|
|
FotoLuik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
A large zoom range for a good price.
|
|
Cons:
|
f4
|
|
This lens offers a good zoom range for a nice price and is not very heavy. My lens is sharp.
|
|
 Aug 12, 2010
|
|
iomega
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small ( comparing L zooms ). Cheap, sharp, collor, contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
External zoom tube too long, Not weather sealed.
|
|
As soon as i got my hands on one of this ( not the DO version wich i hated ), i started leaving my 70-200L IS 2.8 at home! Why ?? the 70-300 IS USM weigths nothing comparing other wuality zooms and the results were very very identical ( in some cases the collor of this one beats the L ). The only thing i don't like is the size of it at 300mm but as they say, "there's no free lunch when your having fun". This one is allways on with my 40D wich makes it a 450mm with x1.6 crop and the IS is exactly the same and so efficient as the L models ! THIS IS A TRULY HIDDEN L LENS.
|
|
|
Jul 4, 2010
|
|
Pierre_B
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Low price compared to the 70-200, it is black so not as obvious a steal threat when on vacation, it has a good range up to 300
|
|
Cons:
|
Somewhat soft at 300
|
|
I had a cheap 50-200mm telephoto lens that didn't get much use as I'm not a fan of telephotos, I prefer to be up close. I was going on a 1 month trip to Australia and I knew that having a better telephoto in my bag would be essential.
I was debating between the 70-300, 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 70-200 with IS was out of my budget range. So the choices became either the 70-300 with IS or the 70-200 without IS. What would I gain with the f/4? I would gain an extra stop of light at the long end, but I would also gain what is considered one of the sharpest telephotos on the market....but it didn't have IS and was 100mm shorter.
So I went with the 70-300 for the range and the IS.
I have been very happy with it as a casual telephoto lens that gives great results for its price. I wouldn't consider the image quality to be L level, but it is up there. It is much better than the third party equivalents and a nice upgrade from the cheaper telephotos Canon offers (75-300, 55-250,..).
I shot a pro soccer match not too long ago and brought both my 70-300 and a friends 70-200 f/2.8 IS and you can easily see how outclassed the 70-300 is, but then, its $700 vs $1800.
As an every day telephoto lens, this is a great buy. The 70-200 f/4 is a great buy as well, for the same price, so it really depends on your needs. Tack sharp? Go with the f/4. IS and a longer reach? Go with the 70-300
Below are a few examples from the Taronga Zoo in Sydney at various focal lenghts.
300mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierrebourgault/4474918812/in/set-72157623600192805/
225mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierrebourgault/4474915686/in/set-72157623600192805/
120mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pierrebourgault/4474141985/in/set-72157623600192805/
|
|
|
May 27, 2010
|
|
SteveTuerk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 509
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Relatively light weight; can macro @ approx. 5 ft; excellent IS; very sharp and at it's best between 200mm and 300mm; uses 58mm filters; can be locked for transport at it's shortest overall length; excellent value.
|
|
Cons:
|
sliding tube within a tube design not my favorite (by a long shot).
|
|
This lens surprised me. I bought it used at a garage sale from a seller who couldn't give useful info about it's performance. Frankly, I bought it thinking it might be a usable telezoom for a student in our family who had expressed interest in photography and had bought an old 20D to that end.
But wait!, my first trial at 300mm, indoors in poor light rendered an amazingly sharp image of labels on cleaning products 15 ft away and the image stood up well to cropping out the center, maybe 10% of the overall frame. Hmmm.
Since then I've kept the lens and it gives very good results with both of my bodies, a 5D2 and a 1D2n. I feel awkward saying it in light of my original intent but this lens is too good to give away!
