 |
|
|
hoi_roy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp lens, decent focusspeed, superb IS
|
|
Cons:
|
rotating (&extending) front when focussing
|
|
|
|
|
 Mar 7, 2006
|
|
mntpop
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 44
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Lense , love it , get one..But see nagative..
|
|
Cons:
|
Turn the lense off after you turn the camera off. The IS kills the batt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2006
|
|
joeyseager
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Surprisingly good optical quality. Lightweight so suitable for travel. The IS is superb - the best I've used. MUCH less expensive than L glass but nearly up to L quality optics.
|
|
Cons:
|
Atrocious construction quality - the focus ring feels gritty, the front element when partly extended wobbles. You can't point the camera up or down because the lens zooms all by itself. The front element rotates when focussing so polarising filters are difficult to use.
|
|
|
Quite an enigma - very good optics, excellent IS in a compact lightweight lens that's built cheaply and incorporates design flaws that limit its usefulness. I'd have gladly paid £50 more for ring USM and a smooth focus ring with full-time manual focus, and a zoom ring that would stay where you put it even if you tipped the lens upwards or downwards. As it is the feel of the lens at the sales counter is of a much cheaper product and it doesn't feel worth the price.
I bought this lens because I was about to go on holiday and needed a long lens, but couldn't afford an 'L' lens at the time. I fully expected to trade it in for a 300mm f/4 L IS after the holiday and when I'd saved up some more loot. However I fell in love with the lens and have kept it although I've bought the f/4 L lens as well. It is VERY versatile - the IS is actually quite a lot better than the L lens and I can carry it around with me all day which I can't do with the bigger lens. I use it within its limits: I don't put any filters or a lens hood on it, I don't point it much away from the horizontal (I rarely want to) and I don't use it fully open (f/5.6) at the long end of the zoom where it's a little softer than at other focal lengths.
It makes sharp, high contrast images with very little spherical or chromatic aberration and insignificant linear distortion at all focal lengths, slightly softer at 300mm but still quite acceptable. I am still surprised at the high image quality, since its predecessors with and without IS (75-300mm) were mediocre performers.
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2006
|
|
canonlight
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 42
|
|
Review Date: Feb 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ comparable to "L"-glass, Produces rich colors, "UD" glass really minimizes CA, 3rd generation "IS" a tremendous boon, Micro USM makes AF fairly swift and silent, Zoom "lock" switch at 70mm handy, Grippy zoom ring, Nice size and weight, IQ "good" even with 1.4xTC (better than the DO version).
|
|
Cons:
|
300mm "portrait orientation" issue (copy-to-copy), Build is average, Zoom tension lacks refined dampening, Ring USM would be better (along with FTM), Zoom barrel extends fairly far, HOOD NOT INCLUDED (my gripe with Canon).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2006
|
|
jaglad
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 207
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lens for the price
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost of lens hood
|
|
|
First impressions are very good, I have no hesitation in reccomending to other members.
Although early days the results are very good and I have had no problems when using in vertical mode as poited out by some previous reviewers.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2006
|
|
deedub
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good contrast and color
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality
|
|
|
My copy is tack sharp when using IS in both landscape and portrait. I could not be happier with this lens and have had hardly any bad pictures. The bokeh on it is outstanding and at the price I paid is an outstanding bargain. Canon has hit this one out of the ballpark.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2006
|
|
SharmaVishal21
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $546.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb IS, Sharp images, Zoom is good, not too heavy to hold, Lens locking is a good feature.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not too good photos under low light
|
|
|
I have been testing this lens a lot on my field trips and indoor. Taken some very sharp potraits and beautiful sunsets. IS shows its presence during the sunset.
The only problem i face is under low light condition where i need to have f/2.8 and there it come to its limitation. But its not the fault of this lens.
