 |
|
|
amcomis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 496
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp at 75mm, long zoom and IS, light
|
|
Cons:
|
soft pictures with zoom, nothing that great. SLOW focus, no FTM focus, extending front element, loose build
|
|
|
I got a used copy on ebay and yes it is sharp at75 - but thats not the purpose of this lens. My copy may have been worn, but the focusing and zoom rings were very loose.
It has given me some good pics - but IS doesn't help you with the slooooow aperatures.
70-200/4L would be way better - or get the 2.8
|
|
 Jun 21, 2005
|
|
CanonB
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, Range
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, soft, price.
|
|
|
Canon made a zoom with IS for people who cant afford the L price. Well, you get what you are paying for.
Stay away from that lens. Save morem and get yourself a good monopod with an L zoom without IS.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2005
|
|
JOzimek
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 165
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent all around versitle lens. Used for concert shots and got excellent sharp photos. Was very surprised how well f/5 or smaller holds up in low light. IS is AWESOME! Don't leave home without it. Makes a world of difference.
|
|
Cons:
|
Has some serious trouble focusing in low light, ie: concerts, at times. Had to go to manual.
|
|
|
I would highly recommend having IS for any type of shooting. I've used this lens for about two weeks shooting events ranging from concerts, wildlife, portraits, to hanggliders. The IS version is much better than it's counterparts.
I don't know why this lens received such a low rating, granted I haven't used any L series glass, but for a beginner or even intermediate, this lens performs very well. I am still surprised at the high quality of pictures taken with this lens in low light, such as concerts. Sure, ISO had to be booted up to 800 -1600, but at times I got as low as 400 with sharp images.
Highly recommend as a first zoom lens for the new DSLR user. Used on 20D, felt great in my hands.
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2005
|
|
compton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $400.00
|
|
Pros:
|
price
|
|
Cons:
|
AF focusing in low light
|
|
|
I didn't like the lense. AF is too slow and hunts a lot in low light .I had to sell it to get 70-200 F/4L. I can't recommend this lense to anyone.
|
|
|
May 7, 2005
|
|
compton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
price
|
|
Cons:
|
mediocre lense
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 7, 2005
|
|
Indago
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 170
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice zoom range, sharp shots possible.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF tends to hunt when focusing on small subjects like Finches.
|
|
This is the first and only zoom telephoto I've owned. I've bought this with a Digital Rebel XT kit in March this year. Over the past couple months, I have captured several good sharp bird photos with this lens. When shooting small birds, I find AF prettymuch useless. The lens is light enough to where manual focusing isn't a bother. As like most others say in the other reviews, I find it a challange to achieve sharpness at 300mm. That doesn't matter too much for me though, If I really need to get 100mm closer, i'll just stop down to f/8 and bump up the ISO for a faster shutter.
Overall, I really like it, but I kinda have to like it until I can afford something else. 
|
|
|
May 7, 2005
|
|
makis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Location: Greece
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
relatively lightweight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Chromatic aberration very annoying from 4(5.6) to 8, less in smaller (darker) diaphragms. IS is NOT as good as the one in EF-S 17-85 (compared on equal focal lengths of course).
|
|
|
I bought this lens mainly because if the image stabilization (I already use the EF-S 17-85 IS which is a good lens and the IS is perfect). I like street photography and IS is a useful feature to me. BUT the lens has lots of chromatic aberration (purple/green fringing, depending on focal length). Besides the IS is not as good as in 17-85 lens. It does not respond to very small movement (you can see this in the viewfinder) ie it helps you not to shake a picture A LOT but doesn't help with little blur due to tiny movements of the camera. I tried two lenses and they were exactly the same in that manner. The focusing is slow but accurate. The built quality is average. I kept this lens for 3 days, gave it back and got a 70-210/4L, which is a completely different thing.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
deapee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2143
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
gets focal length where it needs to be
|
|
Cons:
|
slow to focus sometimes, hunts for it.
|
|
|
This lens is excellent. I'm not sure why everyone has something bad to say about it. If it's not 'that great' above 200mm, but fine above 200, at least there's the extra 100mm there incase you do need it.
Which I don't think is the case anyway. I can get tack sharp photos up to and including 300mm. If anyone says otherwise, I'd say it's them and not the lens.
It can sometimes be slow to focus and hunt around a lot, but it's certainly not unbearable at all.
GREAT lens for a great price...perfect longer lens for a first time buyer and will definately yield quality results in the right hands.
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2005
|
|
frododekat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $40,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I don't understand the negative aspects.
Look the photo's on this site.
http://www.300d.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5879
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is sometime's slow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2005
|
|
coreypolis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1754
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent zoom range, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp and very slow in auto focus and max aperature
|
|
|
In broad daylight this lens handles it self fairly well, but in low light situations its all over. The IS is nice, but niosy and battery draining.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2005
|
|
CurtPick
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3260
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
None I can think of with maybe the build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrible, soft images through ot its range, no matter how much you step down.
|
|
|
Its nothing more than the Standard non IS Version. Terrible unsharp pictures throughout its range no matter how much you want to stop it down. Now add the IS to that and you get diagonal blur that looks awful at full zoom. The price is ridiculous, why not save and get the 70-200mm L f4 if your only getting acceptable pictures up to the 200mm range on this lens ? Don't bother folks, you will sell it as soon as you get it !