This one lives up to the description as a "sleeper" or "hidden gem" completely, IMO, and is well worth it's full retail price, again IMO.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2010
|
|
Pennington
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 9, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $540.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent optical quality, IS, small & light, focal range
|
|
Cons:
|
a little short for most wildlife, slower aperture range
|
|
This is a hidden gem in the Canon lineup, a standard EF lens with the performance of L-series glass. Compared to the other 70-300mm lenses, both Canon's and the third party, this one is vastly better. The optical quality is excellent and combined with the IS system, makes for great images.
I bought mine to use for bird & wildlife photography, and while 300mm is sometimes a bit short, it has let me get some great shots that would have been well out of range of my previous 70-200mm lens. Even at 300mm, shutter speeds around 1/60 are possible with the IS and a steady hand.
I've since bought an even longer telephoto zoom lens, but I'm really thinking about keeping this one for the times when I don't want to carry a monster lens around with me. The 70-300mm is relatively small and lightweight, which is really nice on longer hikes.
If you're looking for a 70-300mm lens, or a good “small” telephoto, this is the best one for the money.
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2010
|
|
HansB
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1412
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $549.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile focal length, Sharp, small and light. A Great value.
|
|
Cons:
|
f/4.0 throughout the range would be nice.
|
|
On a 1.6 crop body this is a very good lens, the range is good and image quality is excellent. I have had the 70-200 f/4.0, it was very good too and had a certain "look" that I liked. The 70-300 with IS is more useful to me.
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2009
|
|
sdsean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2009
|
|
platypus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and contrasty, particularly from 70-200mm - practically L quality? Build not bad. Good price from Canon UK, refurbished. Handles nicely.
|
|
Cons:
|
No internal focus, slightly slow AF, pretty bulky. Not quite so sharp past 200mm but still impressive.
|
|
I have used many tele-zooms over the years: Tamron 80-210mm, Tokina 80-200mm, Zuiko 65-200mm, Zuiko 50-250mm, Canon 75-300mm Mk 1, Canon EF 70-210mm USM and non USM, Sigma 70-300mm APO, Tamron 55-200mm, Canon 55-250mm IS.
I would wager this lens beats them all optically, and most in terms of construction quality.
Having recently used a Canon 55-250mm this 70-300mm restores my faith in Canon. On my 40D I can confidently use it wide open at all settings - for me the mark of a good lens. Ok, at 300mm the edges go off a little but considering it's range this lens excels. Many have compared it to 70-200mm L glass - I have never used an L lens but I could easily believe this one matches pretty closely.
Texture is depicted with a clarity missing from most tele-zooms and contrast is high too. I might add that the IS seems to work better on this lens than it ever did on the cheaper Canon.
I'm yet to test it on a shoot- I've only shot a few frames at home, but I can safely say this is a keeper. I am surprised and delighted with it's clarity after persevering with the toyish 55-250mm for too long. Lucky for me I got a good price refurbished along with a guarantee direct from Canon on Ebay- 300GBP. It was a no-brainer- this lens will keep it's value. I will likely be able to get back what I paid for it for years to come. That's if I ever sell it, which is looking doubtful 
Recommended
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2009
|
|
fox1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2009
|
|
Alex Roe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 5, 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $640.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, 2 mode image stabilization, feels reasonably well built, quiet, focuses reasonably quickly, good colors, zoom lock, sharpness good. Value for money
|
|
Cons:
|
Variable aperture, not L lens, but does not cost the same either!
|
|
Initially I got the older 75-300mm IS lens, but was very disappointed with the sharpness. I did not like the fact that there was no zoom lock and the lens motor was clunky and noisy too.
I took it back and swapped it for the 70-300 IS with USM motor. Then I went out and took some shots with it, after having been told by a guy in the shop that there was not much difference between the two.
I think he was wrong. I remember the first shots from the 75-300mm I looked at. They made me feel that I had made a mistake. Aside from the sharpness which was pretty awful at 300, the colors seemed muted too.
Well, I used the 70-300 today and it's not at all bad. Even at 300mm it is decent. The colors seem livelier as well.
The build quality seems better and there is the 2 mode IS which is great. Focusing is faster and seems more accurate too. The USM motor is quieter and not clunky either. The IS does its thing well too.
