it's slower and more fiddly if you want to use a polariser.

On the other hand, it's got a good optical reputation and I imagine if you're not a numpty like me you should get some nice images out of it. Do remember to get the lens hood at the same time if you do buy it.

When comparing lenses, I find using the pbase.com 'browse by camera' feature quite interesting. It allows you to browse pictures taken with specific equipment, so you can get an idea of what people are getting out of a particular lens.

this is useful tuna - thanks.

Does anyone have any sample photos i could see - prefarably using canon 400D...
Ross

Imo think its probably the best lens - in terms of images quality - you will get for the money.
If you really want stuff like super-fast focusing, non-rotating front element, full-time manual focusing, etc.. then your probably looking at L series lenses (+ prices )


Cheers.

[cirks]

I've got it and on the whole very happy with it. Depends on what you're prepared to lug around with you but the 70-300 is reasonably light and small for what it is particuarly compared with the 100-400 or 70-200. If you believe you can't afford the 100-400, it's probably worth dropping Ian Kerr (kerso) an email to see what his current prices are. Loads of recommendations for his services on here (including from me!) PM me for his address if you want it.

[VxDuncan]

corozin said:

VxDuncan said:

Or as suggested a 70-200 F2.8 - the workhorse lens that everyone should have! Pro 'togs will have a wide range of different lenses, but I'd guess that 90% of them own a 70-200 F2.8 (or 80-200) lens...
Use with a 1.4x tc if you need a bit of extra reach.

The part you managed to miss was the price difference between the 70-300 F4.5 & 70-200 F2.8. Funny that.

But to answer the question I have been using the Canon 70-300 IS lens since last October for a wide range of subject including motorsport and it's a fine lens at it's price point. The IS really makes a huge difference when you have it wound out to 300mm.

A 200mm lens is ok for motorsport if you can get close to the action, but honestly if you're standing on the banking (where most of us find ourselves) then a 300mm, or even a 500mm is a far more useful piece of kit.

Edited by corozin on Wednesday 2nd July 22:44

I was just trying to give honest advice based on experience. When it first came out the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS was about £300 IIRC, my first 80-200 F2.8 was £250 Buy it now off ebay (S/H). I agree with your comment WRT range, however I would take a fast 200mm lens over a slow 300mm lens any day. Take a 70-300 mm zoom and zoom it between 200 and 300mm. This different is far less than you expect.