Thoughts on Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM

[MaxxFusion]

What is your opions on this lens?

[faisal]

It's a really nice lens and highly recommended.

[MaxxFusion]

What makes this lense really nice? How does it compare to the 55-250mm lens from Canon?

[shoey]

It's sharp for its price point and focal range. It has nice colour and contrast. It was, and still is, my first telephoto lens.

It's great for travel and very versatile, but it does have downsides too.

The build quality is a bit poor, the IS is noisy, and the focusing can be slow and inaccurate.

I've not used the 55-250, but I hear it's nice.

I'd go for the 70-200 f/4 L if i was making the choice again, but you pay more, get less range, and no IS.

[BBPhoto]

I tried the lens and agree with Shoey. The 70 - 200 is a better choice. If money is not an issue you can get the IS version and the lens pairs extremely well with the 1.4x TC.

[Gintaras]

I might contradict a general opinion about this lens but this is what I think.

I used this lens a couple of times, surprisingly I did not like it as much as others do.

First of all, it is versatile lens but is not really portable, it is not a light weight either, consider protruding element which makes this lens veRY long when going to 300mm. Focusing is rather slower than I want and, as mentioned already, a bit too noisy. Despite this focusing is damn accurate I have to say.

Optically I also did not find anything spectacular, it is a reasonably Ok lens in sharpness and saturation, and its main advantage is a lower price tag compared to the excellent 70-200/4 IS L.

Bear in mind the 70-300 has an older IS version which gives you only 2 stops. I found this lens to be somehow bit too soft at its longest end. Not really I did not like the lens, but this was just an OK lens, not a ground breaker. Finally I never went back to this lens, even though I can borrow it every weekend if I wish. For me there was nothing special about this lens and I believe 70-200/f4 makes a better lens, especially the IS version of it.

Summing up, IF I would wish some cheapo telephoto lens I would look at EF- 55-250IS, a new cheapo, which does an Ok job just as 70-300IS, costs less than 70-300, and has a better IS system giving you 3 stops for sure. But IF I want a great TELE then I would add more bucks to buy me an excellent and still not so heavy/big 70-200/f4 IS L lens. You can also add the extender when you need more optical reach.

But this is me, and I am not you. All I can recommend try to borrow or rent 70-300IS and do some shooting before you decide. May be you will be in love with it, or may be you will just throw it. Just make sure you do not rely exclusively on others opinions since people differ often on the same issue. For me 70-300IS was “thanks but no thanks”.

[AdamW]

I have it and I like it a lot. I've nothing to compare it to, though.

[Honest Gaza]

First lens that I bought for my 400D Body. Love it, use it a lot and wouldn't sell it.

I'm going overseas next month for a couple of weeks. My 70-200 is too big to carry around so I'll be taking the 70-300 with me.

[Gintaras]

Gaza, 70-200/f4.0 is not much bigger/heavier, it has faster focus and more effective IS. if money is an issue then Ok, 70-300IS might be a deal. But if you can afford a bit more then why not take 70-200/f4 IS ?

Sorry, I felt 70-300 is an Ok lens but no major deal for me Personally. I know many still are in love with this lens so I apologise if I hurt someone's feelings, sorry Gentlemen :~)

[Honest Gaza]

Gaza, 70-200/f4.0 is not much bigger/heavier, it has faster focus and more effective IS....

I referred to my 70-200 which is an f/2.8 and is much bigger/heavier than the 70-300 I own (as per my Signature)

[Honest Gaza]

But if you can afford a bit more then why not take 70-200/f4 IS ?



...because of the missing 201-300mm :)

[Honest Gaza]

What is your opions on this lens?

The thread below is one of my favourite series using the 70-300 IS you are referring to :

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28707

[shoey]

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30710 I used it 90% of the time in Kenya.

[shoey]

Oh yeah, these also :)

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30557

There are bigger photos on this thread

[Gintaras]

ok, i am dumb @ss because i did not like it as much as you do.
still as I said, 70-300IS an Ok lens which will not let you down, just a question if you want bit better quality lens. with 70-300 you need to stop it down more than sometimes you like.

[Viky]

Awesome lens for the money. Some even called it a 'hidden L'. I had this for 2+ years and loved it.. very sharp and light weight. Only real gripe is that its slower in focusing then the USMd L's!

Here are a few of my shots with this lens..

All are hand held and majority are shot with wide open aperture:)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3500/3905912012_ce7da688f8.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3762105788_7fb99f640f.jpg

http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_8767a.jpg

http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_8877.jpg

http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_5626c.jpg

http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/_MG_9537_web.jpg

http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_1739a.jpg

[Gintaras]

Viky, would you mind to post unprocessed photos straight out of the camera with 70-300? I am not saying this is not good lens, but it is not a hidden L lens either. And one may like to compare the lenses before buying, and 70-200 f4 with extender can be a long lasting solution since many people tend to upgrade to this lens from70-300. I see you also traded your 70-300 for this or something else?

[Csae]

If you're gonna compare, compare the 70-300 IS USM to the 70-200 F4L IS.

