about | support
home
 

Search Used

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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
201 605664 Jun 6, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
92% of reviewers $566.98
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.63
8.63
8.9
70-300_isusm

Specifications:
The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM telephoto zoom lens has been developed to meet the high-performance standards that today's photographers demand. Improved Image Stabilizer Technology provides up to three stops of "shake" correction, and the "Mode 2" option stabilizes images while panning with a moving subject. Compared to the original Canon EF 75-300mm IS zoom lens, this telephoto lens has faster autofocus, and overall the lens is lighter and has a smaller diameter than the original. The zoom ring can be locked at the 70mm position, making this powerful lens easy to transport, too.

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 70-300mm f/4-5.6

Lens Construction: 15 elements in 10 groups

Diagonal Angle of View: 84 - 23 20' (with full-frame camera)

Focus Adjustment: Front-focusing method with helicoid ring drive

Closest Focusing Distance: 4.9 ft./1.5m

Zoom System: 6-group helical zoom (rotational angle: 84)

Filter Size: 58mm

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.0 in. x 5.6 in., 22.2 oz. / 76.5mm x 142.8mm, 630g (lens only)


 


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13  next
      
cmag
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 14, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Light. Sharp. IS. Black.
Cons:
Black. Build quality. Lack of hood and a pain in the @$$ to find one! Why can't Canon make it compatible with the 75-300 hood? or the 100mm f/2?

Skeptical. Honestly, when my favourite salesman mentioned this lens in the same breath as 100-400L and 70-200 f/4, I thought he had inhaled too many chemicals in the darkroom. Just to humour him, I played around with one in his shop and basically said something about pigs flying before I shelled out 760 US for flimsy lens like that.

I checked out the review forum here (a must before any purchase) and went out and ordered a siding of fries to go with those hard words I now had to eat.

Very nice lens. Bye, bye 70-200 f/4. I hate to say it, but this gives me better results than my (former) all time favourite lens. Sharp, light, inconspicous and fantastic IS make it a winner.

I just don't understand the hood thing. Honestly, why do they have to make an exclusive hood? don't tell me it needs to be different than the 75-300? Surely... Anyway, I bought it and ordered a hood. Almost one month later, not even Canon can give me one! Whats up with that?


Highly recommended


Dec 14, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add cmag to your Buddy List  
CTO-Photos
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 2, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
Review Date: Dec 3, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: It is light, fast, sharp and economical. It is currently my favorite carry-around lens. Adequate for birding and pseudo macro functions. Not a bad portrait lens. All of this is in the context of use with a 20D and Rebel. It is a full-frame 35 mm lens.
Cons:
The lens face rotates with focus, so use of a circular polarizer is problematic. You choose MF or AF, but not both at the same time like the 100-400 L-Series.

This is not an L-Series lens. It doesn't have the feel. The first one I put on the camera I rejected, more because the sound of it. The second, sounded better and meets my needs very well. It is a full-frame lens and with the EOS-20D, I only use the center region, so I have no idea about the real edge-to-edge sharpness. I like the idea that when I upgrade to a full-frame DSLR, I will still be able to use this lens.

It does focus very rapidly compared to the 100-400 L-Series, but then it is much newer technology.

The weight difference between the 100-400 and 70-300 is the real key. The 100-400 weighs in at 3.2 lb. and the 70-300 is about half of that.

In terms of everyday use, it is almost always on the camera. If I had to sell either the 70-300 or the 100-400, it would be a hard call, but right now I think I would sell the 100-400 and keep the 70-300. It is that good!

Now how do I justify the 24-105? There is nothing better than a nice piece of glass, especially Fluorite!


Dec 3, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add CTO-Photos to your Buddy List  
feruysal
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 30, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: **
Cons:
*

I am going to buy this for a friend living abroad. Where should I get it?

Thanks for your interest...


Nov 30, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add feruysal to your Buddy List  
peta32387
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3
Review Date: Nov 30, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:
Cons:

hey guys. i have a rebel xt and i was going to buy another lens. i have been looking at the 75-300mm for a while now, but now i see that many of you say the new 70-300mm is much better. its also about 150 more bucks. im just a college kid and i don't know if it is really worth it. convince me! thanks everyone

Nov 30, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add peta32387 to your Buddy List  
Saga
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 27, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Review Date: Nov 30, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Superb IS Light weightI
Cons:
Lens cap extra.


Sold a very fine Sigma 100-300 f4 EX APO HSM and purchased this lens for its weight and IS.

I have not been disappointed. Mostly used for distant landscape out of my study window so far, which is a very good test, I have been delighted with its hand held capability at 'max chat' (300mm) and low shutter speeds.

Canon have done the business here.


Nov 30, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Saga to your Buddy List  
peta32387
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:
Cons:

man i was really looking at the 75-300m IS. the price was about 430 or thereabout. but now i found this one and it costs a bit more. im just a college kid so what should i do?! help me out.

