Finally got my 70-300mm IS USM

[shoey]

After a lot of thought and contemplation, i finally went and got my 70-300mm IS USM today. It was the last one in stock from quite a number of shops so i feel quite privileged. I will be getting rid of the Tamron 28-300mm, which was crap, and now all i need is something in the 17-50 range :)

Anyway, not had much chance to play with the lens yet as i've been busy, but here is just a quick taster. All hand held on my 20D, i'm quite happy with how sharp they are, even though the content is a bit crap :) I'll take some better ones next week.

http://www.philshoebottom.co.uk/Photos/DCR/70-300mm/01.jpg

http://www.philshoebottom.co.uk/Photos/DCR/70-300mm/02.jpg

http://www.philshoebottom.co.uk/Photos/DCR/70-300mm/03.jpg

[24Peter]

Congrats shoey! I bet you'll find it's a great little lens now that Canon has fixed the design. :)

[NewTekBuzz]

Thanks for the pics... looks like its gonna be a nice lens.

[DonSchap]

Did you check that serial number?

Read this link (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922).

Best of luck with a top drawer lens. Way to go! :D

[Bluedog]

Nice results indeed.

[shoey]

Did you check that serial number?

Read this link (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922).

Best of luck with a top drawer lens. Way to go! :D
Hopefully i'm safe, I got the guy at the shop to check it 3 times before i bought it :) the serial starts 213xxxxx

Think i'm going to go to my folks at the weekend and see if there are some windsurfers out at the lake nearby. That should be a nice test.

So far i'm really impressed with the IS, shame it seems to drain my battery so quickly. Think it might be a dodgy battery though. I got it off ebay and i'm convinced its not right, but i can't find any way of checking it. Any thoughts:confused:

[adam75south]

very nice. i really want some IS.

[24Peter]

So far i'm really impressed with the IS, shame it seems to drain my battery so quickly. Think it might be a dodgy battery though. I got it off ebay and i'm convinced its not right, but i can't find any way of checking it. Any thoughts:confused:

It's your battery - I've used both the old 75-300 IS and the new 70-300 IS extensively and any battery drain was negligible - I never noticed a difference in battery life when using one of the IS lenses vs. a non-IS lens.

[michaelb]

Very nice.....I hope to be pairing this lens with the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 shortly myself.

[shoey]

It's your battery - I've used both the old 75-300 IS and the new 70-300 IS extensively and any battery drain was negligible - I never noticed a difference in battery life when using one of the IS lenses vs. a non-IS lens.
It turns out that my battery is a fake. I got it from ebay and saw in a post on another forum some key areas to look for. Its definately a copy so i've got onto paypal to sort it out. In the meantime i'm using my original battery and that seems to be coping fine:) love IS

Very nice.....I hope to be pairing this lens with the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 shortly myself.
I'd highly recommend it. The only area it struggles with is low light with the small max aperture, but it was either this or the 70-200 f/4 L and i couldn't live without the IS and the extra 100mm FL, The only other lens i would've prefered would be the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, but thats in dream land for me:D I'm also looking at getting a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but can't afford it this year now:D

[Dcoggs]

I really like mine that I got last week. The IS has saved a lot of shots. You're right that it doesn't let in a lot of light, but that seems to be the land of the high dollar telephotos. Glad you got the battery issue sorted, mine does fine with the canon battery. This is a great lens, and has impressed me with its picture quality.

[aparmley]

Shoey - Nice images. . . I really like the shot of the birds. This lens is on my wish list too - just when I think I have the funds for this lens something else seems to pop up. . . Can't wait to get my hands on it.

[JMWallace]

AAHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - to save for the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS or get this 70-300...or buy this, save the difference and sell when the time comes. Decisions, decisions, decisions...

Anyway, ANDY, you coming to Detroit if St. Louis makes it???

Bets???

[Sungrazer]

AAHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - to save for the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS or get this 70-300...or buy this, save the difference and sell when the time comes. Decisions, decisions, decisions...

No kidding. I have the budget to get either right now but I can't decide between the two.

Does anyone know a) how much weight the IS will add to the 70-200 f/4 and b) when the 70-300 reaches f/5.6?

[shoey]

No kidding. I have the budget to get either right now but I can't decide between the two.

Does anyone know a) how much weight the IS will add to the 70-200 f/4 and b) when the 70-300 reaches f/5.6?
if i had the money i'd deffo get the 70-200 IS and a 1.4xTC as i love playing with DOF and low light photography, although its a lot heavier than my 70-300 IS, maybe i'd need both :)

Don't know how much the IS will add to the f/4 but it seems like a kinda nothing lens, i.e. canon should've made the 70-300 IS an f/4.

I can answer the other question though, and that is, the 70-300mm will reach 225mm at f/5.0 before switching to f/5.6, so there would only be 1 stop between the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the 70-300mm IS @ 200mm, and i'm not sure that its worth the price gap, hence my previous statement:)

just my opinion though, take it with a pinch of salt as i'm still a newbie really.

[Sungrazer]

I'm still new at this as well, but I'm guessing a 70-300 f/4, if feasible, would be a large, heavy lens, perhaps prohibitively so. Otherwise I'll save my pennies for a 17-400 f/1.8 L IS. :D

[DonSchap]

I can answer the other question though, and that is, the 70-300mm will reach 225mm at f/5.0 before switching to f/5.6, so there would only be 1 stop between the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the 70-300mm IS @ 200mm, and i'm not sure that its worth the price gap, hence my previous statement :)

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM... it really is the bargain, but the light levels are hard to deal with.

Low light with Canon is, in one word... EX-FRIGGIN-PENSIVE. So when you shop for an f/2.8 lens or better... bring the piggy-bank and a few of its friends. When you enter the store, turn them over and shake shake shake...


16441
it should be just enough.

[shoey]

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM... it really is the bargain, but the light levels are hard to deal with.

Low light with Canon is, in one word... EX-FRIGGIN-PENSIVE. So when you shop for an f/2.8 lens or better... bring the piggy-bank and a few of its friends. When you enter the store, turn them over and shake shake shake...

LOL:) You can say that again.

I don't think i'll ever be in the position to have those kind of lenses. I'll just stick to getting the best of the rest. Once i get the 85mm f/1.8 and replace my 50mm f/1.8 with the f/1.4, i think i'll have the best that canon has to offer that isn't an L or very expensive for what you get. The only lens i can't decide on is the walkaround. I think i'll have to go third party with that and get the Tammy 17-50.

[adam75south]

i've thought alot about selling my 70-200 to get the 70-300 IS but have changed my mind every time.