|
|
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
|
|
|
I am going to buy this for a friend living abroad. Where should I get it?
Thanks for your interest...
|
|
 Nov 30, 2005
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
albertone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Joe-TN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 1, 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
|
|
brianschwartz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
weight, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit flimsy (but I guess thats the price to pay for light weight)
|
|
|
IS a delight. How can one live without (for long range)? Sharpness is excellent and with the light weight it does'nt add to much extra weight to the camera bag. Colors could perhaps be a little richer but thats easily fixed in PS.
Conclusion: Would not exchange this lens for a 70-200 f/4 having a lower range and no IS.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2005
|
|
mortain
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
To tdarnall.
You are reviewing the wrong lens. You bought the 70-300DOIS. This is not the same lens
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2005
|
|