Theres a couple hundreds in difference, and its a question of how serious you are about your photography.

The 70-300 IS is slightly more versatile giving you that extra 100mm, with a slightly cheaper price tag. Its a good lens with IS and should be fun to play with.

The 70-200 F4L IS is a heavy lens, blazing fast AF and very sharp. Stays at f4 the whole time but loses 100mm, did i mention its heavy ? You might not give that as much importance as you should, an uncomfortable lens wouldn't be used and be a complete waste.

This is why i mentioned how serious you are, if you are really serious about your photography, then its a no-brainer 70-200 F4L Is. But if you're not, you'll find the lens heavy, big, cumbersome, and you just won't bother with it.

I wouldn't compare the 70-200 f4L to the 70-300 IS, because you lose the 100mm and the IS, and they are basically at the same price.

Im actually curious about the Canon EF 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, its pricier then the 70-200 f4L is...

[shoey]

The DO version is a rip off for the quality, I wouldn't bother with that.

The 70-300 here is about £350
70-200 f/4 £500
70-200 f/4 IS £900!!!!!

If you are thinking of the 70-300 then you have a limited budget, just like I did, so I would only consider the 70-300 and the non-IS 70-200 f/4 to be an option.

By the way, I didn't find the 70-200mm f/4 heavy at all. the f/2.8 version for sure, but not the f/4.

[Honest Gaza]

ok, i am dumb @ss because i did not like it as much as you do.
still as I said, 70-300IS an Ok lens which will not let you down, just a question if you want bit better quality lens. with 70-300 you need to stop it down more than sometimes you like.

Nobody is calling you a dumb @ass.....we are all giving our opinions based on our experiences with the lens in question (just as you have) :)

And a final word from the folk at Photozone :

Verdict
The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.

[Csae]

70-300 is usm here is about - 700$ca

70-200 f4L - 700$ca

70-200 F4L IS - 900$ca

Roughly anyways.

I dont find the 70-200 f4l non-is too heavy, but it does get tiring compared to a 50 or a kit lens, the IS does add extra weight, and the 2.8 versions are just beasts.

[fdexclpl]

[QUOTE=Csae;395058

The 70-200 F4L IS is a heavy lens, blazing fast AF and very sharp. Stays at f4 the whole time but loses 100mm, did i mention its heavy ? You might not give that as much importance as you should, an uncomfortable lens wouldn't be used and be a complete waste.
[/QUOTE]
The 70-200 f/4 IS is not heavy. It balances really well on my gripped 50D.

[Csae]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

You guys argue the most pointless things, i find it heavy, you don't.

I use the 70-200 f4l for headshots, concerts, landscapes mostly, i use it with a gripped 5D, and hold it up mostly with my left hand, i usually hold it up for several minutes at a time, or batches of maybe 15 to 30mins for headshots / studio work, before i put it down on a tripod.

I -personally- find it heavy. The 70-300 IS USM isn't much lighter, 600g, but the f4l+is is at about 760g. And i find the 700g F4l non-is heavy, so take it with a grain of salt.

Theres comparisons of IQ in the link i provided, feel free to read up and maybe it'll help you, try the lens yourself and see if you -personally- find it heavy or not.

Might also depend on your gear, a gripped 50D / 5D is a pretty decent counterbalance, a non-grip xti would be like a feather at the end.

My last grip with the 70-200 F4L was that most tripod heads, couldn't hold it vertically, the weight would slowly unscrew the camera, this was fixed for me by 1) getting a large quickplate 2) getting a tripod mount off ebay for the lens itself for like 10$

I guess my tripod head also found the lens heavy, its not groundbreaking but its something i wish i had known in advance.

[Viky]

First of all, this is not intended to be an argument. I'm only sharing my opinion about this lens after 2+ years of ownership.


Viky, would you mind to post unprocessed photos straight out of the camera with 70-300?

Sorry, I don't have any unprocessed pics:o


I am not saying this is not good lens, but it is not a hidden L lens either.

I'm not saying its a hidden L either, but Photozone called it that as quoted by Gaza here.



And a final word from the folk at Photozone :

Verdict
The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.

All i say is that this is THE BEST 300mm AF LENS around the $500 mark. Period.


And one may like to compare the lenses before buying, and 70-200 f4 with extender can be a long lasting solution since many people tend to upgrade to this lens from 70-300.

If you compare the 70-300 IS to the 70-200 f/4 L non IS, then sure the "L" is superior both i terms of Optics and AF performance, but you loose out in terms of lack of IS and 100mm or reach. Hence, this is not really a fair comparison.

The correct comparison would be with the 70-200 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC combo, and this combo is a clear winner in front of the 70-300 IS, however, it costs three times as much as the 70-300 IS.

BH photo prices:

OPTION 1 : Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS ($1235) + Canon 1.4x TC ($324) = $1560

OPTION 2 : Canon 70-300 IS = $529

MY verdict in short:

If you can afford it, go for Option 1. Otherwise, pickup the Option 2, and it will serve you well till the time you can afford Option 1:)


I see you also traded your 70-300 for this or something else?