Shame Canon ! Shame !
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
POAH
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 215
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
wide range, IS price now quite cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
lens is poor over 200mm, not fast, slow focus, tends to hunt
|
|
|
if you want a zoom with IS then find one used just don;t expect sharp images above 200 or when wide open.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2005
|
|
shoot_pictures
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, IS , Quality Of The Picture For The Price,
|
|
Cons:
|
Not For Professionals, Slow Focus In Dark Situations
|
|
|
I find this to be an excellent lens for my collection. This really is a great lens for the price however if photography is you profession this isn't for you.
Considering the next model up is around double the price, if you have the thousand plus dollars lying around for the L series go for it, but for someone like myself who just requires a bit of extra zoom on the photos I take, I have no real negative aspects about it.
This lens is great for the 300D with its plastic body as I wouldn't recommend a much heavier lens for this camera.
Definately pay the extra for the IS. Its is a nice little technology which helps with the clearness of the shot.
Of course people are always going to complain about the smallest little details, but if you want an affordable strong zoom lens for your camera without breaking the budget, this one is for you.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2005
|
|
jimnms
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $415.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good zoom range, IS, good lens for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF kind of slow, the AF will sometimes hunt or misfocus.
|
|
|
I bought this lens 9 months ago at the same time I bought my 10D. I've had mostly good times with this lens, but missed a few shots because of the slow AF or the occasional misfocus. I find that after half pressing and getting a focus lock, if you release and half press again the focus will be right on.
I recently purchased a 70-200 f/4L, but I've kept the 75-300 IS. I still use it sometimes when I know I'll need the extra 100mm or the IS.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2004
|
|
andrewma
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Relatively cheap price compared to faster 70+ lenses, lightweight, IS, inexpensive filters, decently sharp pictures.
|
|
Cons:
|
not a fast lens, soft, lens extends a ton at full zoom.
|
|
|
If you're on a budget and need a good zoom lens. I would get this one, but if you can afford a bit more, get the 70-200 f/4.you'll thank me later. i used this lens for outdoor use once and came to find the IS handy but not completely helpful indoors. The 5.6 aperature at zoom just makes it useless indoors unless on a very stable tripod with a subject that won't move. 1/15 of a second was typical at iso 800 on a digital camera and most indoor subjects MOVE :-).
if you use this outdoors, save some $ and want a light lens to balance off the light weight digital rebel, a great combo. i have shaky hands so the IS works wonders for me. i found this lens to be a bit light and like the 70-200 better on the 20D body. more balanced IMO.
those that got the digital rebel kit with the 18-55 lens will find your filters fit on this one perfectly. no need to get multiple sets of filters or step down/up rings!
no hood comes with this lens, and i found the lengthening of the lens while zooming a bit annoying sometimes.
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2004
|
|
Rob Ernsting
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Sep 22, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $645.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent range, good sharpness, consider focal length above 200mm as a bonus. Good for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very slow focusing not fit for action shots. Cannot manually relocate the extending focus barrel and no Manual Focus in the AF mode
|
|
|
The opportunity to shoot with it for about 1000 frames in 4 weeks and then trade it in for a 70-200mm F4 L USM is rare, not that I intended such but gradually my discontent grew about the slow focusing of the lens. The sharpness is much better than most people like you to believe. I made excellent shots, slow or non moving objects, which can compare with the 70-200mm L USM.
I quickly found the drawbacks of this lens and adjusted to it.
1. Set F anywhere between 8-11 at least for sharp pictures even with a 10D
2. Set ISO to 200 to get some kind of short(er) exposure time.
3. Avoid flying birds, panning with it is virtually impossible, you might be better of by swithching off the Image Stabilizer if you want to pan.
4. From 75-220mm the pictures are sharp and have a nice contrast and even a fair boket, much better than most people mention in this review.
Consider anything above 200mm as a bonus in focal length. If you use a tripod and can stop down sufficiently you will get surprising results like I did.
5. Like with any other lens stopped down to f8 or more you need ample light. (with the 70-200 L USM you can easily use f4 and be sharp all over with a 10D)
6. The IS allows you to make shots at 1/15th @ 70mm and 1/60th sec. @ 300mm. Again for anything moving this is insufficient.
7. The drawbeck is slow focusing in allmost any light condition which makes it impossible to captured anything moving.
8. While AF is switched on you cannot focus manually, besides you cannot manually relocate the extended focus barrel while in the AF position. You must swith to AM to do so. I found this very unpleasant.
9. Despite the IS I had a fair percentage of captures blurred, about 20%.
(I have a score of almost non-blurs with my 70-200mm L USM which does not have IS).
10. It is a bit noisy grinding back and forth adjusting the focus.
11. If you can afford it buy the 70-200mm L USM, unless you need the extra focal length above 200mm.
See also my review about the 70-200 F4 L USM in the subject review page.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
58
|
176744
|
Jul 19, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
76% of reviewers
|
$1,439.74
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
6.81
|
7.04
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