So far I'm very pleased with this lens, and as some others have commented, it's something which will keep you happy until you can run to a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, although you will lose 100mm -which a photographer friend of mine who went from a 70-300 to a 70-200 f4 missed.
I'd say that this is a lens well worth checking out if your budget cannot stretch to L glass. I know I'm going to enjoy owning this lens!
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2009
|
|
Gonemad
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 2, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp stopped down, Very convenient zoom range, Decent build quality, Relatively fast and quiet AF, Switch to lock at 70mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel extends out in zoom, Slight softness @f4
|
|
I debated quite a bit between either getting the Canon 70-300 IS USM or the Canon 70-200L f4 (non-IS). I figured that for a 1.6x crop body, without IS, even at 70mm you'd need at least 1/100s shutter speed to avoid camera shake. Likewise, at 200mm you'd need 1/320s. Now, I don't know about where you are but in cloudy days or indoor arenas, at ISO 200 and f4, you might barely get 1/150s or so. Since I exclusively shoot hand-held, that pretty much limits my zoom to about 100mm - not good enough if I'm shooting slow-moving wild life. One option is to bump up the ISO to say 800, which would afford you higher shutter speed but at the expense of image quality (more digital noise). So, for me the IS is the crucial piece of technology that would allow me to lower the shutter speed and lower ISO level enough that results in an optimized image quality. Of course, none of this would be an issue if you: 1) use a tripod/monopod, and/or 2) have another $500 to burn, then the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS USM is the way to go.
Moving on to Auto-Focus (AF). I've read that quite a bit of users are having trouble with AF in low-light. The issue is not entirely on this lens, but also on the camera body. Just like "it takes 2 to tango", it takes both a quality lens and camera body to capture decent photos. Now, I'm not a pro by any means, but I've done enough research to choose a camera body that fits my needs. Just like buying a car, you wouldn't buy a Honda Civic and expect it to have as much space as a pick-up truck to haul things around. Conversely, while you could buy a Ferrari to drive the kids to school but that would be a waste of money. So, what's my need, you might ask? Over 80% of the time, I plan to shoot in indoor arena (horse competition, sports complex, etc). And, given my budget, most of my lenses will probably have a range in f-stop (say, f4-f5.6). Given these 2 criteria, I chose the consumer-level Canon XS body, instead of XTi, XSi or T1i. The reason being is that the XS is the only camera in the consumer end that employs a cross-type AF algorithm that is optimized for lenses f5.6 or faster. So, I rarely have AF issues even in extreme low-light conditions. Love it!
So, is the lens perfect? No, not quite. For one, I wish I had more money to buy a fixed f2.8 IS USM zoom to capure indoor fast-action shots. But then again, as a budget concience user, I've learned to take opportunitisc shots of actions in transition. Just like when you throw a ball upwards at high-speed, eventually the ball will momentarily stop to make a downward transition. You just have to learn to use the lens for your application.
Well, enough said. Go buy it and you won't be disappointed. By the way, my copy has the number '4' as the 3rd-digit on the SN#, so no zoom creep nor the vertical image quality problem as part of the Canon recall notice. Good luck!
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2009
|
|
stephenmak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap. Long Range. IS. Great Image Quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build Quality. Slow.
|
|
This is a great lens. It's inexpensive, and while not bullet proof build quality, but whaddya expect for two-thirds the price of an L which has shorter reach, and no IS? It's not until you're paying twice the price you're getting IS, and you're still short At three times, you're getting more reach on the long and less on the short (the 100-400 IS).
The lens is contrasty, pretty quick autofocus, quiet, light, and sharp. Frankly, it's sharper than some L glass I have. It's got great range.
The only downside is that it's pretty slow at f4.0 to f5.6 and not constant aperture. But for one additional stop, with today's high ISO abilities, the L at 2.8 is a very costly upgrade.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2009
|
|
|