True. But it took me 2yrs before I could justify the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 400 L. In this two years, the 70-300 IS served me well:)

[Gintaras]

If you're gonna compare, compare the 70-300 IS USM to the 70-200 F4L IS.

...

yes, that is exactly what I proposed.

70-200/f4 IS is not that heavy at all, do not confuse this for f2.8 version.
I suggest look only at IS version of it.
70-300 is a good lens, the only thing is you do not expect it to be an L lens and 300mm are way soft from my experience.
you can use extension tubes for 70-200.

i disagree with photozone.de, 70-300 is NOT a hidden L lens but a very good consumer lens no matter all screams around.

similar some dudes claim 18-55IS is amost as good as L lens, which sounds HILLARIOUS to say the least. same thing was said some time ago about 28-105/II lens, and was also plain false.

OF COURSE for someone on a tight budget 70-300IS is no brainer.

[Csae]

I used a 18-55 IS, and the IQ is pretty much the same as the 17-40 L.

Of course, it doesnt have a fixed aperture, proper sealing, strong construction, or blazing fast AF, but the IQ was there.

[Gintaras]

The 70-300 IS USM isn't much lighter, 600g, but the f4l+is is at about 760g. And i find the 700g F4l non-is heavy, so take it with a grain of salt.
****************
BINGO!!!

[Gintaras]

Viky, very clear and I agree with you.

Period! :D:p

It is all about the budget !!!

[Gintaras]

I used a 18-55 IS, and the IQ is pretty much the same as the 17-40 L.

Of course, it doesnt have a fixed aperture, proper sealing, strong construction, or blazing fast AF, but the IQ was there.

Sorry but I disagree with you. I have both. 17-40L is just better lens, otherwise this would not be an L lens IMO. When I look at my unprocessed photos I can see the difference. Still 18-55 IS is so lightweight and is able to produce great photos, this is why I often have this lens on my XTi instead of heavier 17-40L which I keep in case I upgrade to FF Canon. Still in some situaitons I prefer 17-40 IQ and sharpness over 18-55.

[Honest Gaza]

similar some dudes claim 18-55IS is amost as good as L lens....

I think you are confusing that with the 17-55 IS...I doubt anyone has ever claimed the 18-55 IS to be almost as good as L Lens ;)

[Gintaras]

I think you are confusing that with the 17-55 IS...I doubt anyone has ever claimed the 18-55 IS to be almost as good as L Lens ;)

Gaza, here is the rant from that site page
********************
i've had the previous non-IS 18-55mm kit lens and the difference is huge. i heard from this site that the image quality was better, then checked canon's web site. they claim a better MTF so i tried it. the salesman at the camera store said he could immediately tell a difference by looking through the lens and that it had more contrast. i've done some tests on it and compared it to the 24-105L's weak focal length (105mm). this lens was much sharper at any focal length at f8 compared to the 24-105L at f4. it's amazing that this lens is only $200 and also has I.S. i wish canon would improve the build quality and make it a little stronger, even for $50 more; at least a metal mount. overall, it's an awesome lens. photozone.de also just released a review and rated it excellent. this lens will outperform many "L" lenses believe it or not.
*********************
check this out yourself: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11
the author nick is darrinlingle

As concerns 70-300IS, this is a good lens, very good one, a workhorse lense, but it is NO L, sorry about disagreeing. If I need telephoto I will always prefer 70-200f4 IS.

Btw, I think some dudes also claim new 55-250IS might be better than 70-300IS :p

check the last post on this page:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1113/cat/11

[Gintaras]

and 55-250IS gets as good reviews as 70-300IS, so IF assuming 70-300IS is a hidden L lens then 55-250IS must be too :p

[Honest Gaza]

and 55-250IS gets as good reviews as 70-300IS, so IF assuming 70-300IS is a hidden L lens then 55-250IS must be too :p

Sorry mate....to keep consistency, again I will quote the verdict from the good folk at Photozone :

"Verdict

Technically the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is a tiny lens with a great performance potential. The resolution is very good across the range. Chromatic aberrations are basically a non-issue. The level of distortions remains moderate. The most obvious flaw is, unsurprisingly, vignetting at large apertures. The build quality is fine for a lens in this class and it is one step up from the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that we've seen here recently. Regarding the target market you may surely forgive the plastic mount. The AF (micro-) motor is pretty fast and silent. So's everything cool here ? Well, the AF accuracy didn't really convince in the field - specifically at the wide-end of the zoom range - but to be fair this is much better on an EOS 40D (e.g.) with its improved AF capabilities. I had some trouble with the image stabilizer in the field but according to early reader feedback this impression seems to be an exception to the rule. If so the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS has certainly the potential to be another hot seller."

That is no-where near as glowing as their verdict on the 70-300 IS....and no mention of "hidden L lens" qualities :p :D

[Gintaras]

I trust the Word of Honest Gaza ;)

[Honest Gaza]

I trust the Word of Honest Gaza ;)

Then let us all gather around the table and thump our fists in unison and shout
"Ugh Ugh Ugh...." :D :D :D