Nov 29, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add peta32387 to your Buddy List  
kz305
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Nov 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $579.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Optical performance. IS is really amazing.
Cons:
None for the price

Very impressive with the IS and optical performance. "Down grade" from70-200 F4 L to this one and I think I made a right decision.

Nov 22, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kz305 to your Buddy List  
mr.fighter
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
Review Date: Nov 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $565.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent, sharp focus; IS is a dream.
Cons:
Front element rotation

Great lens, way better than old one. IS did amazing job for me. In low light condition this lense outperform my 70-200 L f/4, sold it 2 days ago, no need any more. Pretty nice build. There no other lense on a market like this.

Nov 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mr.fighter to your Buddy List  
dmchapman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
Review Date: Nov 18, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Huge improvement on older 75-300. IS is excellent! Much more subtle in use than a white L lens
Cons:
No ftm. Front element rotation

Huge improvement on my old 75-300. *Much* sharper. IS is excellent and works very well. I couldn't decide on this or the 70-200 L f/4. I glad I went for this - it is plenty sharp enough for what I want and the extra length is usful as is the IS. Focusing is a far bit faster than the old zoom but is still not exactly instant.

It also attracts less attention that the L glass as being black it looks more normal! Sometimes the white L teles seems to say "mug me" ;-)

If only it had the ring USM and ftm focusing :-(


Nov 18, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dmchapman to your Buddy List  
albertone
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Light, inexpensive, sharp, IS is good. Great Value.
Cons:
not very fast

I had the old one and it's day and night. There are really no alternatived outthere as the L lens f/4 has no IS, and the others, including the Sigma 70-200 EX are way too heavy.

Nov 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add albertone to your Buddy List  
BrianSkibinski
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 169
Review Date: Nov 14, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $618.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Price, Weight, 3rd Gen IS
Cons:
Not a full ring type USM, A little noisy but not too bad

Overall this is a pretty decent lens. Much more affordable than the 70-300 DO IS USM, and the 3rd gen IS really works well with my shaky hands.

It's not an L series lens but $600 for IS USM and this focal range it works pretty well. I've been pretty happy with the image quality and it appears pretty sharp at all focal ranges, occasionally getting a little soft at 300mm (most likely due to my shaky hands).

Best part is that by buying this lens I get another $100 off my D20 and a total of $30 back for the lens, so it's only a $486 addition to my existing setup.


Nov 14, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add BrianSkibinski to your Buddy List  
bakerwi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 106
Review Date: Nov 9, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Ladies & Gentlemen: Where can I puchase this lens? I've seen some really good purchases posted.
Cons:

Ladies & Gentlemen:

Where can I puchase this lens? I've seen some really good purchases posted.


Nov 9, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add bakerwi to your Buddy List  
davnola
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
Review Date: Nov 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $522.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Good Price, compact size, good zoom range. IS is definitely worth it.
Cons:
no hood included or lens bag



Nov 8, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add davnola to your Buddy List  
tcatfm
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 21
Review Date: Nov 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $580.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great range/IS value. Great weight! Black!
Cons:
Slow focus, flimsy feeling zoom, minimum focus 4.9'.

Good zoom/IS value. Replaced my Sigma 70-300mm APO-II to gain the IS, oh what a difference! Sharp from 70-300mm, and "at least" 3 extra stops of light. Will likely sell my 200mm/2.8 prime if I find I don't use it anymore (which is a good guess). It feels very light compared to that prime.

Nov 8, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tcatfm to your Buddy List  
rsensors
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $629.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Weight, range, focus speed, sharpness, contrast
Cons:

I've had this lens for about 4 weeks. Primarily shoot outdoor sports/daytime lighting. Very, very pleased with the results. Jpegs right out of the camera produce very good 8x10s. The lens is light in weight & compact in size. Focusing speed for sports (mainly soccer for me) is excellent. I may add that I'm an advanced amateur, not a professional photographer. I would highly recommend this lens to beginners thru my level of expertise. Pros who depend on their equipment in critical situations may feel that the "build" of the lens is not up to par however.

Nov 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rsensors to your Buddy List  
Joe-TN
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 31, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 630
Review Date: Nov 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $649.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Image quality, particularly from 70-200, but good all the way to 300. IS is excellent. Close focusing distance. Relatively light weight and compact size for easy portability.
Cons:
Would benefit greatly from a focus limiter, and from ring USM/full time manual focus. Rotating front element doesn't bother me, but will inconvenience some. "Zoom creep" can be a problem. See my solution :)

This is a superb performer for its class of lens. I am particularly impressed with the image quality wide open from 70 to 240mm or so. Much better results (for me) than I got with Sigma 70-200 f2.8, mostly attributable to the IS. This lens does focus closer than the Sigma, which is an advantage.

Samples and creep cure:
http://www.pbase.com/joe_tn/canon_70_300


Nov 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Joe-TN to your Buddy List  




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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
201 605664 Jun 6, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
92% of reviewers $566.98
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.63
8.63
8.9
70-300_isusm


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13  next