Tried MF and it works very well too. Will recommend this lens for field trips, nature walk and taking some potraits.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2006
|
|
cdgerston
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 304
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
IS is excellent, lightweight, relatively sharp horizontal (as reported)...
|
|
Cons:
|
...but, also as reported, blurry edges when shooting in portrait.
|
|
|
I really want to like this lens, and I do when holding it landscape, but as many are reporting, my copy is bad on the vertical portraits at the top and bottom of the frame...it's really noticeable between 150-300. I've still got a couple of days to return this copy to the store and try to find a better one, but unless and until I do, I can't imagine keeping it. I hope Canon addresses this, because the range w/IS is so great, and it does work nicely when held horizontally/landscape = sharp pictures, though a bit softer at the long end.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2006
|
|
dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1620
|
|
Review Date: Feb 14, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Follow up on the 70-300 Is.
I`ve now encountered the problem that some of you might have read about! when used in the vertical position shooting through the bottom of a milk bottle might give similar results!
I`m really so upset about this vertical shooting problem, some have said that it only happens at the 300mm end but I can assure you it happens right through the range. It`s not so marked at the wide end but it is still poor but above 135mm the difference when viewed at 100% after sharpening is very pronounced. I will be contacting Canon ASAP to ask them what they intend to do about it. My advice to any would be purchasers is to hold fire till we find the outcome.
OK, we shoot a hell of a lot of our long shots in the horizontal mode but I will have to shoot my verticals in the horizontal mode and suffer the cropping till this thing is sorted. It`s got to be something to do with the Image stabilising mechanism I would think.
Not Good Canon
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2006
|
|
tutumon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1086
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $579.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range on the 20D, Decent images, Super IS!
|
|
Cons:
|
A little loose, too long(physical size) @ 300mm
|
|
|
A nice lens functionally. Could have been built more robustly for the price. Nice sharp images though.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2006
|
|
cbresciani
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 414
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Picture quality is very good with my version, IS is great!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood not included.
|
|
|
After reading the reviews here at FM I went out and bought one. I have been extremely satisfied with this lens and the IS works fantastic.
I went to the Phoenix Zoo and took some shots at 300mm with my 20D using an ISO speed of 100, AV f5.6, SV 1/80s and the quality was excellent even wide open, and the bokah is great! I would highly recommend this lens!
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2006
|
|
Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3438
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
This lens is a dog. build ok but not great focus compared with other Canon lenses in this price range.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2006
|
|
RainKing
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 103
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, easy to carry around. IS is fantastic.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build feels cheap. No hood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2006
|
|
Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3438
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
|
I don't think the build quality is that bad. The optics are a dog though. After several test it was not as good opticaly as the ono I.S version.
I use L lenses as well as non L lenses. Partucularly the 17-85 and the 28-135 in the non L.
This lens i could not use.
If you are just planning to use it for personal use and not enlarge beyond 8x10 then it may not be a bad buy.
For serious use, forget it.
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2006
|
|
vovkinson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 676
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $560.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, IS, IS Nothing but IS
|
|
Cons:
|
looks cheap, made cheap. The front end is playing around. Blur at 300mm.
$400 for IS, the rest for lens itself.
|
|
|
It's much better than 75-300 but the build quality is much much to be desired. The front element is rotating and moving around. But for money it's maybe a good deal, but you're actually paying $100-$150 for lens, the rest for IS.
Anyway, I sold it without any doubt. I find 70-200 f/4 is a superb in comparison to this one. If you want quality and IS , save money and get yourself 70-200 2.8 IS
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
draw45
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 115
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $597.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Size is very much a pro as is the quality of shots that I have taken with this lens... The IS is great for concerts and lectures. I don't find it noisy. One can move well beyond 3 stops with a steady hand.
|
|
Cons:
|
The only negative that this novice can find is the rotating lens is not easily used with a polarizer and when the lens is full extended it feels huge and somewhat less than stable.
|
|
|
I would certainly judge this lens as a "must buy" for the serious non-pro who wants to reach out and grab some great distance shots.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
199
|
575891
|
Apr 16, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$569.56
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.62
|
8.61
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
