Canon 70-300 IS USM
Discussion
I have it, and for the money I don't think there's a better lens around.
It's a little soft wide open and IQ drops off a bit as you approach 300mm, but if you don't shoot wide open and keep it under around 260mm it's great.
The IS works well (both modes) and it's quick to focus, although it does hunt a bit in low light.
I'll try and find some shots out later.
If it's primary use is going to be motorsport, you might be better looking at the 100-400L though as I find 300mm a bit short at most circuits. It's a lot more money though...
It's a little soft wide open and IQ drops off a bit as you approach 300mm, but if you don't shoot wide open and keep it under around 260mm it's great.
The IS works well (both modes) and it's quick to focus, although it does hunt a bit in low light.
I'll try and find some shots out later.
If it's primary use is going to be motorsport, you might be better looking at the 100-400L though as I find 300mm a bit short at most circuits. It's a lot more money though...
Funnily enough I'm looking at the same series of lenses for much the same reasons....
Leaning toward the 400mm IS USM as the moment, available in the US for under $8k
trying to work out what the extra $3.5k for the IS II gets you and whether it's worth it.
It's a lot of money for some glass but I've been promising myself that lens for many years.
Leaning toward the 400mm IS USM as the moment, available in the US for under $8k
trying to work out what the extra $3.5k for the IS II gets you and whether it's worth it.
It's a lot of money for some glass but I've been promising myself that lens for many years.
You used to be able to pick up the 100-400L for about £850 second hand on Talk Photography. Not had a look for a while, but they may well have gone up. recently.
There's also an "L" version of the 70-300 now which should dispense with the IQ issues on the non-L version. It's not a lot less expensive than the 100-400 though.
And if you're loaded, or have a kidney you don't mind parting with, the new 200-400L F/4 with internal 1.4x extender looks to be about perfect for motorsport
Not sure when it's actually due for release though.
Have a look at http://www.flickr.com/jimreader for some samples. All the motorsport shots on there are with the 70-300 IS USM.
Edit - To clarify which lenses I was actually talking about and add a couple of other alternatives.
There's also an "L" version of the 70-300 now which should dispense with the IQ issues on the non-L version. It's not a lot less expensive than the 100-400 though.
And if you're loaded, or have a kidney you don't mind parting with, the new 200-400L F/4 with internal 1.4x extender looks to be about perfect for motorsport
Not sure when it's actually due for release though.Have a look at http://www.flickr.com/jimreader for some samples. All the motorsport shots on there are with the 70-300 IS USM.
Edit - To clarify which lenses I was actually talking about and add a couple of other alternatives.
Edited by SlidingSideways on Tuesday 7th February 12:39
I use the 100-400mm Lens and, to be honest, it's a cracking piece of kit (coupled to a 5D). The only thing I would say is that the difference between 300mm and 400mm won't be as different as the gap between 50mm and 150mm, so you will get a bit extra with the 400mm. I wonder if you're better to look at the 70-300mm lens and try to get a bit closer 
If money is a bit tight, and the 70-300 is best used at 260mm or below, because it gets soft if used at the full 300mm, you might want to take a look at the Canon 55-250. Possibly a bit short if you are looking at motorsport as your primary reason for getting the lens, but it gets good reviews for image quality.
AWG said:
Wonder why you lose the crispness after 260mm?
Just the way its designed and built. Zooms tend to be poorer at extreems. Its OK at 300 but not tack sharp especially wide open.f5.6 is also fairly slow so you often dont want to stop down.
If you can stretch the 100-400L is a ton better.
I have a 70-300 IS USM and it's fine for most things - just consider what you'll be doing with it. In the bigger picture of life it's a great lens, easily capable of stunning shots. To get a noticeably better lens you'll need to spend at least 2 or 3 times as much.
You can get one from MPB for £300 used, I think mine was £300 new a while ago. Or a 55-250 for bargain price of £130. http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us... Might be worth a punt and if it's not long enough swap it with MPB for a 70-300 ?
You can get one from MPB for £300 used, I think mine was £300 new a while ago. Or a 55-250 for bargain price of £130. http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us... Might be worth a punt and if it's not long enough swap it with MPB for a 70-300 ?
My 70-300 non-L @ 300 is ok at f5.6, but properly sharp at f8.
No doubting a 100-400 is better - it is ...but it's 3x the price (and a bunch heavier if that is an issue)
For motorsports use i'd say the 70-300 non-L is ok, but faster focusing (like the 100-400 / canon 70-200's have) would perhaps be worth investing in if you plan on using it at the racetrack every weekend
No doubting a 100-400 is better - it is
...but it's 3x the price (and a bunch heavier if that is an issue)For motorsports use i'd say the 70-300 non-L is ok, but faster focusing (like the 100-400 / canon 70-200's have) would perhaps be worth investing in if you plan on using it at the racetrack every weekend
I have the 70-300 and have recently also got a 100-400L. The L is definitely the better lens but the 70-300 is not too far behind.
A couple with the 70-300 @ 300mm
201006278082.jpg by jcross70, on Flickr
Yellow Bowler Nemesis by jcross70, on Flickr
And one from the 100-400 @ 400mm
Winner and Loser by jcross70, on Flickr
A couple with the 70-300 @ 300mm
201006278082.jpg by jcross70, on Flickr
Yellow Bowler Nemesis by jcross70, on Flickr
And one from the 100-400 @ 400mm
Winner and Loser by jcross70, on Flickr
RobDickinson said:
70-300IS is proper USM (but f5.6) so should be nice and speedy in good light.
If its the non-L 70-300 then I believe it is 'micro' USM - it doesn't have full-time manual af and isn't as quick / quiet as the 'ring' USM lenses I've used.The new L version (over £1k) I'm sure has the 'ring' USM.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff